Login Now to remove this and all advertisements (GOLD and SILVER members)
Not a member? Register Now for free

Myrewards, mybonus earnpoints promo in Sept-Dec 2008

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sampson

Guest
Heads up: If you were subjected to exclusion, suspension, reduce benefits or denied 'split bills' or weren't paid "1 c bills', get your application into Fos. Word is the US Feds are looking into Amex Oz' operations. someone was paid out , not others.


amex citigroup ed gilligan.jpg
 
D

desiredusername

Guest
"Wiring" points from the US looks like a nightmare
. Where's that apology letter which they refused to pay up on at the promo's conclusion?
[FONT=&quot]http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41931.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The element may also be satisfied by mailings or communications designed to lull the victim into a [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]false sense of security, postpone inquiries or complaints, or make the transaction less suspect. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mail and Wire Fraud: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Congressional Research Service [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Scheme to Defraud[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]: The mail and wire fraud statutes both prohibit, in pertinent part, any scheme [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]representations, or promises, or deprive another of the right to honest services by such means. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From the beginning, Congress intended to reach a wide range of schemes to defraud, and has [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]expanded the concept whenever doubts arose. It added the second prong – obtaining money or [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]property by false pretenses, representations, or promises – after defendants had suggested that the [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]term “scheme to defraud” covered false pretenses concerning present conditions but not [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]representations or promises of future conditions. More recently, it added Section 1346 to make it [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]clear the term “scheme to defraud” encompassed schemes to defraud another of the right to [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]honest services. Even before that adornment, the words were understood to refer to wronging one [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes, and usually signify the deprivation of [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]something of value by trick, deceit, chicane or overreaching[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]RICO has one of the first contemporary forfeiture provisions covering property and interests acquired [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]through RICO violations. As noted earlier, any RICO predicate offense is by virtue of that fact a [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]money laundering predicate. Victims enjoy a cause of action for treble damages when injured in [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To establish the laundering or concealment offense, the government must establish that: (1) the [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]defendant conducted, or attempted to conduct a financial transaction which in any way or degree [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]affected interstate commerce or foreign commerce; (2) the financial transaction involved proceeds [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of illegal activity; (3) the defendant knew the property represented proceeds of some form of [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]unlawful activity; and (4) the defendant conducted or attempted to conduct the financial [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]transaction knowing the transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]activity. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Foreign Corrupt Practices[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]: The bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act are three: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15 U.S.C. 78dd-1(trade practices by issuers), 78dd-2 (trade practices by domestic concerns), [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]78dd-3 (trade practices by others within the United States). Other than class of potential [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]defendants, the elements of the three are comparable. They make it a crime to: (1) willfully; (2) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce; (3) corruptly; (4) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of any [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]money, or offer, gift, promise to give, or authorization of the giving of anything of value to; (5) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]any foreign official; (6) for purposes of either influencing any act or decision of such foreign [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]official in his official capacity or inducing such foreign official to do or omit to do any act in [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]violation of the lawful duty of such official or securing any improper advantage; (7) in order to [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]assist such corporation in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]person. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]None of the three proscriptions apply to payments to expedite or to secure the performance of a [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]routine governmental action, and each affords defendants an affirmative defense for payments [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]that are lawful under the applicable foreign law or regulation. Violations are punishable by [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]imprisonment for not more than 5 years and by a fine of not more than $100,000 (not more than [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]$2 million for organizations). Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations are not RICO predicate [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]offenses, but they are money laundering predicates. The proceeds of a violation are subject to [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]forfeiture under either civil or criminal procedure. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mail and Wire Fraud: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Congressional Research Service [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Author Contact Information [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Charles Doyle [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Senior Specialist in American Public Law [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]cdoyle@crs.loc.gov, 7-6968 [/FONT]
 
S

sampson

Guest
hmm.

Page 69 of Amex's Quarterly report for 2008 really does say they were under investigation when the computers went down.

so who did they 'pay' to not spill the beans on split bills, multiple transactions, etc at 1000 points each? and don't think the Dept of Justice wasn't looking down under


Other Matters



During the last few years as regulatory interest in credit card network pricing to merchants and related issues has increased, the Company has responded to many inquiries from banking and competition authorities throughout the world. On October 14, 2008, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID), dated October 10, 2008, from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). A CID is a request for information in the course of a civil investigation and does not constitute the commencement of legal proceedings. The DOJ is permitted by statute to issue a CID to anyone whom it believes may have information relevant to an investigation. The receipt of a CID does not presuppose that there is probable cause to believe that a violation of the antitrust laws has occurred or that a formal complaint ultimately will be filed. The DOJ has requested the production of documents and information regarding the Company’s policies relating to merchant surcharging and its “anti-steering” policies that prohibit merchants from discriminating against the Card in favor of other forms of payment. The Company intends to cooperate with the DOJ’s request.
 
D

desiredusername

Guest
amex 23 Nov 2013 australia witnesses10062014.jpg
Australian witnesses? This is gettiing curioser and curiouser
 
S

sampson

Guest
View attachment 29503
Australian witnesses? This is gettiing curioser and curiouser
Saw this - it's huge.
What is this lawsuit about? The lawsuit is about American Express’s rules for merchants that accept American Express cards as payment for goods and/or services and the fees paid by merchants for accepting American Express cards. Class Plaintiffs claim that American Express violated the antitrust laws by imposing rules that limited merchants from steering their customers to other payment methods and requiring merchants that want to accept any American Express cards to accept all American Express cards. The Class Plaintiffs claim that doing so insulated American Express from competitive pressure to lower merchant fees and caused an upward spiral in merchant fees for American Express, Visa and MasterCard.
American Express denies Class Plaintiffs’ claims and says it has done nothing wrong. American Express says that the challenged conduct was lawful, justified, and benefited competition, merchants, and consumers.
Back To Top


  • Deadline to Submit a Notice of Intent to Appear and Speak at the Final Approval Hearing:
    June 6, 2014
  • Final Approval Hearing:
    September 17, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
    United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
    225 Cadman Plaza East,
    Brooklyn, New York 11201.

Does it mean cash registers can say "Amex Welcome. 4% Welcome Fee Applies":evil:
 
D

desiredusername

Guest
All I wanted was an apology.:p

I have a question: wtf were Amex up too during the DoJ CID investigation? Give away 000,000's in $1 Raffle ticket points without a permit? What planet were they on?


galactic.jpg
Amex Merchant Settlement Administrator
PO Box 4349
Portland, OR 97208-4349
AmexQuestions@rwblawfirm.com
 
Get paid up to 25% in real cash from your everyday purchases from leading companies such as Virgin Australia, Booking.com, Woolworths, Coles, Apple, Microsoft and much more. Free to join and no catches!

Recommended by the Australian Frequent Flyer
S

sampson

Guest
All I wanted was an apology.:p

I have a question: wtf were Amex up too during the DoJ CID investigation? Give away 000,000's in $1 Raffle ticket points without a permit? What planet were they on?


View attachment 29559
Amex Merchant Settlement Administrator
PO Box 4349
Portland, OR 97208-4349
AmexQuestions@rwblawfirm.com
Fos confirmed they did the deal. Facilitating a payoff like that has journos talking.

Fos' ombudsman was a gaming commissioner

Fos' ombudsman was at the center of the scandal known as Solicitors G&B v Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd

Amex's lawyers were lawyers for the paid. hmmm.

Amex was a contracting party to the pad parties on Crown land with a company with Ministerially appointed managers: see the Private Room deal

Amex was a contracting party to US entities in the project: read the words 'obtain or retain business'

Amex ran off a FCPA checklist and Fos' file refers to Qantas' McCaffery Case: Section 1 Sherman Act charges culminating in a 8 month holiday

Amex knew more about backroom deals, and the SEC and US laws.

Amex "underpaid Peter to overpay Paul" for ineligible cards, unenrolled suspended poc'd people wth '1c' payouts at $1000 per cent.

Amex used Fos' "without prejudice" scheme during DoJ investigation stages.

Fos covers its backside, just as its ex Ombudsman tried before the ATO etc went through all the players hiding stuff behind 'administrative privilege' in his past life.

This will be interesting.

Here's a link to the research. the DoJ case will crucify Amex imo.
Thomas Jefferson School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series
Contact:Bryan H. Wildenthal
Email: bryanw@tjsl.edu
Postal: Thomas Jefferson School of Law
2121 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 USA
Phone:619-297-9700
URL:TJSL Homepage | Thomas Jefferson School of Law
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Community Statistics

Threads
86,413
Messages
2,088,035
Members
53,791
Latest member
sunshineecocleaners

Currently Active Users

Top