back 10+ yrs ago, there were multiple benefit cc's that matched each other in treating balance transfers the same as a charge...for 3 or 4 months, i would charge everything to card 1, pay it off w/ a xfer check [iirc] to card 2 , etc...i didn't consider it fraud because it was announced & i was doing what they were promoting....however, i knew that their goal was to get interest on the xfered bal's & thought "make hay while the sun shines].

Mapleleaf: Both of those schemes are fraudulent even under the most narrow use of that term.

Sooner or later your friend will get caught. I doubt he will face criminal prosecution (the police, at least in this country, have better things to do than to chase people claiming miles that they don't deserve), but he may very well be booted and banned from certain hotel properties and lose his cherished FF miles.

Why would someone who obviously treasures his FF miles risk losing all of them with these types of schemes? Then again, why did Martha risk losing millions by lying about a $60,000 stock trade?

Penny wise, pound foolish.

I think it depends on the state. In NJ I can say that fraud like the lamp example is taken very seriously. Maybe they would prosecute, maybe they wouldnt, but there would at the very least be a legal headache. The second, probably not but I agree that the auditors would pick it up at some point.

Yes it is.

i have booked back to back flights for mr's, but have always booked w/ res & told them what i was doing...no problem....however, if i had been booted out of the program, i don't know what i would have done....i think i could have made a good case, they were always get off the plane and get back on, so more revenue for the a/l & wouldn't have done it otherwise for higher prices. however in circa 84 we did a lot of company travel [booked by co travel dept] of the wk1 mon-wk2 fri, wk1 fri home, wk2 mon back...all of us thought it made sense because we were focusing on the bottom line.

If someone told me they were doing this I would point out that this is against the terms and conditions of the frequent flyer program(s), and that there is a very high probablility this scheme will eventually be uncovered. Then they will lose all their miles in one or both programs. I doubt that the airline would prosecute or attempt to recover revenue from fraudulently accrued and redeemed miles? Then I'd leave it up to them to decide if they wanted to continue with this practice.

The lamp thing sounds like extortion to me but I'm no lawyer.


Edited to add;

a.) Double-dipping as a result of an involuntary re-route was, I thought, perfectly acceptable to both FF programs. I've never had to take advantage of this.

b.) Some FF programs have lower status thresholds for residents of certain countries. More than few people circumvent this by establishing a questionable or marginal domicile (a friend accepts their mail, they use a business address, etc.). I think this fraudulent.

c.) Some FF programs target offers to certain customers, based on their address, of competitive FF programs. Some of these programs are incredibly generous, maybe offering to match their mileage balance in the new program. Many people circumvent the residency requirements with a bogus address. I think this is fradulent.

I am not a lawyer and I doubt one would know the laws of every country were FFP are available, but reading this thread, I was wondering...

1. Is it legal somewhere to sell the same thing different prices based on the origin of the buyer ? Can a store say : you're from Canada, you'll pay more for the same products bought in the same conditions ? I don't know for sure, but I seem to remember that a store owner in Denmark was fined because he refused to sell his pizzas to German and French citizens. If he couldn't refuse to sell, I suppose he couldn't have made them pay ten times the price...

2. How is it different to sell the same products at different prices and selling a product (a plane ticket) the same price but granting different rebate based on the origin ?

I am not using a false address myself (partly because I usually reach top-tier in my home program without doing it) but I contemplate it often when I think to this practice of treating customers inequally. I know the rationale of trying to attract foreigners to your market, but anyway

Last month in LAS the price of the RIO's buffet depended on where you live. (The locals paid half price.) Chain stores (like Best Buy) regularly match local competitors' prices.

Is it legal?

Museums frequently charge difference prices for residents and non-residents.

QL

As do Harley and some auto dealerships.

ljr

Sorry if this posts twice because things are acting up here. That case is different because of the EU treaty, and generally, he couldnt do either.

and of course...

LADIES NIGHT!

ladies free....men 20 bucks to get in....and yet who gets stuck with the bar tab? That's why they call it Ladies Night.
My bitter side says that is FRAUD.

Disclosure: I am not a Lawyer...either.

First, thank you all for the examples mentioned here, very instructive thread.

I have done my homework regarding the "different offer based on country on residence", and I have found something that might be of interest to all EU frequent flyer.

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi...lg=EN&type=PDF

This inquiry resulted in airlines (esp. BA and SAS) to drop some fare discrepancies inside Europe. The next step would be to challenge FFP as a discriminating procedure. Of course, I realize that airlines will probably align their condition on their current worst offer, but at least it will be more acceptable. The lack of legal ground for this practice may be the reason airlines are not worrying too much about people with partially phony address of residence. I suppose most FF won't bother to it anyway.


Regarding ladies night,

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040615.html
and
http://www.calicocat.com/2004/06/lad...itutional.html

Apparently some people are inquiring into this. No need to get castrated to get free booze yet, I repeat, don't rush, you could regret this

After all, I fail to see a difference between "you must pay to enter because you're a man" and "you must pay to enter because you're black". In both case, you're discriminated against, because of something you are. But this is totally off-topic for the MilesBuzz forum, while the country of residence and FFP requirements is on-topic...

"frequently"??! Rather: "extremely seldom, but still it may happen occasionally".


Yet when it applies to non-federal city/municipality/county/province/federal unit-accredited museums it is more than logical, seeing that they are already partly supported from the taxes of the locals in the first place.

Well, look at it this way. Women not spending $20 leaves them free to buy that much more alcohol. This, of course, has the potential of additional benefits that money just can't buy (at least legally, unless you're in Nevada).

Mike