3 ms·
To me this reads like pretty standard fraud, along the lines of carousel fraud[1] which was very common a few years ago. If nobody is arrested or punished for
by EwanToo 14y ago
To me this reads like pretty standard fraud, along the lines of carousel fraud[1] which was very common a few years ago.
If nobody is arrested or punished for it, then that's more like weak enforcement than clever use of the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_trader_fraud#Carousel_fraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_trader_fraud#Carousel_f...
- InclinedPlane 14y agoThe important bit here is that expiration failure "glitch", and the details thereof. If it's just a straight up glitch and the law called for the expiration of the RINs after one crossing then this is a pretty clear-cut case of fraud. If a bank error puts a million dollars in your account, or if a car falls off a shipping truck into your front yard, that doesn't make it yours. By the same token, a glitch in the expiration system doesn't make exploiting that glitch legal.
- bdunbar 14y ago> To me this reads like pretty standard fraud I assume the companies ran this by legal before going forward with the plan. Loopholes aren't illegal, they're just exploits.
- calinet6 14y agoHowever, by all accounts, this one appears to be illegal. From post below (soon hopefully to be 'above'): "> (5) Importers shall not generate RINs for renewable fuel that has already been assigned RINs by a registered foreign producer.[2]"