Illegal family & friends use ends up in court

[markis10]

Woman posed as Marriott associate’s sister to get discounts for hotel stays in S’pore

Kao Jane Zhao pleaded guilty to a cheating charge on Sept 4 and will be sentenced in October. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

Things folk get up to for a discount! I wonder if her appearance gave the game away, Michael Melendez probably doesn’t have an appearance similar to Kao Jane Zhao.

 

[Pvcmenace]

This issue will not happen so much any longer as from April this year these rates are linked via the associates employee online portal (with limits on how many beneficiaries) and is then loaded into the recepients app. Though It's funny different properties have different treatments using the rates. Some don't ask for proof others ask to see the link in the app.

 

[Noah Count]

Of all places not to bend or break rules, Singapore would be at top of my list. For most crimes all roads lead to jail.

 

[Quickstatus]

Any different to people pretending to be a family member of a QF frequent flyer?

 

[sudoer]

Any different to people pretending to be a family member of a QF frequent flyer?

Highly unlikely they can say a crime was committed in Singapore?

 

[Quickstatus]

Highly unlikely they can say a crime was committed in Singapore?

Sure, but i was referring to the actual act rather than where it was committed.

 

[anat0l]

. For most crimes all roads lead to jail.

...and/or a beating.

Any different to people pretending to be a family member of a QF frequent flyer?

...and that would result in punishment if it too were caught. But that probably doesn't rise to the level of criminal fraud; more you just broke the rules (or to the extent that QFF is convinced so), so you get penalised within or from the programme.

This wrong here is a criminal case (at least in Singapore) that goes beyond just the Marriott programme.

 

[Quickstatus]

But that probably doesn't rise to the level of criminal fraud

Why not?
Isn't that the very definition of fraud?

 

[sudoer]

I think a key difference is that the use of corporate rates (and similar) results in an easily quantifiable financial disadvantage to the property.

Selling Qantas points is different as:

20.4 Qantas Points do not have a monetary value and cannot be converted to money.

And Qantas doesn't necessarily lose any money through the unauthorised sale of points.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why not?
Isn't that the very definition of fraud?

No.

Things can be an against an airline’s rules or program terms and conditions, but not be criminal.

For example skiplagging. It’s against the rules, but not criminal.

The sale or barter of points is generally prohibited, but not criminal.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Things folk get up to for a discount! I wonder if her appearance gave the game away, Michael Melendez probably doesn’t have an appearance similar to Kao Jane Zhao.

Apparently Marriott Associates benefits are extended as far a siblings in-law. So not sure that would be an immediate giveaway.

Other sites have suggested it was the repeated extensions of stay, and the return visit that might have triggered investigation, given the value of the discount.

My understanding is that these stays aren’t on a ‘standby’ basis like airline staff travel. The hotel booking ks confirmed… so the hotel could lose revenue.

 

[anat0l]

Why not?
Isn't that the very definition of fraud?

Well, I suppose you might be right.

Would QF sue members who try to pass off mere friends as first cousins "fraudulently"? Maybe, but that's perhaps taking a sledgehammer to hit a nail, a waste of attorneys and what would be the restitution? As long as QF could claw back anything that was "fraudulently" gained (cancel points, bookings or accounts), I think they're happy to settle for that. If the member thinks they want their day in court to claw it back, then QF could call in the lawyers, but their objective (apart from claiming court costs) would still be staving off any loss rather than insisting punitive damages and/or sending the member to prison.

As for this person, there's verifiable monetary losses that can't just be "taken back". There's a difference between claiming falsely that someone is your cousin when they are not in order to transfer points to them or even redeem for them, versus misrepresenting yourself in a commercial contract in bad faith for tangible gain. I'm not sure if this might rise to a criminal offence in another jurisdiction due to the amount of money involved (and even if it did, how easy would it be to prosecute), but clearly in Singapore it's enough.

 

[Quickstatus]

there's verifiable monetary losses that can't just be "taken back"

I suppose QF would not want to argue there is less chance for the points to be used if it were not fraudulently obtained (even though points expiry is a positive revenue stream)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well, I suppose you might be right.

Would QF sue members who try to pass off mere friends as first cousins "fraudulently"? Maybe, but that's perhaps taking a sledgehammer to hit a nail, a waste of attorneys and what would be the restitution? As long as QF could claw back anything that was "fraudulently" gained (cancel points, bookings or accounts), I think they're happy to settle for that. If the member thinks they want their day in court to claw it back, then QF could call in the lawyers, but their objective (apart from claiming court costs) would still be staving off any loss rather than insisting punitive damages and/or sending the member to prison.

As for this person, there's verifiable monetary losses that can't just be "taken back". There's a difference between claiming falsely that someone is your cousin when they are not in order to transfer points to them or even redeem for them, versus misrepresenting yourself in a commercial contract in bad faith for tangible gain. I'm not sure if this might rise to a criminal offence in another jurisdiction due to the amount of money involved (and even if it did, how easy would it be to prosecute), but clearly in Singapore it's enough.

qantas would be bringing a civil action by suing, if they were to go down that path.

More likely as we see happens that any identified tickets get cancelled, and the member’s account gets closed with all points being forfeited.

That’s what we see happening for things like skiplagging or bartering of miles, or incorrect redemption nominees.

If it was a case of fraud the police would be involved and that could lead to criminal charges and gaol time.

Two very different paths. The criminal path we’ve seen invoked in cases where, for example, check-in agents have fraudulently created frequent flyer accounts for passengers who don’t have one, then sold the miles

 

[HMcM]

Why not?
Isn't that the very definition of fraud?

I think when it comes to something like saying someone is your cousin when they aren't there are 2 different scenarios.

1. I want to give some points to my best mate, I say he is my cousin so that I can give him points I otherwise couldn't have. I gain nothing, QANTAS loses nothing, my friend gains.
2. I want to sell points to a stranger, I say he is my cousin so I can sell him those points. I have lied and broken the terms of service to unduly enrich myself, selling something that I do not "own" and am not authorised to sell.

One of those a case of fraud could pretty easily be pushed, the other definitely doesn't pass the pub test.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think when it comes to something like saying someone is your cousin when they aren't there are 2 different scenarios.

1. I want to give some points to my best mate, I say he is my cousin so that I can give him points I otherwise couldn't have. I gain nothing, QANTAS loses nothing, my friend gains.
2. I want to sell points to a stranger, I say he is my cousin so I can sell him those points. I have lied and broken the terms of service to unduly enrich myself, selling something that I do not "own" and am not authorised to sell.

One of those a case of fraud could pretty easily be pushed, the other definitely doesn't pass the pub test.

Neither of those cases are fraud.

Both of them are the same, breach of contract.