2 ms·
> 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 as
by 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 agoI 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.