Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon512
where, as alluded to before, fraudulent is this:
Legal Definition of Scheme Or Artifice To Defraud
www.lectlaw.com/def2/s003.htm
SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD. A scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 18 USC; Any plan or course of action intended to deceive others, and to obtain, by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money or property from persons so deceived. |
Understood. But some could argue that it's not fraud if it improved the condition of the card as some truly believe. See my example above. If I re-wire a house because it has old, faulty wiring and then sell the house, do I have to disclose that it was re-wired? Do I have to disclose other upgrades? Do you not see where I'm coming from?
I guess what I'm saying is that Moser, Brent or whoever could argue that the customer wasn't deceived, but instead they were done a favor by improving the condition of the card.