Certified Fraud

[hurley9192]

I am taking the exam to receive my Certified Fraud Examiner designation...no, it's not some joke, it is highly regarded in the litigation consulting arena...anyways, very interesting comment from the Fraud Examiners Manual...this is written proof directly from it...

Naturally, any give-away or prize that requires winners to pay a fee or make a purchase is a scam. Regardless of name recognition, promoters who use these tactics are breaking the law

I don't know if that is anymore definitive proof that you would need, but it's hard to argue against.

[MatrixWatch]

That is a pretty powerful quote. If you have the time, would you mind leaving us the exact citation from where you got it.

[concerned]

They will find a way to argue it, although it will be ILLOGICAL. They will say that since it worked for them, then it must not be a scam.

Even if you show proof that 1,000,000 people got scamed, one guy will come in and say, "I didn't get scamed, therefore it is not a scam, duh."

[MatrixWatch]

and in addition to this... Hurley brings up a counterargument to one of their other claims where they say: "Since matrix sites have not been ruled out as illegal in the courts, it is bona fide until then".

[tcb1969a]

Originally posted by hurley9192
I am taking the exam to receive my Certified Fraud Examiner designation...no, it's not some joke, it is highly regarded in the litigation consulting arena...anyways, very interesting comment from the Fraud Examiners Manual...this is written proof directly from it...

Naturally, any give-away or prize that requires winners to pay a fee or make a purchase is a scam. Regardless of name recognition, promoters who use these tactics are breaking the law

I don't know if that is anymore definitive proof that you would need, but it's hard to argue against.

Interesting qoute, I can not argue with that.....What state is that in, or is that a federal statute......?

[hurley9192]

It's from section 1.1733 of the Certified Fraud Examiner manual, third edition.

It's a US edition, so I don't know which federal statute it would fall under.

[uwantme]

Originally posted by hurley9192
I am taking the exam to receive my Certified Fraud Examiner designation...no, it's not some joke, it is highly regarded in the litigation consulting arena...anyways, very interesting comment from the Fraud Examiners Manual...this is written proof directly from it...

Naturally, any give-away or prize that requires winners to pay a fee or make a purchase is a scam. Regardless of name recognition, promoters who use these tactics are breaking the law

I don't know if that is anymore definitive proof that you would need, but it's hard to argue against.

Then I dont understand how subway, haircut, an bluckbuster arent running scams. because YOU HAVE TO MAKE A PURCHASE or in fact several of them to recieve your free gift...

[MatrixWatch]

And we have already debated this one out with you. Here is the link:

http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=205&perpage=10&pagenumber=1

[hurley9192]

yeah, I just ran out the math on this in a different post...

As with the Subway argument...

Subway...you pay $5 for 10 subs=$50 and get a $5 sub free.

Matrix...you pay $45 for some product and get a $900 product free. If you paid into the matrix $45 ten times and got a $40 free gift, it would be hard to argue against that type of matrix. However, no one will sign up for that and you would make a boatload of cash in the process.

If your matrix was like the subway thing, you would pay $3000 and buy 10 X-box's or whatever and get an X-box free. So, they are totally different things.

it's also like the buy one get one free promotions. In a matrix, you are buying a tenth of one and getting one free.

[uwantme]

I responded on both of the posts if you want to carry it there and no one has yet to prove the difference to me using the law.....

[MatrixWatch]

Originally posted by uwantme
I responded on both of the posts if you want to carry it there and no one has yet to prove the difference to me using the law.....

Then we will carry it over there

http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3279#post3279

[matrixfriendly]

Originally posted by hurley9192
I am taking the exam to receive my Certified Fraud Examiner designation...no, it's not some joke, it is highly regarded in the litigation consulting arena...anyways, very interesting comment from the Fraud Examiners Manual...this is written proof directly from it...

Naturally, any give-away or prize that requires winners to pay a fee or make a purchase is a scam. Regardless of name recognition, promoters who use these tactics are breaking the law

I don't know if that is anymore definitive proof that you would need, but it's hard to argue against.

Apparently the Subway issue has not been debated out. This quote groups them with the illegal, so which is it? Is it that some of the most prominent companies in the US are frauds since they give away free products. There is no difference. A free product that requires a purchase is and will always be a free product that requires a purchase to receive. This quote does not state anything about prices of the required purchase or the price of the free gift.

[Arzel]

I was reading up on Subway, and I think it might be better to look at it a different way.

they way Subway refers to the Sub Club cards and tickets is more like a redemable ticket. Each ticket is actually worth $0.50 off an item (not all stores participate). Apparently subway is going to a credit card type system where everything you buy earns a certain number of points which you can redem for various items, kind of like the frequent flyers miles on airlines.

The general matrix model is nothing like that.

[matrixfriendly]

I think I seen something on that also, but the argument was based on the current system of these companies. The quote above would blanket all of these types of promotions. Even though you are not entered into a drawing you still have to make some sort of purchase in order to be elgible. There is no way around that. The Subway promotion requires a purchase by the customer for them to be eligible.

[Arzel]

You are not winning anything with those promotions, you are earning it.

[matrixfriendly]

Originally posted by Arzel
You are not winning anything with those promotions, you are earning it.

I made no mention of winning anything. I was going with the quote from above.

"Naturally, any give-away or prize that requires winners to pay a fee or make a purchase is a scam. Regardless of name recognition, promoters who use these tactics are breaking the law"

I was going with the (any give-away prize). This does not specify in what way the give-away was aquired only that a purchase was necessary. In the subway case as you put it you still have to purchase in order to earn the give-away product.

[Arzel]

It is not a giveaway either.

[matrixfriendly]

Are you paying for it? Then they are giving it to you, hence a give-away. Corrcect me if I am wrong but if you paid for it there would actually be no promotion.

[spinningwheels]

In the "Big Game" 100,000,000 tickets are purchased by 100,000,000 people and the money is pooled. Why wouldn't a class action lawsuit cover this too?

State lotteries tell consumers a portion of money goes to public schools, better roads, blah, blah. The state where I live the roads get worse and the schools are more broke than ever and not to mention the 15% raises that the state legislature vote for themselves every year. Isn't this just one big "EBOOK" with no value?

I wish my boss would walk into work and tell all the workers "OK everyone gather 'round your gunna vote for a raise for yourselves. Do you want a 15% raise or not?"

[Matrix-Support]

You have a point there.

[spinningwheels]

I would love to recoup all the money I blew on Lottos. Back in the day I thought spending $5 every other day was just chump change. Also the days when the jackpot hit $100s of millions I would buy $20 $30 in tickets to increase my chances, LOL. When it all adds up your out $2G+ a year.

Looking back when I made a measley 32G a year after taxes that 2G comes out to 6% of my take home!

Ill give the matrix community one good point. At least when you spend your $25 that $25 keeps working for you. The state lottery should take this idea, make the tickets good for at least a year for GODs sake.

[Matrix-Support]

Originally posted by spinningwheels
I would love to recoup all the money I blew on Lottos. Back in the day I thought spending $5 every other day was just chump change. Also the days when the jackpot hit $100s of millions I would buy $20 $30 in tickets to increase my chances, LOL. When it all adds up your out $2G+ a year.

Looking back when I made a measley 32G a year after taxes that 2G comes out to 6% of my take home!

Ill give the matrix community one good point. At least when you spend your $25 that $25 keeps working for you. The state lottery should take this idea, make the tickets good for at least a year for GODs sake.

When there is no tax, That will be the day..LOL

[tcb1969a]

Originally posted by spinningwheels
In the "Big Game" 100,000,000 tickets are purchased by 100,000,000 people and the money is pooled. Why wouldn't a class action lawsuit cover this too?

State lotteries tell consumers a portion of money goes to public schools, better roads, blah, blah. The state where I live the roads get worse and the schools are more broke than ever and not to mention the 15% raises that the state legislature vote for themselves every year. Isn't this just one big "EBOOK" with no value?

I wish my boss would walk into work and tell all the workers "OK everyone gather 'round your gunna vote for a raise for yourselves. Do you want a 15% raise or not?"

Well, that's because the state has their hand in the money. If the state were to regulate Matrices, then there would be no problem....As long as the state gets to have their hand in something that puts money in their pockets, they will legalize anything......

[northstar5757]

I had to vote no. The statement is just way too general. All those buy one get one free deals would fall under the catagory.

[uwantme]

Originally posted by tcb1969a
Well, that's because the state has their hand in the money. If the state were to regulate Matrices, then there would be no problem....As long as the state gets to have their hand in something that puts money in their pockets, they will legalize anything......

Well maybe that is what will come from the lawsuit. Mayne the will all be "deemed legal" and the states will just start taxing them like casinos, or lotteries... Just curious but if that did happen would you still keep your sites open tcb or would the cost of taxes be to high?

[tcb1969a]

Originally posted by uwantme
Well maybe that is what will come from the lawsuit. Mayne the will all be "deemed legal" and the states will just start taxing them like casinos, or lotteries... Just curious but if that did happen would you still keep your sites open tcb or would the cost of taxes be to high?

The cost of taxes would probably be to high, though I would have to cross that bridge when I get to it........

[hurley9192]

depends how it is taxed and what kind of entity it is setup as...I would think you would pay sales tax on your actual sales, which would be about 8% in CA. However, you would probably have close to no net income and if set up as a single member LLC, you would have next to no taxable income.

[spydrman]

Maybe i'm wrong, but I don't think online sales have to be taxed most of the time. I remember hearing awhile back that Wal-Mart voluntarily started taxing online sales, and a few other major retailers voluntarily taxed sales online as well. So, what am I missing here? If someone has a business license in the state of say Illinois, they must tax customers from that state who buy from them online. That's how it is with most states anyway, but i've never heard of every sale online as being taxed????

[hurley9192]

If a company runs an online store, like amazon.com, they have to pay sales tax. Otherwise, no one would sell anything out of their store. They would have a computer setup at the counter, have you buy it online and then give it to you so they wouldn't sell anything through their cash register.

Actually, they wouldn't have to pay sales tax for out of state purchases, but they would be required to pay use tax, which is the same percentage in the state they run their operations for all out of state purchases.

Otherwise, like I said, it would be a nightmare and no one would ever pay sales tax because the purchase was made online, even if it was done from a computer at the store itself.

[spydrman]

Actually, I just checked the amazon.com site on a dvd order and they did not tax it. Are you saying that amazon.com is being taxed by the gov't, but the customers are not necessarily being taxed for all online sales? That would make more sense because I've ordered from several websites and not all of them tax your order.

[hurley9192]

as far as I know...a company has to pay atleast a sales tax or use tax in the state they operate. Most companies don't pay use tax and that's why they don't charge tax for out of state purposes. However, they must not be reporting their out of state income then either.

[Gowen32]

Never thought about it that way with the whole subway thing and stuff.