• onslaught545@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      It’s pretty much the textbook definition of fraud. What are you talking about?

      Fraud is defined as intentional deception to deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim.

      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.

      • Zahtu@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        27 days ago

        I do Not See the fraud here. If He would have given the Girls His real Birthday, He would have still received the Same amount of Gifts. Nothing would have changed in exchanging the Gifts.

        The only Thing, which it probably helped at, was that He could plan ahead for the birthdays, avoiding a Potential meet-in of each girl, that He dated on the Same Day. The only Thing He is gullible of ist deceiving the Woman on their Relationship. Which is Not an offenes in a legal Sense. There is no punishment for 2-timing, so 35-timing should Not have either

        • AugustWest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          What’s going on with your capitalization? I spent way too much time looking for hidden messages and came away with nothing except the - entirely unrelated - hypothesis that you are German.

          • Zahtu@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            Yeah, i am German and autocorrect is my enemy. Especially when writing english. It is still the Default Setup from Google GBoard, but it is so fucking bad.

      • knight_alva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        27 days ago

        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.

        • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          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.

          • knight_alva@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            26 days ago

            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.

  • foodconsumer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    I’m stupid, can someone explain to me how this is illegal? Like morally questionable I get, but how is it illegal?

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      According to a quick Google fraud in Japan is

      obtaining property or illicit economic advantages through deceit.

      Gifts I assume are property here