In the race to the bottom, BTR1701 keeps insisting his state is more incompetent and corrupt than my state. Well, here's $10 million in
unemployment fraud committed by one woman (with others feeding her
information) over a period of 1 year and 8 months. She was released on a $100,000 bond (is that just 10% down?) by a federal magistrate. I don't
see how that's enough to prevent her from fleeing with a false passport.

It sounds like she obtained a large number of SSNs and knew the name
match, then submitted false employment and payroll records. I don't have
enough details to know if these were false records of existing or
nonexistant businesses or if the others involved in the scheme were
owners of existing businesses. None of the false employees were part of
the scheme nor did they receive any proceeds. Of course this means a
great many people were totally fucked thanks to the identity fraud.

I'm sure BTR1701 will counter with a woman who committed $20 million in
fraud over a shorter period of time.

Here are my questions.

Checks have gotten a bad reputation over the years for fraud or not
having funds backing them even if presented legitimately. Is it easier
to commit fraud with a debit card?

Obviously there's a crime to charge with stolen funds, a crime to charge
with the fraudulent application. Can identity fraud be charged
separately or as an enhancement to application fraud?

There are various crimes associated with fraudulent use of a check.
There can be a forged signature in endorsement when a check has been
stolen or misdirected from the intended recipient. There's fraud in
changing the amount or payee.

But with a debit card used to withdraw cash from an ATM, aside from
stolen funds and application fraud, is there a comparable crime to be
charge to washing a check? Since the criminal has the PIN associated
with the debit card (the PIN is just four additional digits in the
account number, not a password) and the machine has no way to verify
identity, there's no crime of misrepresentation of identity to charge as
there might be with a stolen check presented to a bank teller.

Aren't debit cards, therefore, less secure than checks if there are
fewer crimes to charge with their misuse?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-05-18 12:35 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

In the race to the bottom, BTR1701 keeps insisting his state is more incompetent and corrupt than my state. Well, here's $10 million in unemployment fraud committed by one woman (with others feeding her information) over a period of 1 year and 8 months. She was released on a $100,000 bond (is that just 10% down?) by a federal magistrate. I don't
see how that's enough to prevent her from fleeing with a false passport.

It sounds like she obtained a large number of SSNs and knew the name
match, then submitted false employment and payroll records. I don't have enough details to know if these were false records of existing or
nonexistant businesses or if the others involved in the scheme were
owners of existing businesses. None of the false employees were part of
the scheme nor did they receive any proceeds. Of course this means a
great many people were totally fucked thanks to the identity fraud.

I'm sure BTR1701 will counter with a woman who committed $20 million in
fraud over a shorter period of time.

Here are my questions.

Checks have gotten a bad reputation over the years for fraud or not
having funds backing them even if presented legitimately. Is it easier
to commit fraud with a debit card?

Obviously there's a crime to charge with stolen funds, a crime to charge
with the fraudulent application. Can identity fraud be charged
separately or as an enhancement to application fraud?

There are various crimes associated with fraudulent use of a check.
There can be a forged signature in endorsement when a check has been
stolen or misdirected from the intended recipient. There's fraud in
changing the amount or payee.

But with a debit card used to withdraw cash from an ATM, aside from
stolen funds and application fraud, is there a comparable crime to be
charge to washing a check? Since the criminal has the PIN associated
with the debit card (the PIN is just four additional digits in the
account number, not a password) and the machine has no way to verify identity, there's no crime of misrepresentation of identity to charge as there might be with a stolen check presented to a bank teller.

Aren't debit cards, therefore, less secure than checks if there are
fewer crimes to charge with their misuse?

It used to be the case that certified cheques a.k.a. bank drafts were as
secure as things get but somebody's figured out how to forge them. I
read about a case here in Canada where a guy sold a car and got a bank
draft from the buyer. When the seller went to deposit the bank draft,
the bank refused it, saying it was a fake so the seller got nothing for
his car. The police/banks now advise people to go to the bank WITH THE
BUYER so that the validity of the cheque can be verified BEFORE it is
accepted in payment.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 18, 2025 at 9:35:04 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

In the race to the bottom, BTR1701 keeps insisting his state is more incompetent and corrupt than my state. Well, here's $10 million in unemployment fraud committed by one woman (with others feeding her information) over a period of 1 year and 8 months. She was released on a $100,000 bond (is that just 10% down?) by a federal magistrate. I don't
see how that's enough to prevent her from fleeing with a false passport.

It sounds like she obtained a large number of SSNs and knew the name
match, then submitted false employment and payroll records. I don't have enough details to know if these were false records of existing or
nonexistant businesses or if the others involved in the scheme were
owners of existing businesses. None of the false employees were part of
the scheme nor did they receive any proceeds. Of course this means a
great many people were totally fucked thanks to the identity fraud.

I'm sure BTR1701 will counter with a woman who committed $20 million in
fraud over a shorter period of time.

When your state reaches $30 billion in documented Wuhan Flu fraud, with
another suspected $10 billion in money that just 'disappeared' and is presumed to have been pilfered, we'll talk. Until then, you Illinoisians are just amateurs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 18, 2025 at 9:35:04 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

In the race to the bottom, BTR1701 keeps insisting his state is more >>incompetent and corrupt than my state. Well, here's $10 million in >>unemployment fraud committed by one woman (with others feeding her >>information) over a period of 1 year and 8 months. She was released on a >>$100,000 bond (is that just 10% down?) by a federal magistrate. I don't
see how that's enough to prevent her from fleeing with a false passport.

It sounds like she obtained a large number of SSNs and knew the name
match, then submitted false employment and payroll records. I don't have >>enough details to know if these were false records of existing or >>nonexistant businesses or if the others involved in the scheme were
owners of existing businesses. None of the false employees were part of
the scheme nor did they receive any proceeds. Of course this means a
great many people were totally fucked thanks to the identity fraud.

I'm sure BTR1701 will counter with a woman who committed $20 million in >>fraud over a shorter period of time.

When your state reaches $30 billion in documented Wuhan Flu fraud, with >another suspected $10 billion in money that just 'disappeared' and is presumed >to have been pilfered, we'll talk. Until then, you Illinoisians are just >amateurs.

Ha ha, Am I right that there are fewer felonies to charge with the fraud committed in part with a debit card than a check?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)