Originally Posted by
NickW
Chris, I've bulleted this out as I believe it was intended to be read. You think that's the wrong reading? Maybe you could try to bullet it out in a way that supports your reading. I suggest you'll find it difficult; it would require that the 'without the authority ...' part would apply also to an expired credit card; so using an expired credit card would be OK as long you did it with the authority of the person to whom it was issued. That would be odd.
As to issuance (same section as previously):
(6) "Issuer" means the business organization, state or federal government, or financial institution, or its duly authorized agent, which issues a credit card.
The question of authorization is a factual one. I think if we asked American Express whether you were authorized to issue credit cards on its behalf, the answer would be an unequivocal 'no'. As would the answer to the question 'is Bob's Fake Centurion Emporium your duly authorized agent for the issuance of credit cards?'
Why are you so personally invested in this issue?
Nick,
The issue is not whether you're authorized by American Express to issue cards on their behalf. As I've said before, I'm not debating the legality of operating a Cent card factory, I'm just concerned with the legality from the standpoint of the end-user.
And with that said, the issue is clear:
Does using a card not originally issued by American Express, to non-fraudulently access
your own account, subject you to criminal liability under these circumstances?
I believe that, no, it does not.
And I'm also objecting to your myopic contention that the only operative factor in determining whether a credit card is "counterfeit" under the language of the statute is whether it was physically manufactured by the issuer. That is only one criteria out of many listed in the definition, and that sole factor can certainly be outweighed by other considerations. I can think of several perfectly legal examples where an item would clearly be considered a "credit card" under the language of the statute, even though all elements of the definition have not been met.
I believe the fact that you are the legal owner of the account being accessed by the card is an absolute defense, and clearly trumps the fact that the card was not actually manufactured by the issuer. This is much the same thing as I cannot be held criminally liable for vandalizing my own house, stealing my own car, or hacking into my own computer, even when my actions may completely fit the elements of those respective statutes. At the end of the day, this is going to come down to whether you can be held criminally liable for committing a fraud of which you yourself are the only victim.
I believe that's preposterous, and won't fly.
And as to your example, whatever liability "Bob's Centurion Emporium" has is a separate matter, limited to that party. My point is, I don't believe there is anything criminal in using such a card to access your own account.
Edited to Add:
I'm not personally invested in this, my simple old plat card is fine enough for me. I just enjoy a good legal debate, and this one's pretty interesting.