It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Louisiana Suspends EBT Cards for Food Stamp Cheats

page: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

CranialSponge
Okay, that makes more sense.

Because the external text you posted made it sound like Walmart was having to reimburse the funds too.

Which of course would result in the US government getting paid back at least twice the amount of funds stolen... Which of course would make the US government the real criminals at the end of the day.


Yeah I know. I think this comes from an uninformed media not wanting to talk to a consultant. The original articles said that there was an EBT glitch that gave people free money. These updated articles now show they were uninformed. EBT didn't give people free money. Walmart flipped a switch and gave people free money when EBT was down for a few hours. I believe the new article is again terrible reporting. I don't think for one instance EBT would pay Walmart.

The wording could simply be misconstrued to mean Walmart has to pay the vendors of the items they gave away for free. It's almost as if there is some kind of rush on news articles these days that they will put anything out and edit it as they go along.


edit on 10-11-2013 by Pimpintology because: of fluoride!




posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   

bloodreviara
How can this be considered any different than writing bad checks?
its the same principal, the same act, the same fraud.


The law isn't the same. Used to be checks were processed after the fact so there was no pre-authorization. Today checks can be pre-authorized or processed instantly. Some places might not be up to that but they can be. So they wrote a law about check fraud. It was theft. Now when they introduced debit cards there was a pre-authorization system so you couldn't steal. Some banks might let you go over your limit and charge you for it but that's it.

When you go over your limit with a debit card the bank tries to get you to cough up the fees and money you owe. If you do not they do a "charge off" and report you to ChexSystems. A very shady company IMHO. However all of the banks try and collaborate with ChexSystems so they have one database and can run you through it if you ever apply for a bank account again. This is why you get denied.

EBT isn't setup this way. It has its own processor and set it own rules and penalties. When you apply for food stamps it tells you the penalties in black and white. The only law I know of is SNAP fraud which would apply to people if you could prove they resold the items for cash. Other then that the law only applies to retailers. So in essence they are subject to SNAP rules and regulations. To be disciplined by the program itself. Which is a strike system and an offset system.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimpintology
 


I realize what you mean on the side of the banks but i think
you forget there is also criminal law when you write bad
checks, you are correct that the modern system does exist
but there are places they do not use this even today.

In my state when you write a bad check they can and
will arrest you if you do not pay it back +penalties, i am
not aware if this is different in other states but i do know
that Louisiana also has criminal charges for those who
write bad checks and do not repay them.

The reason i say this is exactly the same is because i doubt
they will be repaying the money they wrote those
electronic checks for knowing full well they did not have
the money in the bank to pay for it. To me its the same
type of deal.

If they were to repay what they took then i would see no
problem in letting it go but not addressing it as the theft
it is would be a mistake.

But you are very much correct there are different rules for
EBT systems, i wonder though if this would fall under theft
by deception. It certainly qualifies as that law is not specific
to one certain thing and can be applied to this i would think.
edit on 10-11-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join