3 ms·

> So which is it? Is the charge unjust and dubious, or did he violate the rules? Both these things can be true. I think the point of the article is that there

by geofft 8y ago

> So which is it? Is the charge unjust and dubious, or did he violate the rules? Both these things can be true. I think the point of the article is that there was no fraud against the government, in the sense that he did not bill them for food stamps that never existed - he maintained a credit system, which is against the rules, but not fraudulent. (The definition of fraud requires the victim of fraud to have actually lost something; unless you argue that the government lost interest from floating some people's food for a few days, they weren't actually defrauded.) This is why (if I'm reading it right) the article says that the government didn't prove fraud (because he didn't keep itemized receipts) - the intent of the rule and the algorithm is to catch people using food stamps on ineligible purchases, using nonexistent food stamps, etc. The investigation could have proved that no fraud existed if it turned out he gave them credit for eligible purchases, or that it did exist if he gave them credit for ineligible purchases, or made up credit out of thin air, but it didn't prove anything because there were no records. So violation of the rules got him kicked out of the system.

protomyth 8y ago
> I think the point of the article is that there was no fraud against the government Mejia violated the agency’s rules, which prohibit retailers from establishing informal credit systems with their customers. The agency wanted itemized receipts for the purchases that had been flagged, but Mejia’s cash registers at the time printed only total sales figures; he couldn’t provide an accounting of the individual products that his clients had bought on credit. He admitted to breaking a rule of the program, so all his transactions were now fraudulent. Then he couldn't prove that those transactions weren't fraudulent because he had no itemized records of each purchase. He is quite lucky all they did was kick him out of the program. Frankly, anyone who enters one of these programs and doesn't keep records of what was purchased is foolish. This is a program that will come down like a hammer if you let someone microwave a legally bought burrito while still in the store since it then becomes illegal.
- geofft 8y ago
  > He admitted to breaking a rule of the program, so all his transactions were now fraudulent. I don't think that's what "fraudulent" means. The agency might assert that it's fraudulent, but that doesn't mean that it is fraudulent. That's the article's point. (And if there's a way for him to have proved it wasn't fraudulent, that necessarily means it hasn't been proven fraudulent yet.) To your second point: sure, he probably did something strategically wrong. And yes, he broke the rules. But that's not the question the article is asking. The question the article is asking is, is an agency that brings down the hammer on illegally microwaved burritos actually doing something responsible, just, and good for society?
  - protomyth 8y ago
    I don't think that's what "fraudulent" means Well, its what the government means when it says you are committing fraud. The agency asserted that the transactions were fraudulent, the store owner agreed he ran an illegal credit system thus agreeing he had broken the law, and then could not prove that the transactions were in fact not fraudulent. He admitted guilt (probably to avoid court and the significant penalties the law allows). To your second point: sure, he probably did something strategically wrong. And yes, he broke the rules. But that's not the question the article is asking. The question the article is asking is, is an agency that brings down the hammer on illegally microwaved burritos actually doing something responsible, just, and good for society? Well, they should probably highlight someone who did nothing wrong instead of someone who followed all of the steps that a scammer would follow. Stopping scammers is a good thing for society.

by geofft 8y ago

protomyth 8y ago

> I think the point of the article is that there was no fraud against the government Mejia violated the agency’s rules, which prohibit retailers from establishing informal credit systems with their customers. The agency wanted itemized receipts for the purchases that had been flagged, but Mejia’s cash registers at the time printed only total sales figures; he couldn’t provide an accounting of the individual products that his clients had bought on credit. He admitted to breaking a rule of the program, so all his transactions were now fraudulent. Then he couldn't prove that those transactions weren't fraudulent because he had no itemized records of each purchase. He is quite lucky all they did was kick him out of the program. Frankly, anyone who enters one of these programs and doesn't keep records of what was purchased is foolish. This is a program that will come down like a hammer if you let someone microwave a legally bought burrito while still in the store since it then becomes illegal.

geofft 8y ago
> He admitted to breaking a rule of the program, so all his transactions were now fraudulent. I don't think that's what "fraudulent" means. The agency might assert that it's fraudulent, but that doesn't mean that it is fraudulent. That's the article's point. (And if there's a way for him to have proved it wasn't fraudulent, that necessarily means it hasn't been proven fraudulent yet.) To your second point: sure, he probably did something strategically wrong. And yes, he broke the rules. But that's not the question the article is asking. The question the article is asking is, is an agency that brings down the hammer on illegally microwaved burritos actually doing something responsible, just, and good for society?
- protomyth 8y ago
  I don't think that's what "fraudulent" means Well, its what the government means when it says you are committing fraud. The agency asserted that the transactions were fraudulent, the store owner agreed he ran an illegal credit system thus agreeing he had broken the law, and then could not prove that the transactions were in fact not fraudulent. He admitted guilt (probably to avoid court and the significant penalties the law allows). To your second point: sure, he probably did something strategically wrong. And yes, he broke the rules. But that's not the question the article is asking. The question the article is asking is, is an agency that brings down the hammer on illegally microwaved burritos actually doing something responsible, just, and good for society? Well, they should probably highlight someone who did nothing wrong instead of someone who followed all of the steps that a scammer would follow. Stopping scammers is a good thing for society.