Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It should just be taken from next months deposit. The people got the products, then they should pay. Even if it is just deducting 25$ per month until it is paid. Sounds fair. Isn't FAIR the new word people use.
If it wasn't intentional, why did they abandon their carts when the computer came back up?
If I write a bad check, my bank doesn't care if I intended to write bad check, they punish me for it by getting their money with a fine attached. That is how they discourage this kind of abuse.
Fraud needs to prove individual intent to deceive and its one of the most difficult to show. Its clearly a customer individual trust issue. If the store rejected no one, all that says is that with an opportunity to say no for anything which may be suspect was a mistake, and the stores mistake. Its a third party recovery issue on what is only an alleged receivable, iow its just a claim.
Last edited by macpherson; 10-14-2013 at 10:36 AM..
Mmm...yea. Goes by number of "dependents". What a mess this is. Just a free fer all. EBT cardz became a license to loot. At least it was confined to food items, I can just imagine the frenzy if booze, cigs and clothing were fair game. Still, the monumental waste of food is beyond comprehension for me.
I grew up in a world where you did NOT waste food. My folks were depression era, and it left ingrained habits. And to think, a whole stores stock of perishables ...gone. Trash. Truly disgusting.
Just curious if the apologists on this thread were also making excuses for the poor people in Louisiana after Katrina who desperately needed new Nikes and televisions and helped themselves.
Fraud needs to prove individual intent to deceive and its one of the most difficult to show. Its clearly a customer individual trust issue. If the store rejected no one, all that says is that with an opportunity to say no for anything which may be suspect was a mistake, and the stores mistake. Its a third party recovery issue on what is only an alleged receivable.
Intent is easy to prove in this case. I would venture to say whoever was trying to buy $700 in groceries has never had that limit or close to it, has never made those type of purchases before and it is ironic it was caught on the same day as the 'bug'.
there is no need for prosecution. If amounts above the card holder's monthly amount was used, then that amount will be withheld from future benefits.
I'm sure every credit card thief that has ever been caught would appreciate that same level of limp-wrist punishment. I'm sure Judges and prosecutors really entertained that idea....
Anyone who did that should be banned from further EBT and given the ultimatum everyone else has, go to work and you get nothing.
This is the stuff that propels civil war, people are working and wasting their lives supporting other people while they will instantly exploit any vulnerability that is opened, and with good reason they are never punished and only rewarded for continually defrauding the working class.
Intent is easy to prove in this case. I would venture to say whoever was trying to buy $700 in groceries has never had that limit or close to it, has never made those type of purchases before and it is ironic it was caught on the same day as the 'bug'.
Intent is beyond a reasonable doubt
Okay well for a hypothetical example:
Fraud, oh no...Im perfectly aware my account isn't normally at that balance but a friend promised me last night she was going to top it up to get some food for everybody. Regrettably we had a falling out and now she doesn't even remember the convo. And also I have never defrauded anyone in my entire life. If someone went in and out 3 or 4 times or more that would be alittle different. Plus the tax payers shouldn't have to pay for the delinquency which is what it amounts to and all the stores fault. They individually rang in all of it and had a choice, but they trusted their customer each one of them individually. Plus how does anyone know that all customers at W come back and pay up for any problems. The whole thing is an alleged receivable, they are just claims and part of business. Walmart prob pays 30-60-90 for their things to begin with so trust is part of their understandings and operation.
Last edited by macpherson; 10-14-2013 at 11:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
