FW lawyers and other professionals - Petition to assist FW members suffering from retailer lawsuit

Glitch99 said:   DaveHanson said:   nycll said:   To see the deception is to ask the question if they could be intentionally trying to buy all the merchandize?

Certainly they could be. Indeed, my understanding is that that's what they *did* do before they were banned. AFAIK the reason they targeted Nordstrom's in the first place is because of their no-questions-asked return policy, combined with their sloppy accounting that didn't refund CB when a .com item is returned to a B&M store. I think the truth is that while they preferred that the items not ship, they didn't much care either way. If they started shipping again, then they'd just return them to the B&M store.

Posters are right that the $23 million figure isn't irrelevant. My issue is with *why* it's relevant. It helps establish that the purpose of these transactions was to earn Cash Back (whether or not the merchanise actually shipped). But they didnt order $23-million worth of merchandise. That's the total of the canceled orders over 2 years (or 3 years, depending on what dates you believe). Had the first order for a few thousand dollars been fulfilled, there's no way to know how much they would've continued to order over the next 3 years. I admit it technically isnt specified, but I think it's safe to assume they did not submit $23-million worth of orders concurrently.

A while back, AMEX decided they couldnt verify my address and started canceling my gift card orders. For about a year, I tried to order $5k worth every month to see if they'd finally fixed the problem - did I try to order $60k worth of GCs, or try to order $5k of GCs 12 times? This is why that $23-million amount is irrelevant, unless they did all their volume in one shot.

It doesn't matter what they did. read page 11 of the federal sentencing guidelines. Your "gain" can be used in lieu of their loss. http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Primers/Primer_Loss.pdf

BradMajors said:   There is another store I am aware of for which you can currently place an order, have the order cancelled, and still receive FatWallet Cash Back.

thay are watching ... go to the phone booth on Third and Vincent ... I will call you at 5:15 a.m. for the info

jetsfan92588 said:   camiolo said:   Joe328 said:   I'm pissed because this Nordstrom/FatCash technique was not mentioned in the FWF heavy hitters thread. I hope no one else is holding out on techniques!

A similar combo exists. And I'm not sharing (or exploiting).

Lol, or you just made the FW team go nuts looking for the merchant.
It isnt exactly a secret that alot of merchants havent been all that diligent at reporting changes to completed orders, and not just to FW.... Just like getting CashBack for gift card purchases, despite being excluded in the merchant's terms, is hit or miss at any given merchant.

Rorer714 said:   Glitch99 said:   It isnt exactly a secret that alot of merchants havent been all that diligent at reporting changes to completed orders, and not just to FW.... Just like getting CashBack for gift card purchases, despite being excluded in the merchant's terms, is hit or miss at any given merchant.I guess we should now file this under "fraud".

So it would seem.

Glitch99 said:   dshibb said:   Rorer714 said:   Glitch99 said:   It isnt exactly a secret that alot of merchants havent been all that diligent at reporting changes to completed orders, and not just to FW.... Just like getting CashBack for gift card purchases, despite being excluded in the merchant's terms, is hit or miss at any given merchant.I guess we should now file this under "fraud".

So it would seem.
Based on the speculation here, using an ACH transfer to meet a direct deposit requirement (even unintentionally) would go in that same file as well. Along with paying a bill in multiple incriments to hit a certain transaction count. Hell, anyone who did an AOR and had their BT money dropped into their own bank account should be expecting a visit from the FBI any day now....Maybe we should start a list on what is not fraud. It should be a very short list the way this is going!

Glitch99 said:   dshibb said:   Rorer714 said:   Glitch99 said:   It isnt exactly a secret that alot of merchants havent been all that diligent at reporting changes to completed orders, and not just to FW.... Just like getting CashBack for gift card purchases, despite being excluded in the merchant's terms, is hit or miss at any given merchant.I guess we should now file this under "fraud".

So it would seem.
Based on the speculation here, using an ACH transfer to meet a direct deposit requirement (even unintentionally) would go in that same file as well. Along with paying a bill in multiple incriments to hit a certain transaction count. Hell, anyone who did an AOR and had their BT money dropped into their own bank account should be expecting a visit from the FBI any day now....
Not so fast. Does any of the above violate any T&C?

I dont claim my answers to be the final words, but Dshbb had three cases which I thought was very good to chart out the differences.

Glitch99 said:   Based on the speculation here, using an ACH transfer to meet a direct deposit requirement (even unintentionally) would go in that same file as well.

Why? I'm not sure that violates the terms, and I've been specifically told by CSR that it's fine. When Citi recently changed their min requirements to avoid monthly fees on checking accounts, I called to close my account. The CSR tried to get me to convert my account to another type of checking account. She told me I just needed one direct deposit a month, looked at my history and saw a recent ACH deposit pushed from another account and said something like "you had a transaction on date XX/YY...whatever that was, if you do that once each month you'll be fine".

Along with paying a bill in multiple incriments to hit a certain transaction count.

It may be gaming the system, but if there are no terms anywhere saying you can't do so I don't see how that could be a problem


Hell, anyone who did an AOR and had their BT money dropped into their own bank account should be expecting a visit from the FBI any day now....

Again, why? Last time I did and AOR (it's been a few years), when I called a few of the banks, CSRs volunteered to me that I can have it deposited in my account. Whenever I get BT checks on my chase biz credit card, it always specifically states that I can write checks to myself (though the BT limit is lower for that).

calvinandhobbes said:   EndlessKnight said:   Here's a better analogy: Lets say I'm a salesmen who works for you on commission. I keep reporting no sales but you keep sending me commission checks. A few months later you realize the error and ask for your money back, I tell you go to hell. Should you be able to send the police to arrest me? I'm almost certain that if you called the local police they would laugh at you and tell you its a civil matter.But in your analogy, you as the salesman aren't doing anything to perpetuate the checks, you are just sitting there doing nothing. These guys didn't sit there and do nothing, they perpetually created sales that wouldn't happen, but still generated rebates.

Whatever analogy you want to make, to have a chance at being valid, the perpetrator (criminal or civil, regardless of your stance) must actively do something to trigger the payment (that they know they don't deserve). These guys made many mouse clicks to receive money they know they didn't deserve. Does anyone disagree with that assessment?Better version of the analogy would be, that the salesman sold widgets to his friend who would eventually return everything, got paid the commissions before the owner realized the returns, and then the owner finding out and calling the police.

jkimcpa said:   babaamit said:   To further note how informed Fatwallet must have been through this... If you click to the CashBack section it states:

"Be a part of the $35,011,871 earned by Cash Back shoppers!"

So at a minimum, the brothers accounted for ~2% of Fatwallets total paid commissions throughout its existence. Doubtful that could go unnoticed.There is zero chance there weren't multiple internal meetings all the way up to the CEO in making the ultimate decision to pay the Chius. IMO FW were enablers. If the Chius go to jail, FW should go to jail. They absolutely KNEW the "loophole" that was being exploited. You don't pay out commissions like that without verifying each sale manually.

I wonder what other "hot deals" they know about?

nsdp said:   I understand your confusion which in part is due to the fact that the appellate decisions are not the same in each of the twelve circuit courts of appeals. http://www.cybercrimereview.com/2012/04/ninth-circuit-en-banc-ad... If the differences are great enough they will wind up before the Supreme Court for solution. Right now there are two answers. The 9th circuit decision in Nosal v United States says you are not guilty of anything. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/04/10/10-100...

What I can tell you is that you are ok as of today in the 9th circuit
Weren't the Chius' arrested in Seattle?

Isn't that part of the 9th circuit?

So, if I'm understanding your post, Tax evasion wouldn't have been on the table?

Edit: Never mind I reread your post. Gov moving to penalty circuit seems wrong on so many levels.

jkimcpa said:   BarryAndLevon said:   jkimcpa said:   babaamit said:   To further note how informed Fatwallet must have been through this... If you click to the CashBack section it states:

"Be a part of the $35,011,871 earned by Cash Back shoppers!"

So at a minimum, the brothers accounted for ~2% of Fatwallets total paid commissions throughout its existence. Doubtful that could go unnoticed.There is zero chance there weren't multiple internal meetings all the way up to the CEO in making the ultimate decision to pay the Chius. IMO FW were enablers. If the Chius go to jail, FW should go to jail. They absolutely KNEW the "loophole" that was being exploited. You don't pay out commissions like that without verifying each sale manually.

I wonder what other "hot deals" they know about?I wouldn't surprised that they discovered exactly what the Chius were doing, and some of the employees even told their family/friends about it and profited before it was discovered and fixed.

It is my understanding the only reason the Chius were able to do what they were doing is because they were banned from Nordstrom to begin with. It is because of this ban that they were able to take advantage of the canceled orders. So in order for others to have participated, they first would have had to be banned by Nordstrom.com.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Even if you weren't banned, it was possible to cancel your order right after placing it, and still get cb for the orderAnd not using any special tricks or manipulation - you would just follow their stated procedure for canceling an order.

germanpope said:   in that case, an amount in the hundreds --- not thousands, or tens of thousands, or a million --- might have flown under the radar

these guys were complete idiotsThey would have gone on indefinitely if not caught.

Glitch99 said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Even if you weren't banned, it was possible to cancel your order right after placing it, and still get cb for the orderAnd not using any special tricks or manipulation - you would just follow their stated procedure for canceling an order.
And it's not fraud to place an order at Nordstroms then cancel it. Whether you do it once or 50,000 times.

People keep wanting to somehow say it's ok if it was only a few times but illegal bc of the volume.

All the other analogies in
This thread are illegal even if done once

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Glitch99 said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Even if you weren't banned, it was possible to cancel your order right after placing it, and still get cb for the orderAnd not using any special tricks or manipulation - you would just follow their stated procedure for canceling an order.
And it's not fraud to place an order at Nordstroms then cancel it. Whether you do it once or 50,000 times.

People keep wanting to somehow say it's ok if it was only a few times but illegal bc of the volume.

All the other analogies in
This thread are illegal even if done once

Why are you trying so hard to defend the brothers? To me they are thieves...blatantly profiting from a loophole they found for almost a 2-year period to the tune of millions.

What is your true agenda here?!

Trinity, I don't think there's any question that the brothers blatantly profited from a loophole for almost two years. It wasn't to the tune of millions, but it was a lot of profit.

For me, the real question is what specifically makes what they did a crime. And how is that different from profitable loopholes that are discussed and used by many here. If those cross or can cross a line where prison time is a real risk, I would like to know and I expect others would too.

It seems like the only really distinct attribute about the Chius case is the scale. Had they done this for a profit of a few hundred dollars, they probably would not be facing prison time. A few thousand - maybe? It's a bit chilling if scale is the significant differentiator and we don't know where the scale makes it literally a federal case.

There have been a few examples posted here. Not analogies, actual options that have been described in other threads here. To me, I don't see any other clear distinction with most of them. If you knowingly take advantage of some offer that does not turn out the way the other parties intended, and you profit from that, even if you make no misrepresentations, you are potentially guilty of a crime.

I think nsdp's theory that the brothers had also committed tax evasion might explain a lot of what has happened with this case. I have missed if there is any confirmation of that. But if that's the case, I think it still leaves a very interesting hypothetical question - what if they had claimed all income properly and paid taxes?

^
My main issue is with their scale but mainly their INTENTIONS to cheat Nordstroms. The Chius were also fraudulently claiming lost of merchandise, which is mail fraud. Good possibility they have defrauded many other companies/people.

The brothers are obviously immoral scums. I just don't see the OP's rationale for helping the brothers. The justification that we should assist the brothers because they are Fatwalleters is poor logic. I'm Asian like those brothers, so should I help them because I'm the same race? They are a disgrace.

Trinity45 said:   ^
My main issue is with their scale but mainly their INTENTIONS to cheat Nordstroms. The Chius were also fraudulently claiming lost of merchandise, which is mail fraud. Good possibility they have defrauded many other companies/people.

The brothers are obviously immoral scums. I just don't see the OP's rationale for helping the brothers. The justification that we should assist the brothers because they are Fatwalleters is poor logic. I'm Asian like those brothers, so should I help them because I'm the same race? They are a disgrace.

The claiming of lost merchandise is not part of this case.

They exploited a loophole, as most people here have. Again, the issue is not the scale, it's trying to determine where the line is.

It seems pretty clear that the consensus is "If they made more money than I did, they're guilty. If they made less, it's ok."

BrodyInsurance said:   Let me give an example in which several legal things when combined are illegal.

1)Joe Smith opens up 100 529 plans with different beneficiaries. (Legal)
2)Charlie Jones contributes $100,000 into each plan. (Legal)
3)Joe Smith decides to cash out each plan. (Legal)

End result is that Charlie has just given Charlie $10,000,000 with no gifting or tax implications (provided he lives for 5 years).

The step transaction doctrine makes this illegal despite every step being legal.

So, going back to the Chiu Brothers, even though there is nothing illegal about cancelling orders, can't it be fraudulent if it was being done because they knew that the end result was that money would end up in their bank account that they weren't entitled to receive?
your example isn't illegal and it isn't clearly settled (we've disagreed on this before), but if the step doctrine applied it means there would be additional taxes due vs the case when it did not apply. So you pay your taxes if the IRS decides against you - you don't go to jail for fraud.

xerty said:   BrodyInsurance said:   Let me give an example in which several legal things when combined are illegal.

1)Joe Smith opens up 100 529 plans with different beneficiaries. (Legal)
2)Charlie Jones contributes $100,000 into each plan. (Legal)
3)Joe Smith decides to cash out each plan. (Legal)

End result is that Charlie has just given Charlie $10,000,000 with no gifting or tax implications (provided he lives for 5 years).

The step transaction doctrine makes this illegal despite every step being legal.

So, going back to the Chiu Brothers, even though there is nothing illegal about cancelling orders, can't it be fraudulent if it was being done because they knew that the end result was that money would end up in their bank account that they weren't entitled to receive?
your example isn't illegal and it isn't clearly settled (we've disagreed on this before), but if the step doctrine applied it means there would be additional taxes due vs the case when it did not apply. So you pay your taxes if the IRS decides against you - you don't go to jail for fraud.

You are correct that if the step doctrine was used this would be turned into a $10,000,000 gift and taxes would be owed. It could be over $5,000,000 in taxes. Are you saying that it is not possible for something along these lines to be criminal fraud? I don't know that you are wrong, but if it was done with the intention of cheating the government out of millions of taxes, my guess is that it could be considered criminal.

Regardless, I was just trying to use that as an example of a step transaction and I was wondering if something similar could be used in regards to the Chiu brothers allowing an act that would usually be legal to be determined to be illegal because of a known outcome.