3 ms·

The defendant defrauded Office Max's loyalty program to the tune of ~$180,000, although they managed to void $130k of rewards upon uncovering the scheme. They d

The defendant defrauded Office Max's loyalty program to the tune of ~$180,000, although they managed to void $130k of rewards upon uncovering the scheme. They did so in a manner that could easily be traced back to them (e.g. signing up for 5400 Office Max accounts using the same 4 GMail addresses with randomly inserted periods to make slightly different user IDs). They accessed the email from the same IP address, put their actual personal home address for three of the 5400 accounts, and left several other pieces of breadcrumb evidence leading back to themselves. This whole thing seems like a guilty person using accusations of prosecutorial misconduct to distract from their hopeless position in an FBI case.

vxNsr 4y ago
What are you basing this comment on?
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/16-2254/16-2254-2018-01-31.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rtkwe 4y ago
  Most of it is available in these two links. The justice.gov is the easiest and shortest but the justia.com has some information about their appeal and evidentiary challenges. 1 - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1... 2 - https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/albuquerque-couple-senten https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/albuquerque-couple-senten...
- primitivesuave 4y ago
  Reading the indictment: https://dirtyprosecutor.org/11401.pdf https://dirtyprosecutor.org/11401.pdf If you skip to page 12 and 13, you get a pretty good sense of the amateur nature of this fraud. There is a preponderance of evidence against [name redacted]. He used the same emails from the fraudulent scheme to sign up for a Netflix account, pay for items shipped to his home address, and even used a personal PayPal account in conjunction with stolen rewards to make purchases. The FBI got data from eBay, Netflix, Google, and even Staples, to make a pretty airtight argument that this guy was the sole perpetuator behind the fraud.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    Yeah even if they threw out anything associated with this supposedly bogus search warrant it really seems like there's plenty to convince a jury that he did in fact defraud OfficeMax.
    - parasense 4y ago
      > Yeah even if they threw out anything associated with this supposedly bogus search warrant it really seems like there's plenty to convince a jury that he did in fact defraud OfficeMax. There is a legal doctrine called something like "fruit of the poisoned tree" which means any evidence and any subsequent evidence is tainted, and gets thrown out in court. So yeah, there is the potential he could appeal his case, and have a retrial where anything obtained from the FBI raid is thrown out. That could be huge for his case, or not.... (who knows) The FBI swat team, while conducting their raid, supposedly extracted a confession under duress. There is a potential problem right there with Miranda rights, but also anything done under duress is potentially not admissible as evidence in criminal court. When you say plenty of evidence against him, you are saying they had enough evidence in isolation of any evidence improperly gathered from his home & wife. Perhaps, or perhaps not enough to convince a jury.
      - rtkwe 4y ago
        Just the info from OfficeMax seems like enough in my opinion. He used 4 gmail addresses and reused some of them for his netflix and to get items delivered to his house. They could also find out where the gmail's were accessed from from google. All that combined would paint a pretty convincing picture to me, then it's just convincing the jury this rises to the level of fraud. But also if you look at his actual appeals they don't challenge the evidence from the raid at all that I see it's all about the data from the OfficeMax rewards program that was produced by a 3rd party company; arguing they're not originals, aren't admissible because they're hear-say, etc. Maybe he just noticed this but this is even pretty weak evidence given there's not actually a standard form for any of the documents he pulls up. As for the duress OP is a deeply involved narrator and there's no mention of this being before or after the Miranda warning.

vxNsr 4y ago

What are you basing this comment on?

zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/16-2254/16-2254-2018-01-31.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 4y ago
Most of it is available in these two links. The justice.gov is the easiest and shortest but the justia.com has some information about their appeal and evidentiary challenges. 1 - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1... 2 - https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/albuquerque-couple-senten https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/albuquerque-couple-senten...
primitivesuave 4y ago
Reading the indictment: https://dirtyprosecutor.org/11401.pdf https://dirtyprosecutor.org/11401.pdf If you skip to page 12 and 13, you get a pretty good sense of the amateur nature of this fraud. There is a preponderance of evidence against [name redacted]. He used the same emails from the fraudulent scheme to sign up for a Netflix account, pay for items shipped to his home address, and even used a personal PayPal account in conjunction with stolen rewards to make purchases. The FBI got data from eBay, Netflix, Google, and even Staples, to make a pretty airtight argument that this guy was the sole perpetuator behind the fraud.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  Yeah even if they threw out anything associated with this supposedly bogus search warrant it really seems like there's plenty to convince a jury that he did in fact defraud OfficeMax.
  - parasense 4y ago
    > Yeah even if they threw out anything associated with this supposedly bogus search warrant it really seems like there's plenty to convince a jury that he did in fact defraud OfficeMax. There is a legal doctrine called something like "fruit of the poisoned tree" which means any evidence and any subsequent evidence is tainted, and gets thrown out in court. So yeah, there is the potential he could appeal his case, and have a retrial where anything obtained from the FBI raid is thrown out. That could be huge for his case, or not.... (who knows) The FBI swat team, while conducting their raid, supposedly extracted a confession under duress. There is a potential problem right there with Miranda rights, but also anything done under duress is potentially not admissible as evidence in criminal court. When you say plenty of evidence against him, you are saying they had enough evidence in isolation of any evidence improperly gathered from his home & wife. Perhaps, or perhaps not enough to convince a jury.
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      Just the info from OfficeMax seems like enough in my opinion. He used 4 gmail addresses and reused some of them for his netflix and to get items delivered to his house. They could also find out where the gmail's were accessed from from google. All that combined would paint a pretty convincing picture to me, then it's just convincing the jury this rises to the level of fraud. But also if you look at his actual appeals they don't challenge the evidence from the raid at all that I see it's all about the data from the OfficeMax rewards program that was produced by a 3rd party company; arguing they're not originals, aren't admissible because they're hear-say, etc. Maybe he just noticed this but this is even pretty weak evidence given there's not actually a standard form for any of the documents he pulls up. As for the duress OP is a deeply involved narrator and there's no mention of this being before or after the Miranda warning.