• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

question about fraud (retail)

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

BLTcink

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NE

Not quite sure about how to ask this without divulging the specifics (and sorry for length).

So let me first put it like this - I buy something. Then I return it to the same place and with the same original receipt. And by doing so i benefit financially. But there is no material misrepresentation involved - eg, no fake or altered receipts, no tampering with the product, no lying or overt act to deceive, nothing. Each step in the process is otherwise legal and follows the rules as prescribed by each store. But in the end, because of a specific loophole that i discovered in THEIR systems, I benefit - and i am now starting to repeat it.

The closest example (though not exact, since it involves a 3rd party) i can think of would be this - some grocery stores offer air mileage for purchases. They say returned items will adjust the miles accumulated but ive noticed that doesnt happen. Therefore, i could buy something, earn the miles, and then return it (all legal steps) - and would come out ahead on miles with no out of pocket expense. So transactionally speaking, my current situation is similar, only much more "profitable"

I guess my initial questions are:

1. Can theft or fraud be proven, by ONLY showing intent? (It would be pretty easy to argue that i have an INTENT to benefit since im starting to do it multiple times across many stores, but isnt more than intent needed for it to be an actual crime?) There is no misrepresentation, I am not physically taking something out of the store without paying for it, or for which they aren't freely giving me. I am following the rules and steps which they laid out, and simply found a way to benefit from it. In fact, a few cashiers have noticed how I am benefiting and told me to not worry about it.

2. Is it illegal to repeatedly exploit a loophole, knowing its there and doing nothing about it - either by ceasing to exploit it, or not telling the stores of the loophole (ie, good samaritan law)?

3. Is the simple act of buying something, knowing full well that I am going to return it, illegal? And then doing that over and over and over again? if its legal to buy and legal to return, why would doing it 100 times make it any less legal?

4. And if what i am doing is illegal, can someone specifically state what crime I might be committing so I can research it further? Is it theft, or fraud, or some kind of contract issue?

And sure, I know what I am doing is morally questionable, but i need some guidance to know if its actually breaking the law. I suppose the stores are well within their rights to refuse my business if they ever find out, but I struggle to see how what I am doing is criminally illegal since they own the stores and they make the rules and I am merely following them. corporations exploit loopholes all the time, so why cant citizens? (i actually view it as more of a unilateral contractual issue in that regard since they set the rules of the game).

TIA
 
Last edited:


BLTcink

Junior Member
Have you used the miles or otherwise spent the profits from your product return scam yet?
the miles example was several years old and didnt amount to much of anything (just used it as a somewhat analogous example to my current situation).

as for this new thing, ive made a couple small purchases with the profits, but for the most part no - its still a relatively new thing.

does it matter? does the answer impact the legal view? why do you ask?
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
So you are making it more expensive for every honest person out there trying to make a living by exploiting this loophole. That's not just morally "questionable", that's morally reprehensible. Do you think the stores you are running this charade at just eat the costs? No, they pass it along to their customers. Are you the kind of person that is OK with doing something over and over again that they know is wrong? There is nothing more offensive to me than a person who ignores their own conscious.
 
Last edited:

BLTcink

Junior Member
So you are making it more expensive for every honest person out there trying to make a living by exploiting this loophole. That's not just morally "questionable", that's morally reprehensible. Do you think the stores you are running this charade at just eat the costs? No, they pass it along to their customers. Are you the kind of person that is OK with doing something over and over again that they know is wrong?
really? i have to deal with the moral police 2 comments in? if i wanted some free moral advice, i would have joined that forum, genius.

besides, i addressed the morality issue. and point in fact, it is "questionable" because of the circumstances for why this loophole exists. im not going to divulge the specifics, but the flip side of this loophole is that the stores use it to sort of take advantage of consumers. so, if you are ok with THAT type of corporatist Amorality to keep your precious costs down, more power to you. second point - its entirely possible, since the stores are freely giving me this benefit, that they are OK with it and view it as a cost of doing business because of the greater benefit they gain from the program at large and aforementioned flip side. so, without all the facts, id keep your own morality judgments tucked under your bonnet.
 
Last edited:

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
It sounds like you may be committing theft by deception.

Section 28-512
Theft by deception.

A person commits theft if he obtains property of another by deception. A person deceives if he intentionally:

(1) Creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention, or other state of mind; but deception as to a person's intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise; or

(2) Prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction; or

(3) Fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship; or

(4) Uses a credit card, charge plate, or any other instrument which purports to evidence an undertaking to pay for property or services delivered or rendered to or upon the order of a designated person or bearer (a) where such instrument has been stolen, forged, revoked, or canceled, or where for any other reason its use by the actor is unauthorized, or (b) where the actor does not have the intention and ability to meet all obligations to the issuer arising out of his use of the instrument.
 

BLTcink

Junior Member
It sounds like you may be committing theft by deception.

let me preface by saying i dont mean to be argumentative in my response. just trying to reason it out.

so thats definitely ballpark-ish. but what is my act of deception? im not lying about anything. im not trying to claim an item is worth more than it was
when i bought it. im also not specifically benefiting from the transaction itself where i buy something for $50 and figure out a way to return it for $100 by changing bar codes or sales tags or anything. my benefit is sort of a separate from and a byproduct of the transaction (like the airline miles example).


what about the inferred promise that i have no intention of keeping is me reasonably "attempting" to keep the items i bought and not return them?
(well, doesnt that also depend upon the wording of the stores' return policies?)

what about failing to correct a false impression? - so what, they are under the impression im going to keep the items i bought?

at best, my act would be something along the lines of "lying by omission" - NOT telling them what i am up to? or giving them a false impression about my intent to NOT keep the items i bought? but again, is this concept part of the law? especially when all the facts are right at their disposal.

im not influencing them in any way. im not preventing them in any way. they are free to adjust their numbers any time i return something. i provide them with their own contracts (receipts) with all the wording right on em. i just dont see it as me having a DUTY to inform them of what they should do with their own contracts.

definitely not item 4.

i guess i go back to my comment about this being a unilateral contract where the stores set all the rules of the sales contracts and establish their own return policies. I and the stores are not mutually entering into a contract where we each put forth and agree upon certain terms for the transaction. so how can i be deceptive in a unilateral contract?

again, i could be wrong, but im just looking to logically reason this through, point by point. thanks!
 
Last edited:

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
let me preface by saying i dont mean to be argumentative in my response. just trying to reason it out.

so thats definitely ballpark-ish. but what is my act of deception?

NOT telling them what i am up to? or giving them a false impression about my intent to NOT keep the items i bought?
That was my thought.

Obviously, I don't have enough information to even guess if this law could be used against you. But if it is, you end up defending yourself against criminal charges. It it worth it?
 

BLTcink

Junior Member
That was my thought.

Obviously, I don't have enough information to even guess if this law could be used against you. But if it is, you end up defending yourself against criminal charges. It it worth it?
is it worth it? yeah, good question. thats why im trying to get a handle on the legal nature before getting into it more. at this point in my life, it just might be worth it to get by, but thats my own deal.

but to your point, is there an inherent LEGAL presumption of intent to reasonably "attempt" to keep the items you buy from a retail store? and how would one go about setting a threshold of proof for that? that just sounds odd - especially in light of each and every store having return policies where they specifically say you can return anything with a receipt within 30-60-90 days, or anytime.

eh maybe someone else here knows more. but thanks for your input.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
No one can answer with specificity without the facts. In saying everything is according to their rules and this is only a "loophole" make the legal conclusion a priori. For example, I can swing a hammer all day and get paid through a legal loophole of allowing people to pay me for work. Did I mention come from Mexico without papers? Does that matter?

Tell us your scheme in specificity and maybe you can get into a debate with someone on the legal issues. The moral one we already know. By the way, you'd be surprised how many people break the law all the time. (Some would say all of us as there are so many laws out there.) Yet, it is the ones where there is a cheating heart involved, one where people want to get something for nothing, that are the ones prosecuted.
 

HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
And if so, then you stand a good chance of getting caught by repeating your actions.

Someone in the store is going to print out a returns report sometime and your name will take up a good portion of it. It'll be downhill from there.

If it is, in fact, theft then you'll be charged. Best case is that the loophole will be closed.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
so, without all the facts, id keep your own morality judgments tucked under your bonnet.
I based my judgement of your character on the information you supplied. You are trying to justify doing something that you know is wrong which in my opinion makes you a reprehensible person.
 

BLTcink

Junior Member
I based my judgement of your character on the information you supplied. You are trying to justify doing something that you know is wrong which in my opinion makes you a reprehensible person.
ugh. this is a legal advice forum, not a morals advice forum. so what exactly is your point of this continued off-topic trolling, anyway?
 

BLTcink

Junior Member
i guess i thought this forum was different - as in, people with some legal knowledge talking about legal specifics and then offering informed opinions. except for one person providing some legal info (which also gave me a couple other avenues to research) seems like everyone else is just an average joe with an opinion (like me).
oh well.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Average joe's deal in the hypothetical. People who know, know, that without the facts there is no issue. And, that the law has two components, legal and equitable. While they have merged into the same courts long ago, they are both still there. To think there is not a relation between the law and morality shows incredible ignorance regarding the history and purpose of the legal system.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top