3 ms·

> 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 establish

> 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.

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.