Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Another COVID-relief unemployment fraud
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 14:14:02 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <100d81c$c8fs$3@dont-email.me>
References: <100d27o$12db8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 20:14:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ec3b3bf7a91d2c4625bb476605e754d";
	logging-data="401916"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jw58VRzv8lEjOddH/vPl/6mQTt5dbLAI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9vT/kETx0cijCI2nJ8ro+krw918=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250518-2, 5/18/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <100d27o$12db8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4119

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