[nolemmings]

I would add that the intentional misrepresentation or omission of a material fact is actionable as civil fraud, and has been for more than the nearly 40 years I have been practicing in Arizona. I am confident that the law is similar in all states. Moreover, apart from being a common law cause of action, many states have statutes on the books for consumer fraud. Arizona at least has a broad view of what conduct can fall within the statute and even allows such claims to be proven by the far less stringent burden of proof-- preponderance of the evidence. Heck, in theory the Attorney General here is authorized to investigate and pursue claims for consumer fraud, and it is not taken lightly, although the politics and resources involved in those decisions are always in play. The law addresses “any deception, unfair act or practice, false statement, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation” and is actionable if relied upon by the plaintiff/victim, regardless of whether such reliance was reasonable.

In sum, to suggest that card alteration is only morally wrong but cannot comprise a crime or other unlawful conduct is just simply incorrect. {redundant for emphasis}