quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Um, it may have escaped your attention - but buying something with a check for more money than is in your account
*is* illegal.

um, it may have escaped your attention - but they weren't writing checks for their groceries.. show me the law that states its illegal to pay for groceries with an ebt card if there isn't enough $ in the card.. (I expect the purchase simply gets rejected, just as a prepaid card would)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Um, it may have escaped your attention - but buying something with a check for more money than is in your account
*is* illegal.

um, it may have escaped your attention - but they weren't writing checks for their groceries.. show me the law that states its illegal to pay for groceries with an ebt card if there isn't enough $ in the card.. (I expect the purchase simply gets rejected, just as a prepaid card would)

As EBT cards are not debit cards, the comparison is relative.

Debit cards are simply electronic "checks" and are issued by a bank or institution with the explicit agreement that the bank will extend credit if charges exceed the balance of your account (and will debit your account with a hefty fee for doing so). The law now requires that banks not provide this overdraft protection unless you specifically "opt-in". Fraud with paper checks are most often (and more easily) prosecuted because checking the balance on an account is not typically done at the point of sale.

I assure you, however, if you overdraft with a debit card and do not put money into the bank to cover it, you most certainly can be prosecuted for fraud.

In either case, with paper checks or debit cards, the intent to fraud is taken into consideration. If you quickly deposit into your account sufficient funds to cover the overdraft and the associated fees, the bank assumes that you did not intend to fraud and will not forward your information to the prosecuting attorney.

As EBT cards are not issued by a bank, there is no credit to extend. The ability to charge above what is contained in an account does not exist under normal circumstances. That a situation occurred where balances could not be checked is not cart blanche to the cardholder to take advantage.

Here's an example from 2012 where a man withdrew $1.5 million from his account due to a bank glitch, when he knew full well that he did not have that much in his account.

If you want to rely on the local law enforcement about whether this is legal or not, then read more than one article...

Next step on food stamp fraud up to Wal-Mart, local police say

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
.

. show me the law that states its illegal to pay for groceries with an ebt card if there isn't enough $ in the card.. (I expect the purchase simply gets rejected, just as a prepaid card would)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

106 CMR: 367.490, 367.510.

Quoting for you: "An overissuance can also happen because of something you did on
purpose. This is called an intentional program violation (IPV) or SNAP“fraud.” An IPV is purposely giving false or misleading information,
hiding information to get benefits you are not eligible to receive, or
intentionally failing to report a change that would reduce your benefits. See
Question 88. Other IPVs include altering your Bay State Access card to get
more benefits, using your card to buy alcohol, tobacco, or other non-food
items, using someone else’s Bay State Access card for yourself, or selling
the use of your Bay State Access card to someone else. 106 C.M.R. §
367.525. These acts are also considered fraud."

Do I need to quote the civil and criminal penalties for fraud?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

106 CMR: 367.490, 367.510.

Quoting for you: "An overissuance can also happen because of something you did on
purpose. This is called an intentional program violation (IPV) or SNAP“fraud.” An IPV is purposely giving false or misleading information,
hiding information to get benefits you are not eligible to receive, or
intentionally failing to report a change that would reduce your benefits. See
Question 88. Other IPVs include altering your Bay State Access card to get
more benefits, using your card to buy alcohol, tobacco, or other non-food
items, using someone else’s Bay State Access card for yourself, or selling
the use of your Bay State Access card to someone else. 106 C.M.R. §
367.525. These acts are also considered fraud."

Do I need to quote the civil and criminal penalties for fraud?

except that the shoppers didn't give false info, they didn't alter their cards, they weren't (from the pics) using it to buy alcohol, cigs, or non-food items, they weren't using someone else's car or selling their cards, etc etc.. I find it quite strange that some people are down on poverty level poor people just trying to get enough food for their family & kids, yet ignoring that Walmart violated the rules/procedures and were trying to scam the govt (or Xerox) for the extra profit (obviously to some a much nobler reason..).. there will be no prosecution to the mega-corp for attempting that..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

When you get an EBT you get a letter saying what your monthly allowance is. Deliberately overspending that - as I just showed you - is fraud.
Regardless of your protests - it is *not* legal to steal - whether by force, deception or whatever.

You represent that these are poor people that are just trying to get food without evidence. Last I checked you can't eat a flat screen tv.

For the record, I'm also not saying that what the Walmart manager did was alright. He should have known better and should lose his job. But, it is not the job of walmart to track EBT spending. The government is supposed to rectify overpayments by the user with future underpayments.

without damages, very difficult to prosecute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

When you get an EBT you get a letter saying what your monthly allowance is. Deliberately overspending that - as I just showed you - is fraud.
Regardless of your protests - it is *not* legal to steal - whether by force, deception or whatever.

You represent that these are poor people that are just trying to get food without evidence. Last I checked you can't eat a flat screen tv.

For the record, I'm also not saying that what the Walmart manager did was alright. He should have known better and should lose his job. But, it is not the job of walmart to track EBT spending. The government is supposed to rectify overpayments by the user with future underpayments.

without damages, very difficult to prosecute.

Oh yes, its much better to throw these people in jail for fraud and send their kid so be wards of the state.. ..that really makes a lotta sense, not just from the view of the damage to the family but from the considerably higher cost to taxpayers..
Again, the govt has said they wont pay anything over the $50 limit so they are not on the hook for any overpayments..
Any pics I saw showed food only in the carts, so can you show me where these shoppers bought a flat screen tv with their ebt card?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
except that the shoppers didn't give false info, they didn't alter their cards, they weren't (from the pics) using it to buy alcohol, cigs, or non-food items, they weren't using someone else's car or selling their cards, etc etc.. I find it quite strange that some people are down on poverty level poor people just trying to get enough food for their family & kids, yet ignoring that Walmart violated the rules/procedures and were trying to scam the govt (or Xerox) for the extra profit (obviously to some a much nobler reason..).. there will be no prosecution to the mega-corp for attempting that..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Again, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am in favor of prosecuting these people, when I have already said in my first statement that the police correctly decided not to prosecute.

I merely corrected you when you said that the people did nothing wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Actually, no one is ignoring that WalMart ignored the rules. Who, here, is saying that WalMart shouldn't have to eat the overages (over the $50 limits)? WalMart didn't break any rules, and will lose some profits.

The people that took advantage of the situation (and WalMart's benevolence) still didn't abide the rules, and did break the law. There are likely rules in place (as Phydeaux and Heretic) have shown, to deal with events of this sort. The atypical thing, here, is that the costs aren't likely to hit the government program, so the damages, to the program, are quite low.

WalMart shouldn't have any civil standing to bring suit against those that abused the situation, since it was their choice to allow the use of the cards. But, that doesn't mean that some EBT beneficiaries didn't break the rules. The punishments should follow whatever procedure is in place for these situations.

Being poor, elderly, etc., does not put you above the law or program rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

I am still waiting for the photo of someone trying to buy a flat screen tv with their ebt card.. since that is what you have claimed they were doing..

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

I am still waiting for the photo of someone trying to buy a flat screen tv with their ebt card.. since that is what you have claimed they were doing..

I can't help with such a photo, but I will point out that SNAP are not the only benefits delivered on the EBT card. The cash aid from TANF also is delivered on it. While the outage only impacted the SNAP account data, it isn't too far out of line to speculate that some might have tried to go big.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

ummmm... there is no other part of the issue.. there is nothing the State will or can do about those that (allegedly) abused the situation.. the State has already washed its hands of the situation when it said it wont pay walmart for anything over $50 so if they wont pay walmart, they have no right to do a dam thing to those people that got more than $50 in groceries.. The State would only have the right to "punish" those people (financially, morally) if the State paid walmart in full..

Criminal prosecution is not dependent on whether the State was damaged.

and yet (as I pointed out in a previous post) that Springhill Police Chief Will Lynd has already stated "The shoppers broke no laws".. I would expect a Police Chief would know what is legal and what isn't, since its his job to know these things..

http://news.msn.com/us/wal-mart-xerox-blame-each-other-for-food-stamps-spree

Actually, interesting editorial issue. Read your post and note that comment is not "quoted". So either the chief did not say that exactly or there is an editorial issue.

People often don't speak with precision. And police ignore things that are not worth their time, all the time. Just like he should have here.

The police could have arrested them. But he would know that no prosecutor would take the case and they would only release them.

Have you never seen looters looting a store while police stand buy? I have - many, many times. I've reported people stealing cars - and been told do not follow them - we're not going to do anything about it.

Drug sales and prostitution happen 24/7 two blocks away - within sight of a police cruiser. why would they risk their asses etting shot?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

And I've been in line behind people who were told what had to be paid from each set of benefits, TJ. What is available on an individual's EBT card will depend entirely on what assistance they get. Lots more people receive food stamps only, than get cash aid, or all the other potential benefits you'll find in the generous states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Again, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am in favor of prosecuting these people, when I have already said in my first statement that the police correctly decided not to prosecute.

I merely corrected you when you said that the people did nothing wrong.

I am still waiting for the photo of someone trying to buy a flat screen tv with their ebt card.. since that is what you have claimed they were doing..

I see what they did as being the lessor of two evils, but I get that you believe they were wrong to attempt to get more food so their family and kids didn't starve for the last few days of every month when they run out of the food they are allowed to buy with their cards.. I really find it hard to believe anyone would not do the same thing if they were in that financial situation and needing to rely on ebt to keep from starving for part of the month, faced with not knowing what was going on with the ebt system, not knowing how long it would take to fix & the level of distrust they likely have of govt sanity..

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
yeah, but I am under the impression that some people don't get any.. for instance, I was at the library and there was a youngish guy sitting at the table I was at.. another older/senior guy came up to him and started talking (they seemed to know each other). The senior asked the young guy where he could get something to eat and he said he hadn't had anything that day and should try to get one meal at least, even if it was just ramen noodles.. I am guessing the senior guy was homeless and so not able to get ebt benefits or whatever.. so I don't throw stones at people that are trying to get food and survive another day, by whatever means..

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, no one is ignoring that WalMart ignored the rules. Who, here, is saying that WalMart shouldn't have to eat the overages (over the $50 limits)? WalMart didn't break any rules, and will lose some profits.
The people that took advantage of the situation (and WalMart's benevolence) still didn't abide the rules, and did break the law. There are likely rules in place (as Phydeaux and Heretic) have shown, to deal with events of this sort. The atypical thing, here, is that the costs aren't likely to hit the government program, so the damages, to the program, are quite low.
WalMart shouldn't have any civil standing to bring suit against those that abused the situation, since it was their choice to allow the use of the cards. But, that doesn't mean that some EBT beneficiaries didn't break the rules. The punishments should follow whatever procedure is in place for these situations.
Being poor, elderly, etc., does not put you above the law or program rules.

I have no problem with Walmart allowing people to buy food above $50 so people could feed their families, but when they made that decision it was theirs alone, so what I find "criminal"/wrong in what Walmart did simply to be their attempt to get the govt and/or Xerox to pay the overages instead of eating the overages themselves without complaint..

quote:

yes, I get that many in America would prefer to see the poor, elderly, etc starve instead..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Again, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am in favor of prosecuting these people, when I have already said in my first statement that the police correctly decided not to prosecute.

I merely corrected you when you said that the people did nothing wrong.

I am still waiting for the photo of someone trying to buy a flat screen tv with their ebt card.. since that is what you have claimed they were doing..

I see what they did as being the lessor of two evils, but I get that you believe they were wrong to attempt to get more food so their family and kids didn't starve for the last few days of every month when they run out of the food they are allowed to buy with their cards.. I really find it hard to believe anyone would not do the same thing if they were in that financial situation and needing to rely on ebt to keep from starving for part of the month, faced with not knowing what was going on with the ebt system, not knowing how long it would take to fix & the level of distrust they likely have of govt sanity..

Scroll up. The links to pictures of flat screen tvs have been posted.

Being poor doesn't make you a thief. Being a thief makes you a thief.

As for the rest. No one, not me, not any conservative, wants to deny food, shelter to the deserving poor. I've worked at food kitchens.

But I do have problems with people buying flat screen TVs. I do have problems with people driving up in lincolns and cadillacs. I do have problems with 12 year olds have kids - and remaining in the custody of *their* parents.