It’s a poor definition because gift exchanges are strictly voluntary and non-reciprocal engagements. I’m not saying what he did was ok or even legal in other contexts. My only point is that I wouldn’t consider this fraud because the victims were not compelled to give. This isn’t a Nigerian prince scam where the victims were promised greater returns at a later date. These victims gave with the expectation of monetary loss.
Seems to fit the official definition pretty neatly. Colloquially, I tend to agree with you, there’s a spectrum for fraud. But this still counts as fraud. It’s a fraudulent misrepresentation of the truth to convince others to part with something of value (a gift).
The fact that it’s a gift doesn’t change that this is fraud, only the severity of fraud in a legal sense.
image of text: there’s this cool alternative called text that doesn’t break the web or accessibility. linking to source & quoting text makes an altogether better web for everyone.
dictionary definition: not an official, legal definition.
Fraud in the sense that the guy is lying and profiting from it, sure. But the common / google definition of a word and the legal definition/ application of that word are two completely different things.
They’re technically voluntary but also socially expected. I’m not sure about birthday gifts in particular but Japan is a country where if you go on holiday somewhere you’re expected to bring a gift for each of your coworkers, and people will think worse of you for not doing that. I’d be kind of surprised if omitting birthday gifts for your romantic partner without prior agreement is a real option.
It is materially different because a person with dementia can’t legally advocate for themselves so it is easier for an action against them to be considered a crime.
You don’t have to promise anything in return for it to be fraud. If I start a Go Fund Me because I have cancer when I really don’t have cancer, the people donating aren’t promised anything in return. It’s still fraud.
It’s pretty much the textbook definition of fraud. What are you talking about?
He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It’s even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.
In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.
It’s a poor definition because gift exchanges are strictly voluntary and non-reciprocal engagements. I’m not saying what he did was ok or even legal in other contexts. My only point is that I wouldn’t consider this fraud because the victims were not compelled to give. This isn’t a Nigerian prince scam where the victims were promised greater returns at a later date. These victims gave with the expectation of monetary loss.
Seems to fit the official definition pretty neatly. Colloquially, I tend to agree with you, there’s a spectrum for fraud. But this still counts as fraud. It’s a fraudulent misrepresentation of the truth to convince others to part with something of value (a gift).
The fact that it’s a gift doesn’t change that this is fraud, only the severity of fraud in a legal sense.
Advertising and politics?
laws don’t apply to politicians.
great, y’all want to get into Japanese criminal legal definitions?
Fraud in the sense that the guy is lying and profiting from it, sure. But the common / google definition of a word and the legal definition/ application of that word are two completely different things.
By that logic, fake fundraisers and romance scams shouldn’t be illegal either.
They’re technically voluntary but also socially expected. I’m not sure about birthday gifts in particular but Japan is a country where if you go on holiday somewhere you’re expected to bring a gift for each of your coworkers, and people will think worse of you for not doing that. I’d be kind of surprised if omitting birthday gifts for your romantic partner without prior agreement is a real option.
So, it’s not fraud if I tell my grandma with dementia that it’s my birthday once a week so she keeps giving me birthday checks?
Your grandma having dementia changes the formula a bit.
Not really, no. It’s still using deception for material gain through gift giving. Maybe it’s more of an extreme case, but I was being hyperbolic.
It is materially different because a person with dementia can’t legally advocate for themselves so it is easier for an action against them to be considered a crime.
It’s still using deception for material gain. Just because it’s harder to scam someone without dementia doesn’t make it not fraud.
That’s what most politicians do every election. Just saying.
Most politicians are absolutely guilty of fraud.
I’d even go so far as saying that fraud is pretty rampant in all levels of society.
laws don’t apply to politicians you silly
There is no mention of any consideration (a legal term meaning he didn’t promise them anything in return) provided by the “boyfriend”.
This would not be fraud under English common law.
You don’t have to promise anything in return for it to be fraud. If I start a Go Fund Me because I have cancer when I really don’t have cancer, the people donating aren’t promised anything in return. It’s still fraud.
The consideration is the exclusive romantic relationship. They wouldn’t have given him gifts if they didn’t believe they were in a relationship.
But this is probably fake.
Thank you for the addition
The cancer example is plausible, but I am not sure you would always win.
In that case you are asking for help for a specific reason. They “get to feel good about helping solve your problem”.
Your deception deprives them of their having done something good with their money - which is the tort.
In OP’s instance, he was saying that he had a birthday and you are giving him a gift.
Not the same - you can make the same argument, but it is even thinner gruel.
People get to feel good about getting someone a gift as well.
Well there’s your shady gray bit right in the definition. Is it unlawful to lie about your birthday?
Does either of those fill though?