King forgot his crown
-
There is no mention of any consideration (a legal term meaning he didn’t promise them anything in return) provided by the “boyfriend”.
This would not be fraud under English common law.
You don't have to promise anything in return for it to be fraud. If I start a Go Fund Me because I have cancer when I really don't have cancer, the people donating aren't promised anything in return. It's still fraud.
-
It's pretty much the textbook definition of fraud. What are you talking about?
Fraud is defined as intentional deception to deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim.
That's what most politicians do every election. Just saying.
Most politicians are absolutely guilty of fraud.
-
As I said in another reply, my thinking is thus:
It’s a poor definition because gift exchanges are strictly voluntary and non-reciprocal engagements. I’m not saying what he did was ok or even legal in other contexts. My only point is that I wouldn’t consider this fraud because the victims were not compelled to give. This isn’t a Nigerian prince scam where the victims were promised greater returns at a later date. These victims gave with the expectation of monetary loss.
Just because these were voluntary non-reciprocal dispositions of wealth would not automatically make this not fraud in Germany at least.
I talked with a few fellow students and their gut feeling was that this could be fraud as well. After talking a bit about the matter we had quite a few issues apart from the voluntary aspect as well.
All dispositions in fraud are voluntary for one, otherwise this would be in the ballpark of robbery and the like (as in involuntary dispositions).
The act of giving a gift is not necessarily irreversible as there are ways to fight the disposition on grounds of fraud for one. Which would tick one of the requirements of fraud: the disposition needs to be unlawful.
Anyway you're right in that there are quite a few reasons to conclude this isn't fraud. If it is, it would be a very "heavy" case which would make this a felony in Germany.
-
Hoping that isn’t real because that’s kind of an f-ed up definition for fraud. Also, what a legend.
Found the guy with 35 girlfriend.
-
At the same time?
In one bed no less. Must be an Alaska king
-
So, it's not fraud if I tell my grandma with dementia that it's my birthday once a week so she keeps giving me birthday checks?
Your grandma having dementia changes the formula a bit.
-
Just because these were voluntary non-reciprocal dispositions of wealth would not automatically make this not fraud in Germany at least.
I talked with a few fellow students and their gut feeling was that this could be fraud as well. After talking a bit about the matter we had quite a few issues apart from the voluntary aspect as well.
All dispositions in fraud are voluntary for one, otherwise this would be in the ballpark of robbery and the like (as in involuntary dispositions).
The act of giving a gift is not necessarily irreversible as there are ways to fight the disposition on grounds of fraud for one. Which would tick one of the requirements of fraud: the disposition needs to be unlawful.
Anyway you're right in that there are quite a few reasons to conclude this isn't fraud. If it is, it would be a very "heavy" case which would make this a felony in Germany.
I’m no legal scholar by any means but I think in America this would be a civil suit not a criminal case unless the amount of money involved was tremendous.
I won’t even try to guess how it would shake out in Japan.
-
This guy cheated on 35 different women for gifts and you go:
Also, what a legend.
I hope that's a /s
I mean the article itself is apparently satire so yeah.
-
Seems to fit the official definition pretty neatly. Colloquially, I tend to agree with you, there's a spectrum for fraud. But this still counts as fraud. It's a fraudulent misrepresentation of the truth to convince others to part with something of value (a gift).
The fact that it's a gift doesn't change that this is fraud, only the severity of fraud in a legal sense.
Fraud in the sense that the guy is lying and profiting from it, sure. But the common / google definition of a word and the legal definition/ application of that word are two completely different things.
-
Take it he wasn't reciprocating the gifts?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I think the only way this makes sense is that he'd start dating someone, say his birthday is coming up, dump them after receiving the gift and repeating the process.
-
This post did not contain any content.
We need to ban birthdays so this never happens again.
-
I think the only way this makes sense is that he'd start dating someone, say his birthday is coming up, dump them after receiving the gift and repeating the process.
Do you get someone a gift if you're only known them for a week? Serious question.
-
Found the guy with 35 girlfriend.
I’m down to 28 now. Apparently some of them saw this thread …
-
We need to ban birthdays so this never happens again.
Monkey's paw curls. Now abortions are legal and forced.
-
Most politicians are absolutely guilty of fraud.
I'd even go so far as saying that fraud is pretty rampant in all levels of society.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Dude outed himself when he told Janice his birthday was the 35th of March.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm stupid, can someone explain to me how this is illegal? Like morally questionable I get, but how is it illegal?
-
I'm stupid, can someone explain to me how this is illegal? Like morally questionable I get, but how is it illegal?
According to a quick Google fraud in Japan is
obtaining property or illicit economic advantages through deceit.
Gifts I assume are property here
-
Seems to fit the official definition pretty neatly. Colloquially, I tend to agree with you, there's a spectrum for fraud. But this still counts as fraud. It's a fraudulent misrepresentation of the truth to convince others to part with something of value (a gift).
The fact that it's a gift doesn't change that this is fraud, only the severity of fraud in a legal sense.
- image of text: there's this cool alternative called text that doesn't break the web or accessibility. linking to source & quoting text makes an altogether better web for everyone.
- dictionary definition: not an official, legal definition.
-
Monkey's paw curls. Now abortions are legal and forced.
I thought Monkeys Paw had adverse outcomes.
