Originally Posted by fastair
Aye, except the Temple Law guy seems to think that there is a 2nd case to be made, that purchase of a ticket implies intention on flying...how does this difer from someone who just uses it to get thru. They both are deceptive in the same way...purchaser has no intention of using the ticket for what it was designed for, to fly.
If they prosicute on this, it could be precident setting.
Did you read the article?
"And second, Edward Ohlbaum, professor of law at Temple University, tells the Inquirer that “the behavior might lead a prosecutor to consider
theft by deception charges.” Ohlbaum explains that Pennsylvania crime statutes define “deception” as creating a false impression as to one's intentions, the paper writes."
Tell me, when somebody buys a refundable ticket, passes through security, and then cancels the ticket, where is the
theft occuring?
The guys are morons for scamming VDB compensation. But there's no way a ruling here is going to stop anybody from buying a refundable ticket for the purposes of getting airside. Exactly how would the lack of intent for flying be proven in a court of law in such a case?