Originally Posted by
mzkaiser
Grand theft (in CA and anywhere else) requires intent to steal. Here, like you indicate, that means you purchase the product with the intent of stealing the points.
However, what you miss is the fact that Nordstrom offers him the option to return the merchandise (which he accepts through performance). The points were a consequence of the transaction, and the transaction expressly provided the right to return the merchandise (I'm sure conditioned upon a return of the points). Thus, upon return, Nordstrom can debit these points from his BA account, or require him to repay the equivalent value, but there's nothing criminal about it.
Uh, didn't miss that. The hypothetical, as phrased, suggests that intent. And with attorneys, including prosecutors, becoming more sophisticated about discovering information through social media (an attorney here in Virginia was just hit with a $250,000 award of costs for attempting to cover up some rather incriminating stuff his client in a negligence suit for the death of his wife posted on FB about his activities after her death, evidence that tended to undermine his claim for damages for the grief of her loss), it's possible a motivated prosecutor might discover a certain post at FT that would serve as decent, although not conclusive evidence of intent.
Now that we've bored everyone else in this thread to tears. . .