Originally Posted by synzero

I just checked, since my intuition is that fraud is a form of theft -- and I am correct, it is:

https://encyclopedia.lexroll.com/enc...lse-pretenses/

What happened in this case is a clear example of theft by false pretenses -- and the exception of "in the control of someone other than the covered beneficiary" doesn't apply, It's a very straightforward case -- if Amex doesn't approve this claim, it's a clear violation of their straightforward terms. The OP (if the Venmo payment is reversed) is a prima facie victim of theft by false pretenses, that occurred the moment the culprit took the iPad from the OP.

Of course, whether or not Amex sees it that way is another thing entirely, but it's straightforward that they should approve the claim.