Chocolate Finance Visa Debit

[sky1978]

In other countries (mostly the US), people have gotten arrested before, but few people have gotten charged:

https://www.travelcodex.com/i-was-detained-for-manufactured-spending/
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/man...irs-special-agent-criminal-investigation.html

There's nothing criminal about manufacturing spend, but it looks a lot like money laundering, and I'm sure quite a few people in Singapore have gotten phone calls or love letters from banks about their transactions.

You can take a look at Section 415 of the Penal Code and see if manufacturing spending fits in.
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/la...meone-of-an-in-game-item-in-games-in-mmorpgs/

If we define manufacturing spending as paying for something which never existed because the funds will make a round trip back to the payer, then it is deceiving the card's issuing bank to hand over points that they will not do so willingly or knowingly.

However, such cases require the victims, which are the issuing banks, to make a police report because the police are not there to monitor every banking transaction. On top of that, the banks should also have the right to enquire more and ask for proof or evidence that the transaction is real, e.g. if paying 15k to IRAS, there must be a 15k tax assessment to show as proof. Those involved in MS will likely back off at the bank's investigative stage, and the points will be voided. Also, another factor is that banks are unlikely to be that vindictive in pursuing a criminal case after fully mitigating their losses by forfeiting those points.

 

[revhappy]

You can take a look at Section 415 of the Penal Code and see if manufacturing spending fits in.
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/la...meone-of-an-in-game-item-in-games-in-mmorpgs/

If we define manufacturing spending as paying for something which never existed because the funds will make a round trip back to the payer, then it is deceiving the card's issuing bank to hand over points that they will not do so willingly or knowingly.

However, such cases require the victims, which are the issuing banks, to make a police report because the police are not there to monitor every banking transaction. On top of that, the banks should also have the right to enquire more and ask for proof or evidence that the transaction is real, e.g. if paying 15k to IRAS, there must be a 15k tax assessment to show as proof. Those involved in MS will likely back off at the bank's investigative stage, and the points will be voided. Also, another factor is that banks are unlikely to be that vindictive in pursuing a criminal case after fully mitigating their losses by forfeiting those points.

What if it is cashback? And if something you have earned over the years.

 

[revhappy]

huh?! that case is more innocent than MS? how so?

There was no intention of fraud and the money simply came into his account.

But in MS, there is intent to defraud the bank.

 

[sky1978]

What if it is cashback? And if something you have earned over the years.

I think besides that IRAS loophole allowing payment via AXS, there aren't many meaningful ways to do MS. IRAS is a case where the other party is probably unaware that they are being used for such a purpose. For most other cases, any MS requires collusion or agreement between the merchant and the buyer, remember that the merchant also have a cost to accepting cards payment, so there have to be an agreement between both parties on how much to share and hence, it takes the fraud to another level which if they are caught, the merchants also get into trouble and have to shoulder the losses. Most merchants will issue refunds to the card, and the bank can do a reversal, so for MS to be successful, they have to find some merchants who will deviate from the norm (and give cash refunds). If it is worth that effort to fraud the banks in such a manner, such practice would have mushroomed everywhere, and the credit card business would have become loss-making long time ago.

 

[revhappy]

I think besides that IRAS loophole allowing payment via AXS, there aren't many meaningful ways to do MS. IRAS is a case where the other party is probably unaware that they are being used for such a purpose. For most other cases, any MS requires collusion or agreement between the merchant and the buyer, remember that the merchant also have a cost to accepting cards payment, so there have to be an agreement between both parties on how much to share and hence, it takes the fraud to another level which if they are caught, the merchants also get into trouble and have to shoulder the losses. Most merchants will issue refunds to the card, and the bank can do a reversal, so for MS to be successful, they have to find some merchants who will deviate from the norm (and give cash refunds). If it is worth that effort to fraud the banks in such a manner, such practice would have mushroomed everywhere, and the credit card business would have become loss-making long time ago.

AXS, Grab and other similar wallets are the way to do MS cashback. CF is the best example here. So what exactly happened which made CF to stop withdrawals? Here is what the CEO said:

“Singaporean customers were very, very smart and managed to maximise the system, which kind of skewed the programme and, therefore, we had to correct and stop the AXS piece,” said Mr de Oude.

IIRC Instarem faced this issue and immediately blocked the AXS payments.

In case of both CF and Instarem, it seems MS is by way of loophole exploitation. I am sure there are plenty of loopholes within other credit cards cashback too, although they have an exclusion list, there will always be something that slip through and smart people are there to capitalize on them.

I am just wondering, if this kind of MS will ever become so large that it becomes a precedent to then come under the ambit of crime.

So far CF is the high profile which came into the maintream news, everything before that never made it to the news.

 

[reddevil0728]

There was no intention of fraud and the money simply came into his account.

But in MS, there is intent to defraud the bank.

SINGAPORE - A man has been sentenced to nine weeks’ jail after he failed to return $25,000 mistakenly transferred to his bank account, despite knowing the money did not belong to him.

He said he used the money to pay off his debts and remitted some of it to his family in India.

On Oct 14, Periyasamy Mathiyazhagan, a 47-year-old Indian national, pleaded guilty to misappropriating the money.

misappropriated money is not a crime?

 

[revhappy]

SINGAPORE - A man has been sentenced to nine weeks’ jail after he failed to return $25,000 mistakenly transferred to his bank account, despite knowing the money did not belong to him.

He said he used the money to pay off his debts and remitted some of it to his family in India.

On Oct 14, Periyasamy Mathiyazhagan, a 47-year-old Indian national, pleaded guilty to misappropriating the money.

misappropriated money is not a crime?

It is a crime as per the law. Who is disputing that?

 

[reddevil0728]

It is a crime as per the law. Who is disputing that?

so how is that more innocent than MS though?

 

[revhappy]

so how is that more innocent than MS though?

I already told you it is about the intent.
In case of money coming into your bank account by mistake, you can take a view that it is the banks mistake.
You have no view of the real person who actually did the transfer.

Lets take the opposite example. What if suddenly money disappears from your bank account? Who do you hold responsible? It is the bank right?

So, now you see there is this law where the banks proactively check if there it is a fraudulent transaction and they prevent the sender from sending the money. In case of OCBC, they were made to pay for the scams in the customer's account.

So the lady who sent the money by mistake to some unknown person's account. 1st it is her mistake. You cannot just punch some random numbers and transfer money and then expect to get it back. Next, it is bank who should have warned or prevented such a big amount to be transfered to a totally new account number with no history before. Finally, it is the good will of the erroneous reciever, to contact the bank and tell them it is a mistake. But you see in this case the foreign worker coming from very low economic strata, perhaps not educated well and had lots of debts to clear, imagine, what he thinks if a windfall suddenly hits his account. He is obviously going to think he just hit a lottery.

Now compare this with someone who is deliberately trying to beat the system to make some gains. Who is more innocent?

 

[reddevil0728]

I already told you it is about the intent.

"despite knowing the money did not belong to him"

So he knew about it. and he still spent it.

There's no intent to misappropriate the money?

Am I missing your point here?

In case of money coming into your bank account by mistake, you can take a view that it is the banks mistake.

Yep. you know got mistake liao and you still use it for your own purpose. No intent?

Am I again missing your point here?

You have no view of the real person who actually did the transfer.

Yes and how does it matter?

You mentioned above you know there's a mistake right?

Lets take the opposite example. What if suddenly money disappears from your bank account? Who do you hold responsible? It is the bank right?

maybe. of course I will ask the bank what happened for sure and hold the bank to account for that.

So, now you see there is this law where the banks proactively check if there it is a fraudulent transaction and they prevent the sender from sending the money.

hmmm don't get the relevance of how does that make that guy's misappropriation "more innocent" than MS.

In case of OCBC, they were made to pay for the scams in the customer's account.

They weren't. legally they are not required to. they did it out of goodwill

So the lady who sent the money by mistake to some unknown person's account. 1st it is her mistake.

don't disagree

You cannot just punch some random numbers and transfer money and then expect to get it back.

Yes that's why there's a procedure to go through, if not the bank can just deduct.

Next, it is bank who should have warned or prevented such a big amount to be transfered to a totally new account number with no history before.

arguable. unless there's a requirement, who are they to police such "free will"

Finally, it is the good will of the erroneous reciever, to contact the bank and tell them it is a mistake.

is it though? if the receiver discovered this amount of money that he/she wasn't expecting, is it really a goodwill though? there should be a worry about whether you get yourself into trouble for money laundering or being a money mule.

if this person did not realise there's this sum of money cause never check the account, then is a different story

But you see in this case the foreign worker coming from very low economic strata, perhaps not educated well and had lots of debts to clear, imagine, what he thinks if a windfall suddenly hits his account. He is obviously going to think he just hit a lottery.

he can think that but doesn't mean he's right.

ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

and even if he's ignorant, he was informed about it. so you cannot say he doesn't know

he knew and still misappropriated it.

so how is that still more innocent than MS?

am i missing the point again?

Now compare this with someone who is deliberately trying to beat the system to make some gains. Who is more innocent?

if the system can be beaten because there's a loophole that's not accounted for, then legally I don't see any issue with that. morally is a different story.

but if the system has accounted for the action and the person went against the system. this 1 definitely is an issue. no 2 ways around it.

it's like tax avoidance is the former because it's legal but frown upon. while tax evasion is the latter because it is illegal.

 

[revhappy]

"despite knowing the money did not belong to him"

So he knew about it. and he still spent it.

There's no intent to misappropriate the money?

Am I missing your point here?

Yep. you know got mistake liao and you still use it for your own purpose. No intent?

Am I again missing your point here?

Yes and how does it matter?

You mentioned above you know there's a mistake right?

maybe. of course I will ask the bank what happened for sure and hold the bank to account for that.

hmmm don't get the relevance of how does that make that guy's misappropriation "more innocent" than MS.

They weren't. legally they are not required to. they did it out of goodwill

don't disagree

Yes that's why there's a procedure to go through, if not the bank can just deduct.

arguable. unless there's a requirement, who are they to police such "free will"

is it though? if the receiver discovered this amount of money that he/she wasn't expecting, is it really a goodwill though? there should be a worry about whether you get yourself into trouble for money laundering or being a money mule.

if this person did not realise there's this sum of money cause never check the account, then is a different story

he can think that but doesn't mean he's right.

ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

and even if he's ignorant, he was informed about it. so you cannot say he doesn't know

he knew and still misappropriated it.

so how is that still more innocent than MS?

am i missing the point again?

if the system can be beaten because there's a loophole that's not accounted for, then legally I don't see any issue with that. morally is a different story.

but if the system has accounted for the action and the person went against the system. this 1 definitely is an issue. no 2 ways around it.

it's like tax avoidance is the former because it's legal but frown upon. while tax evasion is the latter because it is illegal.

Again I am not disputing that spending the money that came into your account is a crime. I am just talking about intent here. In case of MS, you are deliberately seeking to defraud a bank. In case money comes into your account, you are supposed to return the money, but you are not returning.

So in the former case it is an active action. In the later case it is a passive inaction.

I somehow view active action as less innocent than passive inaction.

 

[reddevil0728]

Again I am not disputing that spending the money that came into your account is a crime. I am just talking about intent here. In case of MS, you are deliberately seeking to defraud a bank.

i went to confirm the definition of defrauding. it says...

"illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception."

i feel that "illegally" is the operative word here. maybe also deception.

is MS "illegal" under the law?

In case money comes into your account, you are supposed to return the money, but you are not returning.

So in the former case it is an active action. In the later case it is a passive inaction.

I somehow view active action as less innocent than passive inaction.

sorry this is a bit confusing.

which is former which is latter?

 

[revhappy]

which is former which is latter?

Lets say someone comes and keep 1 million dollar in your house when you were asleep. If you dont return that money to that someone, your crime is passive inaction. Legally you are expected to "act" here by returning the money that doesnt belong to you. So your crime is not doing that "act". You were not involved in the money coming into your house. So you are the passive party here. Thats why I call it passive inaction.

When you go steal 1 million dollars from someone's house, that is active action. Here your crime is performing the "act".

My only dispute is that you cannot equate active action at the same level as passive inaction.

 

[reddevil0728]

Lets say someone comes and keep 1 million dollar in your house when you were asleep. If you dont return that money to that someone, your crime is passive inaction. Legally you are expected to "act" here by returning the money that doesnt belong to you. So your crime is not doing that "act". You were not involved in the money coming into your house. So you are the passive party here. Thats why I call it passive inaction.

do you know or don't know about this 1mil in your house?

Where you go steal 1 million dollars from someone's house, that is active action. Here your crime is performing the "act".

My only dispute is that you cannot equate active action at the same level as passive inaction.

is this how it is being seen from a legal perspective? or just a layperson perspective?

 

[revhappy]

do you know or don't know about this 1mil in your house?

is this how it is being seen from a legal perspective? or just a layperson perspective?

I am just talking from the logical prespective. The law is clear and I am not disputing it.

 

[reddevil0728]

I am just talking from the logical prespective. The law is clear and I am not disputing it.

what's the basis for your logic though? and who validated that logic?

 

[revhappy]

what's the basis for your logic though? and who validated that logic?

You can try this experiment, transfer $1million to a million people and then find out how many people return it back to you. Then you can find out how many people are criminals.

 

[reddevil0728]

You can try this experiment, transfer $1million to a million people and then find out how many people return it back to you. Then you can find out how many people are criminals.

wait. do they know or they don't know they have been transferred the $1mil?

 

[revhappy]

wait. do they know or they don't know they have been transferred the $1mil?

Ofcourse they know.

 

[reddevil0728]

Ofcourse they know.

Do you agree with the following?

1. Don't know hence cannot and wouldn't do anything - we can ignore cause this is unknown. of course can go argue whether they should actively go know, but this 1 we can put it aside. what matters more is after they know what they do / don't do

2. Know and do something to return - confirm better than MS

---

What's your view for the following?

A. know and do bad things - is it better or worse or same as MS?

B. know and do nothing - ms to you is worse i supposed?