Is this fraud? Selling something technically true but most customer wouldn&#39;t have bought it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Comisar#cite_note-4 Steve Comisar sold solar powered clothes drier. He then sent ropes. I wonder how the US government would handle this? Is this fraud? Technically a rope can indeed be used to dry clothes, namely by hanging it.
I wonder how would US government handle this? Is this fraud? Technically a rope can indeed be used to dry clothes, namely by hanging it. We don't have to guess how the US government would handle this because this individual was charged and convicted for this conduct and similar conduct by federal prosecutors on multiple occasions and sentenced to federal prison for doing so. See, for example, here, here (the FBI considered him &quot;the Jeffrey Dahmer of fraud&quot; and convicted him of fraud at least four times, usually of telemarketing fraud), here, here, and here (&quot;Comisar was convicted in Los Angeles federal court in 1983, 1990, 1994 and 1999 for various telemarketing frauds.&quot;) The usual form of telemarketing fraud would be mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) or wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344). Per those links the elements of mail fraud and wire fraud, respectively, are as follows: &quot;There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts).&quot; Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) (&quot;The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme.&quot;); Laura A. Eilers &amp; Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited). and The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (&quot;Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.&quot;). The definition of a fraudulent scheme for mail and wire fraud statute purposes is broader than for common law fraud: The mail fraud and wire fraud statutes do not define the terms &quot;scheme&quot; or &quot;artifice&quot; and the courts have traditionally been reluctant to offer definitions of either term except in the broadest and most general terms. Lemire, 720 F.2d at 1335 (&quot;Congress did not define 'scheme or artifice to defraud' when it first coined that phrase, nor has it since. Instead that expression has taken on its present meaning from 111 years of case law.&quot;). The fraudulent aspect of the scheme to defraud is to be measured by nontechnical standards and is not restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses. &quot;[T]he words 'to defraud' in the mail fraud statute have the 'common understanding' of '&quot;wrongdoing one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes,&quot; and &quot;usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching.&quot;'&quot; Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 27 (quoting McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358 (1987) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924))). &quot;The concept of 'fraud' includes the act of embezzlement, which is '&quot;the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's own care by another.&quot;'&quot; Id. (quoting Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 (1902)). No actual loss to a particular victim need be shown and the fraud can be one that only deceives gullible people per this source. See also Shaw v. United States, 196 L.Ed.2d 372, 137 S.Ct. 462 (2016) (lack of financial loss is not a defense). The mailing or wiring can be done by a third party and need not contain actual false statements themselves per this source (indeed a fraudulent scheme is not required to involve a false representation of fact at all). See, e.g., Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (1987) (stock trading in advance of publication of a Wall Street Journal column to profit from a predictable effect on the stock market is actionable as fraudulent scheme under the mail and wire fraud statutes even if the columns themselves are true); SEC v Zanford, Case No. 01-147 (U.S. 2002) (false statement of fact not required for fraudulent scheme liability). If a fact that would prevent a reasonable customer from being misled is omitted, it is still a scheme to defraud. Edwards v. United States, 312 U.S. 473 (1941). See also Worden v. California Fig Syrup Company, 187 U.S. 516 (1903) (it was misleading and fraudulent to call a product &quot;Fig Syrup&quot; when fig syrup was present in the product but was only a minor ingredient making up a small part of the total product). For example, in this case, the description, by not clearly stating that it is a clothesline that is being sold, even if the statements made could be construed to be technically true, is still mail fraud because the omission is likely to mislead a reasonable customer without a complete disclosure of the fact that it is a clothesline being sold for far more than going price for a clothesline at the time.
But lately he has had his friend use my PayPal account. Someone will send me money and then I transfer it to where he tells me. To cash app or venmo. That's money laundering. Definitely illegal. He said it's money owed for cellphones. People in jail aren't supposed to have cellphones. You are helping him break the law, which means you are helping him break the law.
I make a copy of any important receipt printed on thermal paper, since the terms of many sellers and manufacturers require receipts for disputes. But I'm not aware of any law that says they have to make it convenient to maintain a receipt or other proof of purchase. However, when a company makes their terms unclear, unexpected, or difficult to comply with it seems there is often a lawyer ready to step up and file a class action lawsuit. Here's one archive to give you an idea of what companies will settle. In the United States the FTC is also empowered by law to "protect consumers," which means that if "disappearing" receipts become a widespread problem for consumers they could take action on the government's authority: The Federal Trade Commission Act is the primary statute of the Commission. Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress. Given the above, I wouldn't be surprised to see either a class-action lawsuit or FTC rule that requires retailers to provide "durable" receipts, or some convenient substitute.
Probably not “Air conditioning” is the process of changing the temperature and/or humidity of air. A “fan” is a device for moving air around. It’s almost certain the arbitrator would agree. However, the customer is unlikely to be entitled to a refund because there hasn’t been a “complete failure of consideration” - they contracted for an apartment with air conditioning, they got an apartment ergo Airbnb has provided some part of the consideration. They would be entitled to damages - perhaps the cost of hiring an air conditioner or if that’s not possible, a hotel room (which I realise may be more than the value of the letting but that’s how damages can work).
There's a critical error in your argument but no transfer of goods or services will be present. Actually: No, there is a transfer of service made by booking: resources are put aside by the service provider to be available for the booking person once they arrive. That is a service. These resources are not available to be sold otherwise: a room is booked and thus blocked from being rented to someone else, or a seat on the plane is booked and not offered to others, and so on. As long as the booking person arrives, no damage happens. However, if they no-show, there is damage: the resources go to waste unused: the room stays empty, or the plane flies with one less person. And the cancellation/no-show fees that are contractually obligated to make the damaged party whole (to compensate for the wasted resources) are also not paid. Knowingly using a fake credit card number or empty debit card that can't pay the fees and planning not to show up would be clearly fraud. One such paragraph that might be used to hunt down could be 18 USC §1341 - aka &quot;mail fraud&quot; - or much more likely, 18 USC $1343 - wire fraud. The latter is because any fraud on the internet is wire fraud. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud [including a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services], or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
"Civic obligations" are based on one's personal moral philosophy, best discussed on Philosophy SE. On the legal front, in the US, there is no (existing) legal basis for simply declaring some random thing to be "top secret", even if it has great potential to be used for evil purposes. If this is research conducted under the umbrella of the Dept. of Defense, it might be classified, but a garage inventor is not subject to the laws regarding classified documents. Congress could pass a law prohibiting promulgating research on time travel, but even if such a law were found to be constitutional (unlikely, on First Amendment grounds, see this), one cannot be penalized for breaking the law before it becomes a law.
Ignoring the question of whether knowingly trying to deceive the IRS about the nature and purposes of an organization is a crime or even a lie, running any sort of tax-exempt organization for your own benefit is tax evasion and a crime. What you propose actually does happen in the US, but it's non commonly done by claiming tax exempt status a religious organization. Instead of registering fake churches (which strictly speaking isn't necessary as user6726's answer says), it's simpler just to register a fake charity. You don't need any of those things that you've noted that the IRS says a religious organization must have. Done intelligently, people running these scam charities do just enough charitable work to avoid investigation by the authorities while diverting the majority of earnings and donations of the organization to themselves through salaries and payments to for-profit businesses they own. Done not-so-intelligently, virtually all the proceeds of the scam charity end up in the hands the people running it, and those people often get caught and end up in jail. If proven, the charges against Steve Bannon would be a notable recent example of this. While it's less common with religious organizations, people have done time for misusing a religious organization's tax exempt status. For example a Virginia couple were sentenced to prison for crimes relating to a scheme to route profits from a business through a religion organization they had set up.
Is UPS allowed to take my money and business without intention to fulfill its side of the transaction? No. The company's belated change of mind constitutes breach of contract, and its subsequent refusal to give you a refund completes the prima facie elements of fraud and/or unjust enrichment. The company's acceptance of your package &amp; money and its subsequent act of sending your package to NC strike the applicability of its clause on Refusal of Service (see the link provided in the other answer). The blanket term of "among other reasons" is hardly enforceable at that point. In particular, the existence of a lawsuit between the recipient and the company further weakens any merits of the company's belated change of mind. That is because, by virtue of that lawsuit, the company currently has to deliver to that same recipient other packages anyway. Thus, the company cannot allege that delivering your package "is unsafe or economically or operationally impracticable". Also, since you are the one who paid for the service, the company cannot withdraw on grounds of "the person or entity responsible for payment is not in good standing".