Uhh he did violate the terms of acceptance, nothing nebulous at all here. He violated, they actually gave him a process to try and prove his violations were not and he failed at that and was banned.
> kicks businesses out of food stamp program on dubious fraud charges
> Mejia violated the agency’s rules, which prohibit retailers from establishing informal credit systems with their customers.
> many of them, like [Mejia], were probably unjustly caught in the crosshairs
So which is it? Is the charge unjust and dubious, or did he violate the rules?
(Not making any political point myself - just can't even work out what the opinion of the article is on whether he was doing something that was not allowed in the system he was using.)
He violated rules, rules that were set up to avoid fraud. This is what happens, when one reduces everything to a set of rules.
There are actions that are not fraudulent (as the case with Mejia), but considered fraudulent by rules set up by the agency. This is a case where agencies hide behind rules, algorithms, etc.
You have to have rules for such a program. You can't have fraud judged arbitrarily or allow anything regardless of how easy it makes it to commit fraud.
This guy should have read the rules and followed them. If he's not willing to do that, then the decision to end the relationship with him makes sense.
> So which is it? Is the charge unjust and dubious, or did he violate the rules?
Both these things can be true. I think the point of the article is that there was no fraud against the government, in the sense that he did not bill them for food stamps that never existed - he maintained a credit system, which is against the rules, but not fraudulent. (The definition of fraud requires the victim of fraud to have actually lost something; unless you argue that the government lost interest from floating some people's food for a few days, they weren't actually defrauded.)
This is why (if I'm reading it right) the article says that the government didn't prove fraud (because he didn't keep itemized receipts) - the intent of the rule and the algorithm is to catch people using food stamps on ineligible purchases, using nonexistent food stamps, etc. The investigation could have proved that no fraud existed if it turned out he gave them credit for eligible purchases, or that it did exist if he gave them credit for ineligible purchases, or made up credit out of thin air, but it didn't prove anything because there were no records. So violation of the rules got him kicked out of the system.
> I think the point of the article is that there was no fraud against the government
Mejia violated the agency’s rules, which prohibit retailers from establishing informal credit systems with their customers.
The agency wanted itemized receipts for the purchases that had been flagged, but Mejia’s cash registers at the time printed only total sales figures; he couldn’t provide an accounting of the individual products that his clients had bought on credit.
He admitted to breaking a rule of the program, so all his transactions were now fraudulent. Then he couldn't prove that those transactions weren't fraudulent because he had no itemized records of each purchase. He is quite lucky all they did was kick him out of the program.
Frankly, anyone who enters one of these programs and doesn't keep records of what was purchased is foolish. This is a program that will come down like a hammer if you let someone microwave a legally bought burrito while still in the store since it then becomes illegal.
> [Mejia] says he knows he broke the rules by allowing customers to buy on credit, and he accepts the agency’s decision to permanently disqualify him from SNAP.
So he broke the rules, not in an attempt to defraud the system but by helping out the neighbors by giving them credit on purchases.
...which I could see as causing a problem, you spend all your benefits for next month, pay off the bill when they put money on the card, spend all your benefits for next month, rinse and repeat.
not in an attempt to defraud the system but by helping out the neighbors by giving them credit on purchases
At this point, he cannot prove that was the case since he doesn't have records of the items purchased. He might be on the side of angels, but he sure is doing everything a scammer would do. Plus, the whole pay next month thing is just fundamentally a problem (what happens if eligibility is lost?) in addition to the treadmill you pointed out.
If the author really cared about the root problem of why someone would run a credit system, perhaps they could have looked at the once a month payment system that EBT uses and what ramifications that has. Take a quick look at places that accept EBT and notice what specials they have on the first of the month as opposed to the rest. Notice any police checkpoints that only seem to get setup on the first? Notice where they are? Go into a local Walmart on the morning of the first day of the month and observe. Look at EBT related signs especially in gas stations that accept EBT (check the microwave).
Walmart accepts EBT and has cheap groceries. So, when the EBT refreshes you get quite the crowd there. A lot of money gets spent. For folks not going to Walmart, it is interesting to see what is on sale or what never goes on sale at the first of the month.
Now, the interesting thing is since Walmart is such a destination, you will find some interesting policing in some communities. I would love someone to do an actual study on who gets tickets at what times of the month. After all, kicking people when they are down is pretty safe.
Grocery store 1: No credit option, must have a positive balance on my EBT card.
Grocery store 2 (P&L Deli Grocery) flexible credit option, able to take a loan out while waiting for EBT card to get replenished.
As a customer, which one of these two offerings is better?
#2 is clearly a better grocery store. It is a grocery + lender for those on EBT cards!
The EBT system (and, likely every other credit card / merchant processor) bans informal credit because there is no basis of control or audit-ability on these kinds of transactions.
For those confused by the use of the word "fraud" here, the US government today considers fraud to cover both financial misdeeds, as well as (their) rules violations where no money is involved.
If you follow the news, you'll see the word "fraud" increasingly thrown around as it gives the government a bigger hammer to use on its citizens.
Meanwhile, actual fraud like civil asset forfeiture rolls along with full government endorsement.
What about employee perks like doing your laundry for you, cooking your meals, cleaning your house, and giving you a ride to work every day? Do those infantilize grown adults?
I think they'd both be pretty degrading, wouldn't they? One treats you like you're incapable of making purchasing decisions and the other treats you like you're incapable of using a vacuum.
> What about employee perks like doing your laundry for you, cooking your meals, cleaning your house, and giving you a ride to work every day? Do those infantilize grown adults?
None of those services are anything like the government managing a bank account for you. Anyone can decide they don't want those employee perks, someone on food stamps does not have much of a choice.
I've encountered plenty of food stamp recipients, including my own parents when I was younger, and I've yet to see someone be "infantilized" by the ability to afford food.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but I think the infantilization comes from giving special stamps that can only be used to buy things the State lets you, instead of the equivalent value in cash. Why can one buy a sugar-loaded soda but not a beer?
I guess what's considered food is up to opinion. I've seen countless people using food stamps for energy drinks and chips. While paying cash for their lotto and cigarillos.
Readit News
Very misleading title.
> Mejia violated the agency’s rules, which prohibit retailers from establishing informal credit systems with their customers.
> many of them, like [Mejia], were probably unjustly caught in the crosshairs
So which is it? Is the charge unjust and dubious, or did he violate the rules?
(Not making any political point myself - just can't even work out what the opinion of the article is on whether he was doing something that was not allowed in the system he was using.)
There are actions that are not fraudulent (as the case with Mejia), but considered fraudulent by rules set up by the agency. This is a case where agencies hide behind rules, algorithms, etc.
This guy should have read the rules and followed them. If he's not willing to do that, then the decision to end the relationship with him makes sense.
Both these things can be true. I think the point of the article is that there was no fraud against the government, in the sense that he did not bill them for food stamps that never existed - he maintained a credit system, which is against the rules, but not fraudulent. (The definition of fraud requires the victim of fraud to have actually lost something; unless you argue that the government lost interest from floating some people's food for a few days, they weren't actually defrauded.)
This is why (if I'm reading it right) the article says that the government didn't prove fraud (because he didn't keep itemized receipts) - the intent of the rule and the algorithm is to catch people using food stamps on ineligible purchases, using nonexistent food stamps, etc. The investigation could have proved that no fraud existed if it turned out he gave them credit for eligible purchases, or that it did exist if he gave them credit for ineligible purchases, or made up credit out of thin air, but it didn't prove anything because there were no records. So violation of the rules got him kicked out of the system.
Mejia violated the agency’s rules, which prohibit retailers from establishing informal credit systems with their customers.
The agency wanted itemized receipts for the purchases that had been flagged, but Mejia’s cash registers at the time printed only total sales figures; he couldn’t provide an accounting of the individual products that his clients had bought on credit.
He admitted to breaking a rule of the program, so all his transactions were now fraudulent. Then he couldn't prove that those transactions weren't fraudulent because he had no itemized records of each purchase. He is quite lucky all they did was kick him out of the program.
Frankly, anyone who enters one of these programs and doesn't keep records of what was purchased is foolish. This is a program that will come down like a hammer if you let someone microwave a legally bought burrito while still in the store since it then becomes illegal.
So he broke the rules, not in an attempt to defraud the system but by helping out the neighbors by giving them credit on purchases.
...which I could see as causing a problem, you spend all your benefits for next month, pay off the bill when they put money on the card, spend all your benefits for next month, rinse and repeat.
At this point, he cannot prove that was the case since he doesn't have records of the items purchased. He might be on the side of angels, but he sure is doing everything a scammer would do. Plus, the whole pay next month thing is just fundamentally a problem (what happens if eligibility is lost?) in addition to the treadmill you pointed out.
Dead Comment
Now, the interesting thing is since Walmart is such a destination, you will find some interesting policing in some communities. I would love someone to do an actual study on who gets tickets at what times of the month. After all, kicking people when they are down is pretty safe.
Grocery store 1: No credit option, must have a positive balance on my EBT card.
Grocery store 2 (P&L Deli Grocery) flexible credit option, able to take a loan out while waiting for EBT card to get replenished.
As a customer, which one of these two offerings is better?
#2 is clearly a better grocery store. It is a grocery + lender for those on EBT cards!
The EBT system (and, likely every other credit card / merchant processor) bans informal credit because there is no basis of control or audit-ability on these kinds of transactions.
If you follow the news, you'll see the word "fraud" increasingly thrown around as it gives the government a bigger hammer to use on its citizens.
Meanwhile, actual fraud like civil asset forfeiture rolls along with full government endorsement.
None of those services are anything like the government managing a bank account for you. Anyone can decide they don't want those employee perks, someone on food stamps does not have much of a choice.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment