King forgot his crown
-
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.
He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It's even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.
In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.
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.
-
Fraud is a very complicated crime. I absolutely hate that I need to know the basic for my law degree as it fills a thousand pages of commentary literature in just one of the largest German legal commentaries because it's just that complicated.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Kinda clever.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It's even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.
In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.
deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim
Does either of those fill though?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Take it he wasn't reciprocating the gifts?
-
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.
He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It's even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.
In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.
I do Not See the fraud here. If He would have given the Girls His real Birthday, He would have still received the Same amount of Gifts. Nothing would have changed in exchanging the Gifts.
The only Thing, which it probably helped at, was that He could plan ahead for the birthdays, avoiding a Potential meet-in of each girl, that He dated on the Same Day.
The only Thing He is gullible of ist deceiving the Woman on their Relationship. Which is Not an offenes in a legal Sense. There is no punishment for 2-timing, so 35-timing should Not have either -
Hoping that isn’t real because that’s kind of an f-ed up definition for fraud. Also, what a legend.
This guy cheated on 35 different women for gifts and you go:
Also, what a legend.
I hope that's a /s
-
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.
He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It's even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.
In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.
Well there's your shady gray bit right in the definition. Is it unlawful to lie about your birthday?
-
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.
He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It's even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.
In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
At the same time?
-
This guy cheated on 35 different women for gifts and you go:
Also, what a legend.
I hope that's a /s
There's a certain threshold when you're no longer upset, just impressed. Like if someone ate my slice of cake vs they ate the entire fridge.
-
I do Not See the fraud here. If He would have given the Girls His real Birthday, He would have still received the Same amount of Gifts. Nothing would have changed in exchanging the Gifts.
The only Thing, which it probably helped at, was that He could plan ahead for the birthdays, avoiding a Potential meet-in of each girl, that He dated on the Same Day.
The only Thing He is gullible of ist deceiving the Woman on their Relationship. Which is Not an offenes in a legal Sense. There is no punishment for 2-timing, so 35-timing should Not have eitherWhat’s going on with your capitalization? I spent way too much time looking for hidden messages and came away with nothing except the - entirely unrelated - hypothesis that you are German.
-
What’s going on with your capitalization? I spent way too much time looking for hidden messages and came away with nothing except the - entirely unrelated - hypothesis that you are German.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Not OP:
In other languages (like German) nouns are capitalized.
I often write mails inside Europe that way to make it easy readable and put focus on the stuff I find necessary.For English native speakers it's probably really looks like hidden code ;-)
Edit: ok, read said comment and you're right. That's just like throwing a dice...
-
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.
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?
-
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.
intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value
Advertising and politics?
-
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.
He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It's even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.
In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
