this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
681 points (98.3% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

33022 readers
4674 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 67 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Hoping that isn’t real because that’s kind of an f-ed up definition for fraud. Also, what a legend.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 72 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

It's pretty much the textbook definition of fraud. What are you talking about?

Fraud is defined as intentional deception to deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim.

He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It's even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.

In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It’s a poor definition because gift exchanges are strictly voluntary and non-reciprocal engagements. I’m not saying what he did was ok or even legal in other contexts. My only point is that I wouldn’t consider this fraud because the victims were not compelled to give. This isn’t a Nigerian prince scam where the victims were promised greater returns at a later date. These victims gave with the expectation of monetary loss.

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 17 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Seems to fit the official definition pretty neatly. Colloquially, I tend to agree with you, there's a spectrum for fraud. But this still counts as fraud. It's a fraudulent misrepresentation of the truth to convince others to part with something of value (a gift).

The fact that it's a gift doesn't change that this is fraud, only the severity of fraud in a legal sense.

collapsed inline media

[–] Hackworth@sh.itjust.works 10 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value

Advertising and politics?

laws don't apply to politicians.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
  1. image of text: there's this cool alternative called text that doesn't break the web or accessibility. linking to source & quoting text makes an altogether better web for everyone.
  2. dictionary definition: not an official, legal definition.

great, y'all want to get into Japanese criminal legal definitions?

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

Fraud in the sense that the guy is lying and profiting from it, sure. But the common / google definition of a word and the legal definition/ application of that word are two completely different things.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago

By that logic, fake fundraisers and romance scams shouldn't be illegal either.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

So, it's not fraud if I tell my grandma with dementia that it's my birthday once a week so she keeps giving me birthday checks?

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Your grandma having dementia changes the formula a bit.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Not really, no. It's still using deception for material gain through gift giving. Maybe it's more of an extreme case, but I was being hyperbolic.

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It is materially different because a person with dementia can’t legally advocate for themselves so it is easier for an action against them to be considered a crime.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago

It's still using deception for material gain. Just because it's harder to scam someone without dementia doesn't make it not fraud.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

They're technically voluntary but also socially expected. I'm not sure about birthday gifts in particular but Japan is a country where if you go on holiday somewhere you're expected to bring a gift for each of your coworkers, and people will think worse of you for not doing that. I'd be kind of surprised if omitting birthday gifts for your romantic partner without prior agreement is a real option.

[–] Zahtu@feddit.org 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I do Not See the fraud here. If He would have given the Girls His real Birthday, He would have still received the Same amount of Gifts. Nothing would have changed in exchanging the Gifts.

The only Thing, which it probably helped at, was that He could plan ahead for the birthdays, avoiding a Potential meet-in of each girl, that He dated on the Same Day. The only Thing He is gullible of ist deceiving the Woman on their Relationship. Which is Not an offenes in a legal Sense. There is no punishment for 2-timing, so 35-timing should Not have either

[–] AugustWest@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

What’s going on with your capitalization? I spent way too much time looking for hidden messages and came away with nothing except the - entirely unrelated - hypothesis that you are German.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Not OP:
In other languages (like German) nouns are capitalized.
I often write mails inside Europe that way to make it easy readable and put focus on the stuff I find necessary.

For English native speakers it's probably really looks like hidden code ;⁠-⁠)

Edit: ok, read said comment and you're right. That's just like throwing a dice...

[–] fushuan@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

Probably bad autocorrect tbh.like Futo or auto key set in multi language or something.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

It's pretty much the textbook definition of fraud. What are you talking about?

Fraud is defined as intentional deception to deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim.

That's what most politicians do every election. Just saying.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Most politicians are absolutely guilty of fraud.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

I'd even go so far as saying that fraud is pretty rampant in all levels of society.

laws don't apply to politicians you silly

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

There is no mention of any consideration (a legal term meaning he didn’t promise them anything in return) provided by the “boyfriend”.

This would not be fraud under English common law.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You don't have to promise anything in return for it to be fraud. If I start a Go Fund Me because I have cancer when I really don't have cancer, the people donating aren't promised anything in return. It's still fraud.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

The cancer example is plausible, but I am not sure you would always win.

In that case you are asking for help for a specific reason. They “get to feel good about helping solve your problem”.

Your deception deprives them of their having done something good with their money - which is the tort.

In OP’s instance, he was saying that he had a birthday and you are giving him a gift.

Not the same - you can make the same argument, but it is even thinner gruel.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 23 hours ago

deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim

Does either of those fill though?

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 23 hours ago

Well there's your shady gray bit right in the definition. Is it unlawful to lie about your birthday?

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Found the guy with 35 girlfriend.

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago

I’m down to 28 now. Apparently some of them saw this thread …

[–] cRazi_man@europe.pub 13 points 1 day ago

Look at that smile. He regrets nothing.

Also: Daily Mail source?.......this story is entirely fiction and made up, guaranteed.

[–] RidderSport@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fraud is a very complicated crime. I absolutely hate that I need to know the basic for my law degree as it fills a thousand pages of commentary literature in just one of the largest German legal commentaries because it's just that complicated.

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As I said in another reply, my thinking is thus:

It’s a poor definition because gift exchanges are strictly voluntary and non-reciprocal engagements. I’m not saying what he did was ok or even legal in other contexts. My only point is that I wouldn’t consider this fraud because the victims were not compelled to give. This isn’t a Nigerian prince scam where the victims were promised greater returns at a later date. These victims gave with the expectation of monetary loss.

[–] RidderSport@feddit.org 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Just because these were voluntary non-reciprocal dispositions of wealth would not automatically make this not fraud in Germany at least.

I talked with a few fellow students and their gut feeling was that this could be fraud as well. After talking a bit about the matter we had quite a few issues apart from the voluntary aspect as well.

All dispositions in fraud are voluntary for one, otherwise this would be in the ballpark of robbery and the like (as in involuntary dispositions).

The act of giving a gift is not necessarily irreversible as there are ways to fight the disposition on grounds of fraud for one. Which would tick one of the requirements of fraud: the disposition needs to be unlawful.

Anyway you're right in that there are quite a few reasons to conclude this isn't fraud. If it is, it would be a very "heavy" case which would make this a felony in Germany.

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

I’m no legal scholar by any means but I think in America this would be a civil suit not a criminal case unless the amount of money involved was tremendous.

I won’t even try to guess how it would shake out in Japan.

[–] Dreaming_Novaling@lemmy.zip 3 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

This guy cheated on 35 different women for gifts and you go:

Also, what a legend.

I hope that's a /s 😔

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 22 hours ago

There's a certain threshold when you're no longer upset, just impressed. Like if someone ate my slice of cake vs they ate the entire fridge.

[–] knight_alva@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

I mean the article itself is apparently satire so yeah.