United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Police: Couple exploited Lowe's website glitch for free merchandise
Source:
Click2Houston/AP
URL Source: https://www.click2houston.com/consu ... te-glitch-for-free-merchandise
Published: Aug 16, 2017
Author: AP
Post Date: 2017-08-16 11:04:36 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 4406
Comments: 21
BRICK, N.J. - Authorities say a New Jersey couple exploited a computer glitch on a home improvement chain's website to get thousands of dollars' worth of items shipped to their home for free. Ocean County prosecutors say 40-year-old Kimy Velazquez and his 24-year-old wife, Romela Velazquez, stole enough items from Lowe's to fill an 18-foot trailer. The items ranged from a gazebo to $2,500 worth of underwear. Authorities declined to provide details on the computer glitch. Authorities say the Brick residents tried to get about $258,068 worth of unpaid merchandise overall but received only about $13,000 in merchandise. They say the couple sold the items on Facebook for less than half the original price. It wasn't known Tuesday if they've retained attorneys. A phone number couldn't be found for them. Poster Comment: Comment from the site: Hey, what's the issue here. It is up to companies to fix these glitches. I could see Lowe's canceling an order made due to a glitch. But it is not stealing IMHO if they honor the order and ship the merchandise. Same with cheat air tickets and other things we read about. Fix the glitch, cancel any unfulfilled orders, and leave these people alone or charge them, but do not expect a conviction from a jury of peers. How is this a crime if they did not hack the website? This was Lowe's fault for letting it happen.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#2. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0)
(Edited)
It depends on what they did. They broke the law or even NJ prosecutors wouldn't be going after them like this. This is a story where we need a much better followup with some real reporting before we can have any confidence that we know anything more solid than that they have been arrested and arraigned. So if you are that interested, maybe you should find a better article about the alleged theft. And a cursory DDG search reveals a much better article from FoxNews. Kimy Velazquez, 40, and Romela Velazquez, 24, of Brick Township, were charged Tuesday with theft, fraud and computer criminal activity. Law enforcement officials alleged that they exploited a gap in the store’s website that enabled them to have merchandise shipped to their home without making payment. Investigators who executed a search warrant on their home earlier this month said authorities recovered enough stolen merchandise to fill an 18-foot trailer. “Detectives on scene stated the residence resembled more of a warehouse than a home,” reads a statement released by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office. Some of the bigger ticket items – many of which were still in the box -- recovered by police included: The prosecutor alleges that Romela Velazquez exploited weaknesses in the Lowe’s website in order to have merchandise shipped to the home, then allegedly posted several of the stolen merchandise items to a local Facebook group “Buy and Sell” page, often listing the items as “New in Box” and for less than half their regular retail price. Romela Velazquez has been charged with computer criminal activity for accessing a computer system with the purpose to defraud, second degree theft by deception for attempting to obtain merchandise totaling approximately $258,068.01 (pre-tax) and third degree theft by deception for receipt of merchandise without payment. Kimy Velazquez was charged with receipt of stolen property and fencing. He was released on a summons pending a future court date while Romela Velazquez was taken into custody pending a future court date. Investigators are checking whether the couple replicated the alleged plan via other retailers' websites, which may result in additional charges. A lot of states do have laws covering this type of fraud.
- - - - - - - - - - In the case of a seller mistake, as here, where someone finds a way to obtain shipment without payment, and exploits that mistake, there is no valid contract between seller and buyer. The crime is larceny. Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law, 4th ed., pg. 930
#6. To: nolu chan, Lowes confessed to commiting mistaken delivery, book em Danno (#5)
There was no "mistaken delivery", they were delivered to the party that Lowe's shipped them to. Now Lowe's admits that they're guilty of initiating mistaken delivery. The cops arrested the victims, instead of the perps. They have Lowe's confession, now book 'em Danno!
The crime is what New Jersey law says it is. Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law, 4th ed., pg. 930 There was no "mistaken delivery" here. The intent was clear to take delivery via deception without paying for the merchandise received. And the crime was repeated many times, further establishing their guilt.
The same is true for things like this:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestCouple exploited Lowe's website glitch to steal, resell items, authorities say
A New Jersey couple was arrested after allegedly exploiting a glitch in the website for Lowe’s home improvement stores to steal and then resell online more than $250,000 worth of items, authorities said. 
#5. To: Tooconservative, Deckard, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#2)
[Comment to article] Hey, what's the issue here. It is up to companies to fix these glitches. I could see Lowe's canceling an order made due to a glitch. But it is not stealing IMHO if they honor the order and ship the merchandise.
[#2] Law enforcement officials alleged that they exploited a gap in the store’s website that enabled them to have merchandise shipped to their home without making payment.
It is well settled that the recipient of the mistaken delivery who appropriates the property commits a trespass in the taking, and so is guilty of larceny, if, realizing the mistake at the moment he takes delivery, he then forms an intent to steal the property.
Replies to Comment # 5. the mistaken delivery
#7. To: nolu chan (#5)
(Edited)
The crime is larceny.
It is well settled that the recipient of the mistaken delivery who appropriates the property commits a trespass in the taking, and so is guilty of larceny, if, realizing the mistake at the moment he takes delivery, he then forms an intent to steal the property.
#10. To: nolu chan (#5)
In the case of a seller mistake, as here, where someone finds a way to obtain shipment without payment, and exploits that mistake, there is no valid contract between seller and buyer.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]