CREDIT CARD FRAUD
Memo Based on FBI Investigations against Benjamin Creighton
ATM & MASTERCARD FRAUD
CITIBANK, Petitioner
v.
BENJAMIN CREIGHTON, Respondent
PERSUASIVE MEMO ON BAYLOR’S CASE
Citibank, a credit card issuing company presented a concern to the FBI regarding an irregularity detected in the use of a credit card of their customer Terry Creighton. The bank realized that Terry Creighton had not paid her monthly bills for a couple of months and had gone to a position of using up her overdraft protection few. Due to the concern of the turn of events which was not the norm Citibank tried to contact Terry Creighton regarding her account. However, Terry Creighton did not respond to any of their calls. After a thorough enquiry about her whereabouts, Citibank officials realized that Terry Creighton had passed away a couple of months ago. This rose eyebrows since it was evident that her card was being used by another person. Among the huge transactions detected in the card was the purchase of jewelry amounting to more than 600 dollars.
After presenting this case to the FBI, this purchase of jewelry became a focal point in trying to determine who was using the card. After consulting with the owner of the store that sold the jewelry, it was discovered that her son Benjamin Creighton was using his mother’s card. This was illegal in that Terry Creighton had not authorized his use of the card in her customer agreement with Citibank.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. WHETHER IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR BENJAMIN CREIGHTON TO USE CREDIT CARDS BELONGING TO HIS DECEASED MOTHER.
2. WHETHER BENJAMIN CREIGHTON HAD GOOD INTENTION USING HIS MOTHERS CARD BASED ON THE AMOUNT AND KIND OF TRANSACTIONS CONDUCTED.
3. WHETHER BENJAMIN EXERCISED IDENTITY THEFT BY USING A CARD THAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM.
BRIEF ANSWERS
Benjamin Creighton is justified to use his mother’s card in that it is common place for family members to use cards belonging to their spouses or other family members. However, the manner in which Benjamin Creighton uses his mother’s card indicates that he did not use it in good faith but to satisfy his extravagant needs. In addition, Benjamin Creighton cannot be accused of identity theft in that shop owners allowed him to use a card that was not his. Therefore, the issue of identity theft should be left entirely to store owners who allowed Benjamin Creighton to conduct purchases. Based on the facts and outcome of Bice-Bey, 701 F.2d at 1092(1983), Benjamin Creighton is legally responsible for the transactions he conducted on his mother’s card in that(1) He clearly understood that credit cards required monthly if he was to continue using his mother’s card. (2) Benjamin Creighton used the credit cards for secondary needs that he could do without which matches the facts in Bice-Bey, 701 F.2d at 1092(1983).
DISCUSSIONS
First of all, it is by all means normal and understandable for a son to use his mother’s card to make purchases. Therefore, the possession of Terry Creighton’s card by his son was something that was normal bearing in mind that his mother was deceased. However, using his mother’s card raises concern in that Benjamin understood that credit cards are paid for on monthly bases. In addition, he had failed to do so and continued to use the card until an overdraft was incurred. This action brings out the character of Benjamin Creighton as being careless and insensitive. This is in line with the fact in Flores-Figueroa v. United States (08-108), 2008 where the respondent was involved was not concerned with the continued use of an overdrawn account. The fact that Benjamin had been involved in other criminal cases further paints him as person who is not only used to committing crime but also a person who did not fear the repercussions of committing crime.
Second, the kind of transactions that Benjamin Creighton conducted using his mother’s card illustrates that he is extravagant. He used the card to purchase secondary necessities that he would be able to survive without. This supports the fact that his intentions of using his mother’s card were not done in good faith. The action of Benjamin Creighton are in line with the facts in Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (1982) where the defendant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for transactions that could be avoided. A person who would be in dire need for money would not use a credit card that does not belong to him or her to make fancy purchases. For example, the purchase of ring that is worth more than 600 dollars is a transaction that shows extravagance. Such a transaction is expected to be conducted by a person who has ample amount of money and who is not in debt. In addition, Benjamin clearly understood that the use of credit cards is the use of money that does not belong to a customer. Therefore, the more the money that one uses from a credit card the more debt one gets into. One other thing that shows negligence in the part of Benjamin Creighton is that even after realizing that there was no money left in the card, he continued to use it. This shows that he did not care about the negative impacts and extra charges that would be incurred on the card to his extravagant use of a card belonging to his mother.
Third, It would not be worthwhile to convict Benjamin Creighton of Identity theft in that the owners of the store understood that he was not the owner of the card but went ahead to allow him to make purchases using the card. Therefore, the issue of identity theft should be blamed on the negligence of the store owners. This is in line with the decision in United States v. Luis M. Pavao, 948 F.2d 74, S.C. App. (1991) which argued that retailers should be vigilant about the terms of payments that the authorize to avoid entangling themselves with fraudulent transactions. Shop owners need to be careful about the means of payment that people use to purchase goods. Any person who intends to use a credit card should use a credit card that belongs to him or her. In order to make sure that this trend is adhered to stores should ask for the identification cards of the individual making the transaction. Based on Schnellmann v. Roettger, 368 S.C. 17, 627 2d 742, S.C. App. (2006) the person who authorizes a transaction without having a clear prove that the credit card in use belongs to the purchaser is responsible to the transaction. Proper verification of identity among customers prevents store owners from entangling themselves with cases relating to the fraudulent use of credit cards and identity theft.
CONCLUSION
Based on the Discussions Benjamin Creighton should be convicted for using his mother’s card without contacting the bank in that he clearly understood that his mother used to pay for the service and also for the fact that he used it for secondary needs which were extravagant.
