An Indiana man was sentenced to 14 years in prison for selling counterfeit payment cards that caused more than $3 million in losses. Tony Perez III, 21, received the sentence on Friday, five months after pleading guilty to one count each of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. He was also ordered to forfeit more than $2.8 …
It's far too good for him. Sure 3,000,000 on 21,000 cards breaks down to only 143 each but it should be 1 year for each person who has had to put up with kind of B.S. Of course if he handed each person a check and allowed each of them to give him a swift kick, I could be persuaded to call it even.
It's a good start
14 years and treble damages would be a good start. If he can't pay back the money then add another 5 years on to the sentence.
If he can't pay back the money...
If he CAN pay back the money then he's winning...
When will people learn that there not banks
When will people learn that there not banks and only banks are allowed to legaly rob us of our money.
sorry if this touch's a nerve - was supposed to be a joke
Armed robbers get less, what's up with this? Nobody ever gets jailed when a company cheats customers..
Now if those who got stung by his operation can get their accounts un-frozen that would help. I have a friend that got taken by someone who drained his account, and while the bank has restored some of the money ($100k is all we have "insurance" for) it is (as well as ALL his accounts) locked down where he can't do anything with it. They (some three letter agency of the US government) say "any day now", and that has been happening for at least 4 years.
Some investigations are a total disaster, and when they are in foreign countries, seem to crawl along slower than a snail. Our (U.S.) government at "work"!!
You mean like Madoff?
Armed robbers should get 20 years or shot preferrably.
if it were up to me..
he'd get one day in prision for every dollar he stole. Don't ask what I'd do to the robbers (corporate or otherwise).
Wait a moment!
The article says that he sold the cards and that the banks claim $3m in losses - I doubt that he made $3m or anything close to it.. Furthermore the "losses" aren't really losses to the banks - that's covered by the interest rates that they charge to cover fraud like this ... and so if he does somehow manage to repay the court the money then the banks are actually going to make a profit in this case...
So, I guess this is just a one off occurrence then - there's nobody else out there doing the same thing?
In what way?
In what way is loosing money which you didn't expect to loose not loosing money?
I realise that lots of people here hate the banks because they have no idea about how they and/or the economy work, but to think that banks charge interest rates and fees to cover fraud is seriously ill informed. They charge interest rates and fees to make profits, they are in business after all.
Doesn't sound like much at all when you look at how the banks rob the people.
Fee after fee after fee and it all targets the poor.
Where were visa and mastercard when all this was going on?
What exactly do they take money for out of each transaction for again? To pay for sponsorships?
The mistake these carders make is going on forums where the feds are waiting. They might as well just call the fbi and ask how to steal information.
The guy with the cloned card will go to a store and buy a TV. The real owner will see the transaction, will call the bank and will ask for a refund. The bank will do a chargeback to the merchant and give the money back to the real owner. The merchant is out a TV. How is the bank loosing again?
The guy with the cloned card will get cash out of ATMs, there is noone to chargeback to.
Even if your scenario worked, it's likely that the shop owner is insured against fraud and that insurance is probably through a bank.
Don't take out a credit card then you muppet. Banks don't 'rob' people, much as you like to make such claims from your middle-class home.
parody of law
14 years, to fraud, while murderers barely get 2?
Which murderers get 2? Cite sources.
Cant seem to get my head round how gov`s and agencies support private enterprise. How about the banks hire their own "detectives" to combat this sort of thing and leave public funded agencies free to tackle more public issues.
Its a bit like,,, the UK gov says they are skint (and they aint, 20% av tax, 20%VAT, council tax, car tax, fuel tax and a few hidden for good measure, like, when you buy the tv from Carrys and your using money you have already payed tax on, to get taxed again at the point of sale, then, how much of the sale price of the tv actually goes towards the shop owners overinflated rates to local gov?? so how much does the av person in this country actually get taxed?)
They used to own gas and telecomms companies, but they sold them off to private enterprise (cousins, neighbours etc). Now, the gas and telecom companies announce huge profits running into billions, money that the gov could have had in the "Bank" (chortle, bless em) and being used to pull themselves out of whatever shitstorm they claim to be experiencing? Whilst this goes on, the goverments announce funds, running into millions, to encourage things like fast broadband for rural areas?
Money for Private enterprise, thats the way forward, where the feek do I sign up? They never taught us this stuff at school eh? I run a small business, I ahem cough, wanna start making feeking windmills....
1) Companies shouldn't have to fund law enforcement, except through taxation.
2) In the UK the banks do fund the cheque and plastic fraud unit of the Met. They shouldn't have to, though.
A couple of points
Firstly, lose vs loose:
1. To come to be without, through accident theft, etc.
1. Free or released from fastening or attachment
Secondly, did I actually happen upon the Daily Mail website here by mistake? The number of random rants about banks being crooked, and bigger sentences does make me wonder.