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

What they did is morally wrong and it makes sense for the law to punish one party deliberately tricking another party out of money or property and it makes sense that the penalty should not be limited to restitution, though making the penalty double-restitution would make more sense than imposing a prison sentence and costing tax payers money.

Unfortunately the law exempts most buisness transactions that morally are also deliberately tricking consumers into losing money. The way the law distinguishes the two cases is that if both parties got something of value (even if the relative value is quite different) then it is classified as a buisness transaction and barrying actual deception or misrepresentation, neither party can be charged. That is one reason lawyers will often hand you a dollar when signing a contract so you cannot say you got nothing of value and were tricked by the other party out of property.

However the remedy is is to change the law :

1. So the penalty is limited to double-restitution (no prison time) when no actual deception or misrepresentation is involved.
2. Subject buisness to double-restitution (or a similar penalty) when they trick consumers with deceptive advertising into making a purchase (or other transaction) that is quite lopsided in terms of the value received (based on comparable market values). Note that ethical buisness sometimes do this voluntarily (eg Sam's Club and Costco will give you 200% back if any fresh produce you bought is of poor quality).

In the meantime, the moral of this story for FW deals is to make sure not only that there is no deception or misreprentation, but also that at some point the other party is getting something of value (ie you actually pay something at some point in the transaction, even if it is less than what you are getting in return) OR you follow the terms offered by the buisness to the letter (eg for deals where you are getting more in rebates than you paid for the item).

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

But is it legal to do the same with the knowledge that one would earn a rebate or a coupon?

If it was so obvious that the brothers are not guilty, then I am sure some number of enterprising lawyers would offer to defend them on a contingency basis. Say 30% of the $650K if proven not guilty, and $0 if proven guilty.

The problem in this situation is, I think, that the brothers are guilty until proven innocent.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   
I am saying that placing orders online and canceling them isn't illegal. And that merchants Enlisting the assistance of the FBI to resolve a merchant error has bad repercussions for people on deals forums like this .

You are correct, but it is illegal to place orders and cancel with the intent to defraud for money. It is not illegal to fire a gun, but it is to fire a gun at a person with the intent to kill that person. It is not illegal to make a right turn, but it is with the intent to run over someone in a crosswalk. You get the point.

The government would have done nothing had these brothers placed 50,000 orders and cancelled them or had them cancelled if the intent was to get the item that was ordered. They did not and the brothers knew that it would be easy to prove that their intent was for the Cash Back and only for the Cash Back.

It is why I was surprised to see many people back these brothers that go after the Agapes, or MLMs of the world. WIth those the same posters have no issue with anyone starting a business, but if they decide to do a MLM they feel that the founder is starting the business with the intent of either ripping people off or defrauding people out of their money.

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.
Then you must also consider a majority of FW members to be immoral scums as well. Virtually every "deal" here is pursued by hundreds with the same intentions the Chiu's had - to take advantage of an opportunity to put free money in their pocket. How many people here open a checking account for the $100 bonus with any intention other than to score the bonus and immediately close the account?

I agree that fraudulently claiming undelivered merchandise is a different story, but that's just a suspicion of Nordstrom's which THE CHIU'S WERE NEVER ACTUALLY ACCUSED OF LET ALONE PROSECUTED FOR. It isnt even a factor in the criminal complaint, aside from a casual reference to how being banned was causing the canceled orders, and that the ban was due to their excessive claims of undelivered merchandise - not due to making fraudulant claims.

mikef07 said:   Talked to an attorney in the family today and gave him a short description of what happened and he totally understood why and how it was criminal. In fact he shot off charge after charge he thought it could be one of which was wire fraud. He also said the amount usually does matter. If you end up with an extra $50 in your bank account if someone at the bank entered a deposit wrong and you spent it then you could likely say you didn't realize there was an extra $50. If you thought you had $600 and someone accidentally put $600K in and you spent it then you know it wasn't yours. Intent is how he explained it. Finally he explained to me that it is likely that the brothers used some of the funds to use for bills and living expenses. The way it was explained to me is that if you commingle funds then the govt. is seizing any assets that had many part of it paid for with the ill gotten gains which is probably why all assets were seized form the bank. He said at least they are going to federal prison.It sounds like this opinion was predicated on an assumption the FatCash was erroneously credited to their accounts, and they knew it was erroneous.

The FW User Agreement gives vague parameters of what can and cannot earn Cash Back, then clearly says that it is FW that has the discretion to determine if a purchase qualifies. So regardless of what CashBack I think I am or am not entitled to, when FW - the entity that determines if my purchase qualifies - credits CashBack to my account for a purchase, then releases it to me 3 months later, it is clear to me that they decided my transaction did qualify for CashBack. They may change their mind later, but any money I withdrew based on their representing it as being mine is not "fraud", since their user agreement says they get to decide if it is my money and they specifically told me it was my money.

An erroneous bank account deposit is a terrible example - a deposit either posts to the correct account or it doesnt, you either made the deposit or your didnt. There is no such absolute in this case, since the qualifications for CashBack on any given transaction is left up to the discretion of FW - so once FW has credited the CashBack, it is very reasonable to assume that, regardless of the context of the purchase, FW has used their discretion to deem the purchase as being qualified.

Glitch99 said:   mikef07 said:   Talked to an attorney in the family today and gave him a short description of what happened and he totally understood why and how it was criminal. In fact he shot off charge after charge he thought it could be one of which was wire fraud. He also said the amount usually does matter. If you end up with an extra $50 in your bank account if someone at the bank entered a deposit wrong and you spent it then you could likely say you didn't realize there was an extra $50. If you thought you had $600 and someone accidentally put $600K in and you spent it then you know it wasn't yours. Intent is how he explained it. Finally he explained to me that it is likely that the brothers used some of the funds to use for bills and living expenses. The way it was explained to me is that if you commingle funds then the govt. is seizing any assets that had many part of it paid for with the ill gotten gains which is probably why all assets were seized form the bank. He said at least they are going to federal prison.It sounds like this opinion was predicated on an assumption the FatCash was erroneously credited to their accounts, and they knew it was erroneous.

The FW User Agreement gives vague parameters of what can and cannot earn Cash Back, then clearly says that it is FW that has the discretion to determine if a purchase qualifies. So regardless of what CashBack I think I am or am not entitled to, when FW - the entity that determines if my purchase qualifies - credits CashBack to my account for a purchase, then releases it to me 3 months later, it is clear to me that they decided my transaction did qualify for CashBack. They may change their mind later, but any money I withdrew based on their representing it as being mine is not "fraud", since their user agreement says they get to decide if it is my money and they specifically told me it was my money.

An erroneous bank account deposit is a terrible example - a deposit either posts to the correct account or it doesnt, you either made the deposit or your didnt. There is no such absolute in this case, since the qualifications for CashBack on any given transaction is left up to the discretion of FW - so once FW has credited the CashBack, it is very reasonable to assume that, regardless of the context of the purchase, FW has used their discretion to deem the purchase as being qualified.

If you want to believe that then so be it. A rational person does not believe they should or would receive Cash Back for an order where they never received the merchandise. If they used this as their defense I am sure the prosecutor was praying they go to court with this defense. Like I said...INTENT. Everyone knows what the intent was. For the record I have made deposits into other people's account on purpose. The defense of well maybe mikef07 put $600K in my account and not $600 wouldn't hold up for a second. Any money you withdrew from FW Cash Back was not fraud and I don't think anyone would say it was. How it got there is fraud. Pure and simple. If you are so naive that you think that FW determined unfulfilled orders qualify for Cash Back that certainly is your right, but no rational person would.

People are against this for one reason. Self interest. They want to push the envelope and this has made them think twice. How far can they push now?


Glitch99 said:   mikef07 said:   The CC was getting a charge for $1000 in which they decided it was not a cash advance and decided to give X% back. But now, based on the precedence of this case, the credit card can decide that maybe those charges were in fact cash advances and you were not entitled to the X% CashBack, and since you've already redeemed those rewards you are now as guilty as the Chius.

Simply not true. If you think these two are the same then Imo you are not being rational. Did the Chius ever think they were going to receive the merchandise after the first 5 orders (giving them the benefit of the doubt here)? No chance. Why did they keep placing orders? To defraud. Period. Read these words :Completed and fulfilled order (merchandise received) in all parties mind.

What were the goals for the mint transactions:

Mint:
With customer: To have a party buy $1000 worth of coins with the ability to use a CC in doing so.
With merchant: To be paid by the Cc company knowing that it has to pay a merchant fee

Did these things happen: Yes

CC Co:
With customer: Have customer use card to charge whatever they deem legal. To be able to classify purchases as they see fit. Have customer pay amount on terms agreed upon. However CC decided to classify the purchase rewards would be accordingly. Customer does not get to decide how to classify purchases.
With Mint: To ship product to customer when they receive payment

Customer:
With Mint; To ship $ amount purchased of coins
With CC Co: To classify purchases how CC company sees fit. To have CC place rewards into the rewards account based on how they classify purchase.

No one in their right mind thinks Nordstrom would give Cash Back for purchases that were never fulfilled. That is where the brothers got screwed. I am sure the prosecutor told them "I can get 12 people to see it my way, you will be lucky to get 1 person to see it yours."

Glitch99 said:   mikef07 said:   Glitch99 said:   mikef07 said:   Talked to an attorney in the family today and gave him a short description of what happened and he totally understood why and how it was criminal. In fact he shot off charge after charge he thought it could be one of which was wire fraud. He also said the amount usually does matter. If you end up with an extra $50 in your bank account if someone at the bank entered a deposit wrong and you spent it then you could likely say you didn't realize there was an extra $50. If you thought you had $600 and someone accidentally put $600K in and you spent it then you know it wasn't yours. Intent is how he explained it. Finally he explained to me that it is likely that the brothers used some of the funds to use for bills and living expenses. The way it was explained to me is that if you commingle funds then the govt. is seizing any assets that had many part of it paid for with the ill gotten gains which is probably why all assets were seized form the bank. He said at least they are going to federal prison.It sounds like this opinion was predicated on an assumption the FatCash was erroneously credited to their accounts, and they knew it was erroneous.

The FW User Agreement gives vague parameters of what can and cannot earn Cash Back, then clearly says that it is FW that has the discretion to determine if a purchase qualifies. So regardless of what CashBack I think I am or am not entitled to, when FW - the entity that determines if my purchase qualifies - credits CashBack to my account for a purchase, then releases it to me 3 months later, it is clear to me that they decided my transaction did qualify for CashBack. They may change their mind later, but any money I withdrew based on their representing it as being mine is not "fraud", since their user agreement says they get to decide if it is my money and they specifically told me it was my money.

An erroneous bank account deposit is a terrible example - a deposit either posts to the correct account or it doesnt, you either made the deposit or your didnt. There is no such absolute in this case, since the qualifications for CashBack on any given transaction is left up to the discretion of FW - so once FW has credited the CashBack, it is very reasonable to assume that, regardless of the context of the purchase, FW has used their discretion to deem the purchase as being qualified.

If you want to believe that then so be it.
I dont want to believe it. Those are facts according to their user agreement - I dont get to decide what qualifies for CashBack, FW does. And they clearly conveyed their decision by posting the CashBack, then again by making the money available for withdrawal.

Through fraudulent means. Again if you don't want to think it was fraudulent that is naive IMO and your right. There are people that think that shooting someone for no reason is lawful and not a bad thing to do. It is naive IMO, but is their right to think that way. I can't and won't argue how you feel about something. Only you know that. Imo rational people know this is fraud. BTW FW probably gets a check sent to them by Nordstroms and deposits appropriate amounts into the various accounts. You can't steal from people even if they know you aren't stealing from them. That isn't how it works. Again.. Million dollar question. Why did the brothers place $23M worth of orders? It wasn't because they wanted the merchandise. INTENT INTENT INTENT. FW did not try to defraud Nordstrom IMO. They received checks and put Cash Back accordingly. I have gotten Cash Back and I bet if you had FW testify they would testify that they have no clue if, when, and how I received my merchandise. They would say that they received a check for $X.00. If I hacked into a Nordstrom server and made it so Nordstrom would send a check on my behalf to FW I should get to keep it? No. It was illegal what I did. They committed fraud. No one will be convinced of that against their will.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   mikef07 said:   

 

If you want to believe that then so be it. A rational person does not believe they should or would receive Cash Back for an order where they never received the merchandise.


 

People are against this for one reason. Self interest. They want to push the envelope and this has made them think twice. How far can they push now?

"
This is a deals site where fw earns more money if more orders are placed using it's link. This site wants people to push it , the forums encourage it. If they wanted to put a limitation on cb they could easily program in a $50-100 per month per merchant cb limit , or limit it to 5-10 transactions per month per merchant , or whatever.

No limitation was in place. No order verifying system was in place . Cb moved from pending to "available for redemption". All these factors give someone the reasonable belief they are entitled to withdraw the CashBack .

Fw did not ban the chius in 2008 , it was Nordstroms. Every order the chius placed with Nordstroms was canceled and Nordstroms gave them nothing. It is important to note this Distinction.

Fw is who paid the chius, for using their links.
in fact they were likely fw largest cb earner from 2010-2011 No average person, and not even the chius knew that there was no verification taking place until they were blocked from fw in oct 2011. The chius had every right to believe they were earning fw cb from placing orders, and that the fw cn verification process determined they were entitled to cash it out

Forgive my ignorance but 1) Doesn't' FW get money from Nordstrom as part of their agreement. They must get referral fees or a % of orders back. Verification is irrelevant. The Chius placed $23M in order to fraudulently gain Cash Back. People can argue that they didn't know they had to be fulfilled order until Jesus comes home, but no rational person believes that and no chance 12 people on a jury believe that. It is up to all 3 parties to be lawful in transactions. The Chius were not lawful. INTENT. If someone want to answer why the Chius plead $23M in orders and the answer was not so they could get Cash Back I am all ears, but everyone knows why they placed the orders.

ananthar said:   
Unfortunately the law exempts most buisness transactions that morally are also deliberately tricking consumers into losing money. The way the law distinguishes the two cases is that if both parties got something of value (even if the relative value is quite different) then it is classified as a buisness transaction and barrying actual deception or misrepresentation, neither party can be charged. That is one reason lawyers will often hand you a dollar when signing a contract so you cannot say you got nothing of value and were tricked by the other party out of property.

In the meantime, the moral of this story for FW deals is to make sure not only that there is no deception or misreprentation, but also that at some point the other party is getting something of value (ie you actually pay something at some point in the transaction, even if it is less than what you are getting in return) OR you follow the terms offered by the buisness to the letter (eg for deals where you are getting more in rebates than you paid for the item).

This is a very clear, easy-to-understand line between what the Chius did and what a lot of us here do. If you're churning coins, for example, all parties involved enter into the transaction voluntarily, with no misrepresentations, and get something of value. Whereas Nerdstroms received nothing of value from the Chius.

Unfortunately IANAL so I have no idea if this reasoning holds water. FWF lawyers, care to comment?

Yes, it's a crime to steal something out of someones house , even if the door Is unlocked and the garage door was left wide open.

It should not be a crime to get paid fw cb for an order you placed , which the merchant in it's sole discretion, chose not to ship out

mikef07 said:   Intent.


It should not be illegal to make a right turn. It should be if you intend to run over someone.

If the right turn is a legal right turn the right turn is still not illegal even if you hit a group of monks and priests. The assualting some one with a vehicle has been and always will be illegal. Otherwise what you are saying is that anyone who makes the legal right turn is now making an illegal right turn regardless of the fact if they hit some one or not.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Mike doesn't understand intent. The chius were not intending to commit a crime . If someone had made them aware they could go to jail for earning cb on canceled orders, i can guarantee you they would not have done it.

They thought they found a loophole like so many of us do here, like finding ways to charge cash equivalents on our ccs that get coded as normal retail purchases. If anyone told us that was a crime we would stop immedately. We do it because we believe it's legal and we have no criminal intent.

Uh yeah I do. If you truly believe the Chius were not intending to defraud Nordstrom by all means that is your right. No one rational or in their right mind thinks that they did not know what they were doing and that they had every intention of scamming Nordstrom. Any rational person would also admit that if there were no Cash Back they would not have done this. Now I may agree that they did not know they were committing a crime. Ignorance is not a defense of a law. So you are correct that they probably did not intend to commit a crime. They did intend to fraudulently get Cash Back. Unfortunately by doing so they committed a crime. Many people commit crimes each day that don't realize it. 1) That does not mean that they did not intend to do the act. 2) While intending to do the act they may break a law, thus committing a crime. I truly believe that when they were arrested they probably said they did not realize they were breaking the law. It has been, and was, pointed out that they did break the law. If someone told the Chius that they were breaking the law would they have done it? Probably not (You never know because some people are aware and still choose to try and get away with it.). Ignorance is not a defense. As I pointed out way back. I don't worry about going to jail for Cash Back because I don't scam any merchant.

SO to quote you "They thought they found a loophole." They thought wrong." Some people think they won't get hit trying to run across the freeway and sometimes they do. They thought wrong. I speed (admittedly) and think I won't get caught. Sometimes I do. I thought wrong. Finally once in a while I commit the act of going 40mph. Sometimes I truly do not know the speed limit and my intention is not to speed (break the law). It doesn't matter. Ignorance is not a defense.

I have personally seen you rail on people that post here trying to scam other FWF posters sometimes calling what they do illegal. Agape. So they shouldn't' go to jail if they scammed FWF posters if they didn't know they were breaking the law? Ignorance is not a defense. You just opened the floodgates with tickets out of prison. BTW I applaud you for doing so (calling out the scammers, not opening the floodgates.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   mikef07 said:   

So you are correct that they probably did not intend to commit a crime. They did intend to fraudulently get Cash Back.

.
I'd argue the only way to get CashBack "fraudulently " is by hacking their systems. The whole point of the CashBack validation system
Is to ensure people don't get paid "fraudulent " cb , or cb they didnt earn...,,and that any cb that moves from pending to available had Been confirmed as properly earned.

You could argue that, but you would be wrong. Not me saying it is wrong, but the legal system. A faulty validation system does not give the right to commit fraud and circumventing that validation system does not mean it is valid. One has the expectation that common sense must exist for it to be a valid claim. No one in their right mind would think this is valid. A unlocked door does not give the right to rob you. I can plainly (as can you deep down) see that what these guys did was wrong. It is common sense. Did I know it was illegal prior? No I did not as most here did not. It is and was. Noted by me.

I agree 100% that a faulty validation system allowed these guys to do what they did, but the second time they did this it was with intent to get Cash Back or in other words to scam Nordstrom. With a proper validation system these guys don't get this far, don't do this, and don't commit a crime. With a locked door many people don't have access to a house full of stuff that isn't theirs and they can't rob it.

Self accountability. Also who knows what they told people, wrote in emails, texts, etc. You (and I) have no clue what and how much they knew.

ETA: Nordstroms are morons for allowing this to happen.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   mikef07 said:   


I have personally seen you rail on people that post here trying to scam other FWF posters sometimes calling what they do illegal. Agape. So they shouldn't' go to jail if they scammed FWF posters if they didn't know they were breaking the law? Ignorance is not a defense. You just opened the floodgates with tickets out of prison. BTW I applaud you for doing so (calling out the scammers, not opening the floodgates.
Ponzi scams have been illegal for 70+ years.

Being paid cb due to merchant error has never Been a crime , till apparently A few months ago. And it raises very serious questions for the other loopholes we exploit

If the merchant simply needs to report they suffered a financial loss, or that we made a financial gain, to charge us with wire fraud, there are many fwers headed for pmita jail

Your defense was that the Chius did not know it was illegal or they would not have done it therefore they should not be held legally responsible because they didn't know it was illegal. Many involved in Ponzi schemes do not realize it is a Ponzi. Had they used common sense they could have figured it out. Yes they should still be held responsible. It was not just merchant error. It was merchant error caused by scamming them. Without the scamming no error occurs. Without me making the right turn no one gets run over. Its like me blaming the car for killing the person even though I caused the car to go that direction. The merchant does not need to just show a financial loss. They need to show them you scammed them out of that financial loss, that you had intent, and that you knew what you were doing.

ETA: Yes FWF posters (me included) should be very aware of what they are doing and use common sense. Ignorance is not and should not be a defense. If you are walking a grey line be careful as always.

mikef07 said:   
ETA: Yes FWF posters (me included) should be very aware of what they are doing and use common sense. Ignorance is not and should not be a defense. If you are walking a grey line be careful as always.

Is that your common sense? My common sense is that when criminal intent is required by the statues, ignorance is a defence, and should be. The prosecutors have the burdens to prove intent, or not ignorance.

mikef07 said:   Glitch99 said:   mikef07 said:   Glitch99 said:   mikef07 said:   Talked to an attorney in the family today and gave him a short description of what happened and he totally understood why and how it was criminal. In fact he shot off charge after charge he thought it could be one of which was wire fraud. He also said the amount usually does matter. If you end up with an extra $50 in your bank account if someone at the bank entered a deposit wrong and you spent it then you could likely say you didn't realize there was an extra $50. If you thought you had $600 and someone accidentally put $600K in and you spent it then you know it wasn't yours. Intent is how he explained it. Finally he explained to me that it is likely that the brothers used some of the funds to use for bills and living expenses. The way it was explained to me is that if you commingle funds then the govt. is seizing any assets that had many part of it paid for with the ill gotten gains which is probably why all assets were seized form the bank. He said at least they are going to federal prison.It sounds like this opinion was predicated on an assumption the FatCash was erroneously credited to their accounts, and they knew it was erroneous.

The FW User Agreement gives vague parameters of what can and cannot earn Cash Back, then clearly says that it is FW that has the discretion to determine if a purchase qualifies. So regardless of what CashBack I think I am or am not entitled to, when FW - the entity that determines if my purchase qualifies - credits CashBack to my account for a purchase, then releases it to me 3 months later, it is clear to me that they decided my transaction did qualify for CashBack. They may change their mind later, but any money I withdrew based on their representing it as being mine is not "fraud", since their user agreement says they get to decide if it is my money and they specifically told me it was my money.

An erroneous bank account deposit is a terrible example - a deposit either posts to the correct account or it doesnt, you either made the deposit or your didnt. There is no such absolute in this case, since the qualifications for CashBack on any given transaction is left up to the discretion of FW - so once FW has credited the CashBack, it is very reasonable to assume that, regardless of the context of the purchase, FW has used their discretion to deem the purchase as being qualified.

If you want to believe that then so be it.
I dont want to believe it. Those are facts according to their user agreement - I dont get to decide what qualifies for CashBack, FW does. And they clearly conveyed their decision by posting the CashBack, then again by making the money available for withdrawal.

Through fraudulent means. Again if you don't want to think it was fraudulent that is naive IMO and your right.
And if you want to think it was fraudulant then that's your right. But if this was fraudulant, then participating in virtually any deal discussed on this forum makes you a criminal as well. Or at minimum at risk of being accused of being a criminal.

I have gotten Cash Back and I bet if you had FW testify they would testify that they have no clue if, when, and how I received my merchandise. They would say that they received a check for $X.00. If I hacked into a Nordstrom server and made it so Nordstrom would send a check on my behalf to FW I should get to keep it? No. It was illegal what I did. They committed fraud. No one will be convinced of that against their will.First, yes, FW would have no clue about if, when, and how you received the merchandise, because receiving merchandise is not required by any term or user agreement.

Second, NOBODY HACKED ANYTHING. Of course hacking into Nordstrom's computer and causing a check to be sent would be fraud. If placing an order through the merchant's standard ordering procedure is considered "hacking", then entire concept of e-commerce is officially dead.

their intent to take the money is clear from where the money ended up --- with them

Glitch99 said:   If placing an order through the merchant's standard ordering procedure is considered "hacking", then entire concept of e-commerce is officially dead.The taking of the property of another knowing that the other did not consent is a crime in every country in the world, and has been for 20,000 years. Their best possible defense is that they did not know that the merchant did not consent. However, this is, from a legal standpoint... an incredibly poor defense.

"I thought Nordstrom wanted to give me $1,000,000.00 for free, honest!"

I'm also sure they blew the money on dumb shit like luxury cars and $1,500 bottles of Cristal... which would not exactly serve as helpful facts in front of a grumpy Federal jury.

Glitch99 said:   mikef07 said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   mikef07 said:   

 

If you want to believe that then so be it. A rational person does not believe they should or would receive Cash Back for an order where they never received the merchandise.


 

People are against this for one reason. Self interest. They want to push the envelope and this has made them think twice. How far can they push now?

"
This is a deals site where fw earns more money if more orders are placed using it's link. This site wants people to push it , the forums encourage it. If they wanted to put a limitation on cb they could easily program in a $50-100 per month per merchant cb limit , or limit it to 5-10 transactions per month per merchant , or whatever.

No limitation was in place. No order verifying system was in place . Cb moved from pending to "available for redemption". All these factors give someone the reasonable belief they are entitled to withdraw the CashBack .

Fw did not ban the chius in 2008 , it was Nordstroms. Every order the chius placed with Nordstroms was canceled and Nordstroms gave them nothing. It is important to note this Distinction.

Fw is who paid the chius, for using their links.
in fact they were likely fw largest cb earner from 2010-2011 No average person, and not even the chius knew that there was no verification taking place until they were blocked from fw in oct 2011. The chius had every right to believe they were earning fw cb from placing orders, and that the fw cn verification process determined they were entitled to cash it out

Forgive my ignorance but 1) Doesn't' FW get money from Nordstrom as part of their agreement. They must get referral fees or a % of orders back. Verification is irrelevant. The Chius placed $23M in order to fraudulently gain Cash Back. People can argue that they didn't know they had to be fulfilled order until Jesus comes home, but no rational person believes that and no chance 12 people on a jury believe that. It is up to all 3 parties to be lawful in transactions. The Chius were not lawful. INTENT. If someone want to answer why the Chius plead $23M in orders and the answer was not so they could get Cash Back I am all ears, but everyone knows why they placed the orders.
I'm going to send you a check for $1,000 and tell you you earned it with your posts so it's yours to keep. 2 weeks after you cash it, I'm going to change my mind about giving you the $1,000, since I decided you didnt actually earn it, and report it as fraud and have you thrown in jail. And you are guilty, because you cashed the check you "knew" you had not earned. And you'll be perfectly fine with this, right?

The fact that you think this is the same is your issue. Please show me where I scammed? If I tricked you into sending this to me then maybe. If I did it to the tune of $700K then likely. In the end once the facts of the case came out there would be no criminal charges. Yes I would be perfectly fine with you sending me a check with a letter stating it was for my posts. I would also be happy for you to go to the DA and tell them I fraudulently did this. Since I did not I wouldn't be worried. If I had told you I would cure some disease that someone you know has with my magical posts then I would be worried, especially if I did it hundreds or thousands of times.

Glitch99 said:   BrodyInsurance said:   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?The Chiu brothers didnt know they were not entitled to receive the CashBack. There is no requirement that merchandise be received, and FW has all the discretion in determining what counts as being qualified. Fw told them their transactions were qualified. FW's is the only opinion about the validity of the CashBack that actually matters, and it was confirmed by FW as being valid.

Was this prior to their visit from Santa Claus who rode in on a unicorn or after. If you used that as a defense for this the lawyer would be doing cartwheels down the street right before they ripped you apart. Like crazy tree said 'I thought Nordstroms wanted to give me free moneys."

Oh and apparently FW does not run the US Judicial system.