What is the differences between lying and fraud? I sort of intuitively knows that most lies are legal. Someone asks me to visit him, I pretended to be busy, even though the truth is I just don't like the guy. That seems legal. But some lies are fraud. Are there clear definition on why certain lies are acceptable and others are illegal? Some definitions I read is that something is a fraud if the lie is done to get something. Well, that's not really clear cut. If I said I am busy, for example, I am getting something, namely, I look less like a jerk. So, what's the difference? What kind of lies are legal, what kind of lies are illegal, what is fraud, and what is scam, and what's the differences between all those?
The legal definition of the most straightforward form of fraud (a direct fraudulent misrepresentation) is that the guilt person: Says something that is not true about a presently existing material fact which is not an opinion; With the intent that someone else rely upon that statement to their detriment; They do indeed rely upon that statement; Their reliance is justifiable; and Their justifiable reliance causes them damages. A promise broken is not fraud unless it was made with a present intent not to fulfill the promise. Generally, a statement about the future cannot be a basis for fraud unless it clearly implies something about a presently existing material fact that is not true. In lieu of a fraudulent misrepresentation, there can also be fraudulent concealment which involves an omission of a presently existing material fact under circumstances when there was a duty to disclose it, with an intent to mislead that does justifiably mislead and causes damages. Lots of lies don't qualify as actionable fraud including: Statements about immaterial facts. Statements of opinion (e.g. the house is worth $300,000) or about one's feelings. Promises about the future that you intend to keep and then don't. Predictions that don't pan out. Statements made believing, inaccurately that they are true. Ambiguous statements that are taken the wrong way and do mislead but weren't intended to mislead. Statements that weren't intended to be taken seriously or relied upon. Lies that aren't relied upon or that a reasonable person wouldn't have relied upon. Lies that don't cause economic harm, including lies that are disavowed before they cause economic harm. This includes lies told with the belief that they are in the best interests of a person who could be harmed by the truth (e.g. a child or a mentally unstable person or some who is so fragile that the truth could trigger physical harm). Lies that are relied upon an unintended recipient (e.g. you lie to a prospective business partner at dinner about something related to a business deal and someone who eavesdrops on the conversation relies upon it). Some lies told on behalf of and solely in the name of someone else (e.g. a false statement of a prospectus for an investment published solely in the name of the company offering the investment without attribution of who wrote it). Lies that are mandated by another greater legal duty (e.g. lies by a spy, a diplomat, a cop trying to catch a criminal - but not a prosecuting attorney, by a soldier).
Presumably you mean "and make untrue accusations of wrong-doing". In the US, defamation involves statements about a legal person, and a place, government or government body, or industry is not a legal personal (a specific business can be, however). In the course of "defaming" a city, you might end up defaming a supposedly fictitious individual who bears a striking resemblance to a real person, for example a made-up New York real estate tycoon named Ronald Rump who runs for president. Or you could defame the "police department of Bug Tussle" which in fact is composed of only one person -- that is, you refer to a group but the group is so small that it actually refers to an identifiable individual. See this answer regarding defaming people in fiction. Okay, it's not actually true that a government can't be a legal person. The fact that in the US a government can't sue for defamation would be rooted in the First Amendment, and is surely embodied in case law that is lurking. In Canada, governments have had more power to pursue critic via defamation suits. In Ontario, Halton Hills (Town) v. Kerouac 80 O.R. (3d) 577 (2006) says that "a government may not sue in defamation". I expect that there is some such ruling in the history of US law.
Nobody know what constitutes "scamming", because it's not a legal concept. There is no sense in which receiving a gift itself constitutes "scamming". Since scamming is vaguely about dishonesty, there is an imaginable scenario where you could be liable for a false representation, for example if you impersonated someone else in order to receive something of value, you could be prosecuted in California. You should not assume that a police officer saying "That's not our problem" is proof that you committed no crime or civil tort. Your lawyer can give you advice as to whether you have anything to worry about, legally. The other stuff about being called a scammer or having pictures posted might be a violation of Facebook's TOS, and you can always complain to Facebook central authorities. Technically, uploading a picture that someone took is a violation of copyright law, if you didn't give permission to do so. It might run afoul of some state~provincial or national privacy law, depending on where this takes place.
Yup, it's illegal. You want something, they have something you want. They let you have the thing provided that you do certain things, otherwise they won't give it to you. So providing a credit card is material to the contract. You know that the credit card number is false, you are representing that it is true, the card is a material fact, you intend to get them to allow you in using this false representation, they don't know it is false and they rightfully rely on your truthfulness. They have been harmed by your false representation (maybe: it would cost you a lot in attorney fees to try to challenge on this point). This is fraud.
In the US, it is not illegal to lie in general. This includes lying about someone: it's not illegal per se to lie about them. What is illegal is slander and libel: lying about someone in a way that hurts their reputation. The defamation doctrine in the US is generally a common-law doctrine (i.e. the rules and limits are based on court decisions, rather than on laws passed by legislatures), although it may differ state-by-state. Depending on the state, some defamation may be criminal; there is no federal criminal defamation. US defamation law is largely defined through its interaction with the First Amendment. While libel is not constitutionally protected, punishment for libel is seriously limited by the need to avoid either punishing protected speech, or chilling potential protected speech (i.e. discouraging people from saying something that would in fact be protected, because they aren't sure whether or not it's protected). Libel in the US only applies to a false statement of fact, or an opinion which implies some false fact. If it can't actually be proven incorrect, it can't be libelous in the US. The question of whether it's a statement of fact doesn't just depend on the literal speech; it includes things like the context, and is a question about what a reasonable person would think. If I were to claim that someone was "literally Hitler," for instance, no reasonable person would think I was seriously claiming that the person was the former leader of Nazi Germany. Now, no reasonable person who is familiar with Twitter would ever assume that the tweet meant Obama literally stood up in front of the UN and said "Please accept this nothingburger in place of a respectable climate plan." So, it only counts as libel if a reasonable person would think it implies some fact. But a reasonable person familiar with Twitter would most likely think Miesel is saying "The president's pollution plan is a pointless piece of political puffery planned to placate principalities and potentates." This is basically a matter of opinion. Even to the extent that it's not a matter of opinion, public figures in the US cannot win a defamation suit unless they show "actual malice:" the speaker must actually know or actually strongly suspect that their statement is false in some material way. It's not enough that a reasonable person would think "this might not be true;" the speaker themselves must doubt the truth of it (they must be reckless, not just negligent). Courts are also extremely deferential to defendants in these cases. While it is technically possible for a public figure to prove defamation, it is exceptionally difficult. If the person didn't know they were falsely attributing the quote, and honesty thought it was correct, they're in the clear. If the quote isn't supposed to be a statement of fact, but it implies false facts, but the speaker honestly thinks those facts are true, they're in the clear. Private figures don't have to meet the actual malice standard to prove defamation. They still need to show that the statement is a statement of fact or something implying false facts; if it's obviously a summary of something they really said, possibly with added editorial comment, they can't prove defamation.
Cheating is not a legal concept, fraud is. Obtaining an essay written in India or by your mother is not fraud. Fraud comes in inducing the university to give you something of value (a passing grade, or perhaps admission) based on a material false statement ("I wrote this myself", or making false statements about your interest in tennis). A number of people were recently charged with various forms of fraud (mail fraud and honest services mail fraud) for similar actions (spelled out here). I do not know of any case where a student has been criminally prosecuted for turning in a purchased essay, but in principle it could happen.
This doesn't sound like fraud (against you, at least), but it does sound like an unfair or deceptive trade practice, which is outlawed by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and perhaps the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, both of which prohibit unfair and deceptive trade practices. I don't know about Pennsylvania, but the FTC has on many occasions taken action against companies for engaging in just this kind of behavior. To find out whether you would be able to take action against the other company, you'd want to find a good competition lawyer in Pennsylvania. For some more basic background on the FTC's rules, check out this primer.
Impersonation Giving a false name, or impersonating someone, is not in all cases illegal. However, doing so in order to obtain a financial or other benefit, or in order to unfairly deprive someone else of advantages might well constitute fraud. This is usually grounds for a civil lawsuit, but in some cases may be a criminal offense, depending on the jurisdiction and the detailed facts. Trademark The names of businesses, products, and services are often protected as trademarks. Using a trademark, or a confusingly similar word, phrase, or graphic, in order to create confusion or induce a consumer to falsely believe that ones is affiliated with or endorsed by the trademark holder is normally trademark infringement, and can subject the infringer to a lawsuit. However if such unauthorized use of a trademark is not done &quot;in commerce&quot;, that is not identifying or promoting a product or service, it may not be trademark infringement. In any case, trademark infringement is a tort, not a crime. This means that the trademark holder may sue an infringer if the holder so chooses. But the police will not normally arrest someone for trademark infringement, nor does a third party who is not the holder have a right to bring a legal action for trademark infringement. Crime If the impersonation is part of a scam intended to gain financial benefits improperly, that may well be a crime. As such it can be reported to law enforcement. It is generally up to the law enforcement agencies or government prosecutors which crimes to prosecute, and which ones to leave alone. There authorities have limited resources of money and personnel. Attempted scams where no money or value was gained by the scammers are often not of high priority. The victim cannot force the authorities to take action in most jurisdictions.