Woman Jailed and Slapped with Lifetime Ban over Zara Returns Rort in Spain

HighAndDry on 22/10/2019 - 14:54
Last edited 22/10/2019 - 16:19 by 1 other user

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/woman-jailed…

Just a heads up: Buying a new item, to return an older identical item using the receipt/tag, might be a jail-able offence (this happened in Spain).

A woman has been charged with “continual fraud” after meticulously removing tags from Zara clothing — and placing them on older items she then returned in store.

The woman — identified only as “Tania M.A.” — is aged in her early 30s.

She has slapped with a six-month jail term and a lifetime ban from Zara stores in the Aragon region of Spain, local media reports.

Financial

Related Stores

ZARA
ZARA

Comments

  • Skramit on 22/10/2019 - 15:06

    RIP

    • Bryanalves on 23/10/2019 - 07:46
      +8

      Thats spain where the courts have balls. Guarenteed you wont be jailed in aus if you do this. Noone goes to jail unless you rape or murder here.

      • dust on 23/10/2019 - 08:52
        +24

        In Australia you're allowed to illegal strip search underage girls as well with no ramifications. :(

        • TerryJustTerry on 23/10/2019 - 10:54
          +2

          Gosh that's horrible :/

        • Kangal on 23/10/2019 - 21:38
          -3

          So you're telling me it's legal?

        • beesider on 24/10/2019 - 17:45
          -2

          So you're saying strip searching of underage girls isn't OK, but the same for boys is fine? Why the discrimination?

          • jsediv on 24/10/2019 - 19:44
            +1

            @beesider: He's referring to a recent event. There is no discrimination

            • 0jay on 31/10/2019 - 17:56

              @jsediv: I’m sure a heterosexual policeman’d be discriminating…

      • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 11:22
        -2

        you go to jail for being indigenous

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 11:54
          +1

          Are indigenous people more likely to be incarcerated for the same crime as a non-indigenous person? (All else being equal, ie. No prior convictions.)

          • aoeueoa on 23/10/2019 - 12:53
            +6

            @[Deactivated]: It's fundamentally unequal and that's the issue

            • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 13:34
              +3

              @aoeueoa: So there should be a jail quota that is representative of ethnicity based on demographics?

              Ie. If there are 75% white Aussies, 75% of jail birds should be white Aussies?

              • Dr Prepper on 24/10/2019 - 13:42
                +4

                @[Deactivated]: A major factor which determines whether someone will go to prison is house hold income in their childhood.

                When I went to uni we were taught Australian-born white people were actually over-represented as well,6th place over 183 ethnic groups. While making up 69% of the general population but 76.5% of the prison population slightly over 1 in 1000. The prison population of overseas born white people was 0.6 in 1000. Very large numbers of Australian born white people were actually from quite poor/disadvantaged families.

                • [Deactivated] on 24/10/2019 - 14:05
                  +3

                  @Dr Prepper: Advantage and disadvantage is also a cultural thing.

                  Some cultures, not necessarily based on ethnicity, subconsciously make decisions that put themselves at a disadvantage.

                  As we all know, disadvantaged groups tend to put themselves in further "disadvantage" aka making bad choices. Example - payday loans.

                  At some point, the individual has to be accountable as there is no end to environmental blame.

                  A few people think it's racist to acknowledge facts. Just because I say that there isn't a law that calls for the incarceration of indigenous persons, I must be racist.

          • mrbooger on 23/10/2019 - 15:11
            +26

            @[Deactivated]:

            Are indigenous people more likely to be incarcerated for the same crime as a non-indigenous person? (All else being equal, ie. No prior convictions.)

            Yes.

            See (for example) this chapter of the 2016 Senate inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experience of law enforcement and justice services.

            Alongside socio-economic factors (e.g. poor parenting; poor school performance/early school leaving; unemployment; and drug and alcohol abuse) and tenancy (housing) issues, the evidence points to significant structural biases which contribute to the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in incarceration. These structural biases have a disproportionate impact on Indigenous people, and include:
            * Mandatory sentencing regimes;
            * The refusal of bail and the imposition and enforcement of onerous bail conditions; and
            * Over-policing.

            There is a lot more information in the link provided (and elsewhere if you do some basic research), but to keep it simple:
            Yes, Indigenous people more likely to be incarcerated for the same behaviour as non-Indigenous people.

          • seraphim2017 on 23/10/2019 - 15:14
            +3

            @[Deactivated]: looks like it (some light reading if you have insomnia)

            https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/pathways-to-justice-inqu…

          • Eeples on 23/10/2019 - 22:17
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Yes.

          • [Deactivated] on 24/10/2019 - 08:44
            +3

            @[Deactivated]: yes, Indigenous people are more likely to die in a police cell where non indigenous people would not even end up in the cell

        • [Deactivated] on 24/10/2019 - 08:45

          damn, seven down votes? Seven racists or what?

          • [Deactivated] on 24/10/2019 - 08:47
            -6

            @[Deactivated]: People who know discrepancy =/= discrimination.

            And indigenous people do not go to jail for being indigenous. They get charged for the same crimes as non indigenous.

            They're just more likely to foul their chances at a defence for speculated reasons.

      • aoeueoa on 23/10/2019 - 13:01
        +2

        Cost for an adult in custody is about 400$/day. A 6 month stint would be about 30k.

        Do you really want to spend that money for an offence.like this ?

        On the fiscal point alone it doesn't make sense.
        Jail is what people want as a consequence for anything and everything but you don't consider what benefit it actually provides to any and all involved.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 13:45
          +2

          The cost of having police is $80k/year purely based on estimated salary. The real figure is much higher.

          Why bother stopping vandals at all since their damages is disproportionate to the cost of having a police squad?

          • salmon123 on 23/10/2019 - 17:48
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Last time I checked, the police don't do much when it comes to petty vandalism …

            • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 20:54

              @salmon123: Police advancement. They're ahead of the game.

        • salmon123 on 23/10/2019 - 17:53
          -1

          Cost for an adult in custody is about 400$/day. A 6 month stint would be about 30k.

          Huh? $400 * 180days = 72k … seems kind of high and our prisons aren't even run by the private sector for profit. Maybe that number includes what the prisoner might earn in the outside world or other things that shouldn't really be included.

          • nyteshaiid on 24/10/2019 - 12:59
            +1

            @salmon123:

            our prisons aren't even run by the private sector for profit

            The prisons that are run by the private sector are most definitely profit-driven.

            • salmon123 on 24/10/2019 - 13:10

              @nyteshaiid:

              The prisons that are run by the private sector are most definitely profit-driven.

              Duh, I get that. I was challenging the statement that our prisons cost $400/day. They don't. The person that wrote that can't even multiply.

        • ashikk on 24/10/2019 - 23:33

          Bring on the capital sentence for convicted pedos, rapists, and killers. A lot can be done with that money spent on those scum.

          • ssquid on 25/10/2019 - 00:42

            @ashikk: Because nobody ever gets wrongly convicted, right?

            • ashikk on 25/10/2019 - 10:39

              @ssquid: How often do you hear wrongfully convicted case ..1 in a million/ thousand.
              Cases like the Ivan Milat- serial killer. Why do we need him alive. He is better dead for the community as a whole.

              • Dr Prepper on 27/10/2019 - 02:31

                @ashikk: 1 in 25 people on death row in US are innocent. That is actually pretty scary. When DNA tech was new that statistic was much worse.executing someone also costs up to $US6 million in legal fees.

    • seraphim2017 on 23/10/2019 - 15:15
      +2

      She didn't return identical items, she returned items similar enough from previous seasons that passed visual inspection by staff as being the new item. Wasn't it theft by deception she was done for? if they items were identical they would not have had a case unless the goods were stolen originally.

  • try2bhelpful on 22/10/2019 - 15:06
    +1

    Do you think this is the sort of thing we are likely to do?

    • rompastompa on 22/10/2019 - 15:11
      +36

      We do much worse

      • try2bhelpful on 22/10/2019 - 15:12
        +2

        OK, you do have a point.

    • ssquid on 22/10/2019 - 15:21
      +6

      Every time there's a thread about a broken item with no/lost receipt, someone suggests buying a new one and returning the broken one in its place.

      • idonotknowwhy on 23/10/2019 - 12:48

        Yeah but we're just joking, not actually doing it lol

        • knk on 23/10/2019 - 17:07

          …unless?

      • beesider on 24/10/2019 - 17:56

        We're so backwards in this regard. Some countries allow returns without receipts at all.

        • smartazz104 on 24/10/2019 - 18:05
          +2

          Great idea, there's something that people definitely won't abuse.

    • dcep on 22/10/2019 - 15:54
      +3

      Every time there's a deal with reduced price from Bunnings, someone suggests buying a new one and returning it with the old receipt for profit.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 15:09
    +18

    She deserves it.

    It is fraud. Six months is very lenient.

      • vikvance on 22/10/2019 - 20:18
        +11

        You really think its worth spending 50 grand of the public's money, to teach this woman a lesson?

        It's not just about 'teaching the person a lesson'.

        It's about deterrence.

        If other potential fraudsters read the news about the woman & understand that they too could go to jail for 6 months, then they will have less inclination to commit similar fraud.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 20:30
          +4

          Deterrence for a fraud most people didn't know about is actually an awareness campaign promoting it. Death sentences for mass murder should be a deterrent, yet there are copycats trying to outdo.

          • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 21:47
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: If only we threw parties for mass murder. If poison doesn't work, maybe honey will.

          • Chandler on 23/10/2019 - 10:53

            @[Deactivated]: And you'll generally find that those copycats have some sort of serious mental issues.

            But as usual - treat the symptoms, not the cause.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 21:46

        So the solution to crime is to not punish criminals because it cost money?

        The typical next line of argument is, "it depends on the crime".

        All crimes have varying sentences. Within those crimes, there's also a variation hence there is a maximum sentence.

        You're now saying that certain crimes should not even be crimes because there is an expense associated with enforcement.

        At what point should we just say all crimes are too costly so we should just do a global decriminalization?

        • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 22:26
          +2

          I'm actually surprised that privacy laws protect her identity…much less of a deterrent. Dress her in orange prison overalls and pick up litter by the road. Much better in my view.

        • outlander on 22/10/2019 - 23:31

          Yes, exactly. Just like every other case that goes unpunished. Its a childs view of the world to think that there are good people and bad people, and all the bad people get put in jail. In the real world, tradeoffs have to be made. Sometimes that means letting a small fish go, in order to catch a much bigger fish.

          • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 23:47

            @outlander: Glad to know your definition of crime needs should be less defined.

            To catch bigger fish it seems.

            In an adult manner no less.

            • moo on 23/10/2019 - 00:42
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: You sound like the kinda guy who would support death penalty! Keen to hear your thoughts on this subject.

              • whooah1979 on 23/10/2019 - 05:53
                +2

                @moo: Capital punishments for the worst crimes, yes.

              • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 09:13
                +2

                @moo: With sufficient evidence, yes.

                Capital punishment got very bad press because of systemic and systematic corruption within the enforcement institutions. Many processes and technicalities have now been put in place to significantly reduce wrongful conviction.

                Technology has also moved forward to allow a significant array of evidence to be correlated. CCTV, fingerprint, fibres, DNA… to compare wrongful convictions of the past with the present is a stretch.

                Police tempering is always going to be an issue but even they are scrutinized by CCTV and an independent enforcement body.

                To say I'm pro capital punishment would be an unfair blanket statement. I only support it in certain cases - ie. the most heinous of crimes and beyond reasonable doubt.

                If it cost more for the a judicial process for the death sentence, life incarceration is an acceptable alternative.

                • one man clan on 23/10/2019 - 11:33
                  +3

                  @[Deactivated]: "very bad press" wow

                  • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 11:49
                    -1

                    @one man clan: I would say it is a lot to do with how the media has presented it. It isn't a great scenario (terrible to be precise) but consider it against all other sanctioned/approved actions which terminates life.

        • HangryCakeStore on 23/10/2019 - 23:12
          +1

          You talk like you never done anything that could be considered a crime, I'm sure u've never committed piracy.. want people to go jail for that?

          • [Deactivated] on 24/10/2019 - 07:55
            -1

            @HangryCakeStore: So everyone has done something. When caught, no one should have to be punished.

            Damn lawyers and police have this thing stitched up. The law is a scam!

        • p1 ama on 25/10/2019 - 02:18
          +1

          So the solution to crime is to not punish criminals because it cost money?

          Ahh, I never get fiscal conservatives. You'd rather spend $60k per year feeding a criminal and giving them shelter than somebody who's homeless and in need of help.

          You're making an absurd argument and you know it. Nobody is saying that we should not punish criminals, but rather, that jails are in place to protect society - we put in jail people who are a danger to society. We should not be wasting money locking up idiots who are of no danger to society.

          Give her a big fine, force her to do community service or something - make her do something useful, not squat around all day.

      • salmon123 on 23/10/2019 - 17:58

        but in Australia, its about 100K per prisoner per year

        Non-sense. I just googled it - it was $182/day in NSW in 2017/2018.

        Yes - there's another link on google claiming it costs $110k to incarcerate a person for a year, but that includes the cost of police, courts, lawyers, etc.

        The prison only component is a believable ~$182/day or 66k/year.

      • JungliChilli on 23/10/2019 - 19:38

        Ummmm lulz?

      • funnysht on 23/10/2019 - 20:17
        +2

        100k per prisoner per year…seriously?? let the guy crash at my place, i'l look after him

        • gguu on 23/10/2019 - 21:44

          Too late mate.
          I think you are talking about private prisons and they already operate in five jurisdictions in Australia: New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.

      • burningrage on 23/10/2019 - 21:36

        There is an effective deterrent currently happening. They just check their visa and deport them or if they are duals, strip the citizenship.

        They are yet to find a solution for Australian with single citizenship.

        • Antikythera on 24/10/2019 - 01:10
          +1

          "They are yet to find a solution for Australian (criminals) with single citizenship."

          didn't they make them run for parliament and move to Canberra?

    • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 11:23
      -2

      she's a hero. no love for exploitative corporations here

      • MessyG on 23/10/2019 - 20:17

        Disagree. Fraud is fraud and Zara is one of the better ones in terms of ethical operations.

    • MessyG on 23/10/2019 - 20:12

      I don't agree wth jail time. Jail is a limited resource that should be reserved for those who pose a threat to life and liberty. I agree with punishment and rehabilitation but but I don't think jail is the right rehab for this crime. I wish society had the resources and creativity available to make the punishment fit the crime and rehab to enlighten.

      I'm scratching my head coming up with a justifiable punishment and rehabilitation plan though.

      • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 20:52
        +1

        I think there may be a solution. We can provide a temporary suspension from their lives to attend a full time stay rehab.

        The rehab will be a rigid structure that may impart discipline - three square meals a day and a chance to reflect on the actions they have chosen. They will be in a support group of other offenders.

        They will have access to counsellors and books but their interaction with the world they will eventually return to will be limited. Their focus will be on their rehabilitation and as such, uniforms will be provided to remove any further distractions.

        • MessyG on 24/10/2019 - 14:15

          Putting an offender in with other (much worse) offenders - what could possibly go wrong?

          • [Deactivated] on 24/10/2019 - 14:22

            @MessyG: Ah. Those individuals are fortunate to have been randomly selected for the advanced reflection program.

  • elusive on 22/10/2019 - 15:12
    +11

    Buying a new item, to return an older identical item using the receipt/tag

    That's kinda mischaracterising the situation.

    A Spanish court recently heard the woman pulled off the scam by buying new clothing from the popular retailer from a range of different stores, before removing their tags and putting them on older, pre-worn Zara items already in her wardrobe.

    […]

    The judge which sentenced the woman said her rort was so sophisticated she had figured out which barcodes matched certain colours of clothing.

    “The fact that both the interior and exterior tags matched and were precisely placed on clothing of similar colour shows the fraudulent mechanism and desire to benefit, so in that way, she renewed her wardrobe at no cost,” the judge said, according to The Sun.

    I expect there's a difference between returning worn clothing while changing the barcode to match a different SKU entirely, compared to returning an older identical item (presumably unused, just outside the return period/before a sale).

    One is clear fraud and the store is left with a used item or an item with the wrong SKU (and possibly worth less). The other, it's harder to argue the store is actually losing out on anything apart from restocking. Item out, identical item in brand new condition in - it's a wash.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 16:07
      +7

      It is outside the return period. The plaintiff knows this. They have taken conscious effort to mislead the business in order obtain a refund/exchange that they are no longer entitled to.

      It is fraud.

      • elusive on 22/10/2019 - 16:31
        +1

        True - it's an abuse of return policies and dodgy at best. But IMO it's on a completely different level than the one that led to this arrest and conviction, which involved substituting entirely different items.

        I'd expect the situation you describe to lead to something like a ban from the store or maybe civil action at the highest end.

        • gromit on 23/10/2019 - 15:59

          It would lead to a ban or civil action at best. Most places would simply refer the matter as fraud to the police. There is no gray area here, it is outright criminal fraud.

      • trapper on 22/10/2019 - 16:39

        Exactly, it's fraud any way you look at it.

    • bmerigan on 23/10/2019 - 17:32
      +1

      There's no way she's in trouble for repeatedly returning NEW items.

      As far as I can tell, she bought item, removed tags, wore item for a while, reinstalled tags, and returned the item as new.

      • John on 23/10/2019 - 18:04

        Are you referring to something else? She returns a different (older) item of clothing that matches the description of the tag

  • GG57 on 22/10/2019 - 15:18
    +1

    Seems a reasonable penalty to me.

  • one man clan on 22/10/2019 - 15:20
    +5

    She was jailed and slapped? I didn't know Spain practiced corporal punishment.

    • GG57 on 22/10/2019 - 15:31
      +3

      I suggest having a look at the actions of Spanish police officers in Barcelona in the past week.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 16:09
      +8

      I reckon they should just keep asking questions as punishment.

      We will call this the Inquisitive Spaniard.

      • Forfiet on 23/10/2019 - 06:52
        +3

        I…..Did'nt expect that…..

        • redfox1200 on 23/10/2019 - 08:12
          +5

          No one expects the Inquisitive Spaniard

    • karteej on 23/10/2019 - 11:44

      Slapped on her hinee that is. Teehee

  • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 16:06
    +2

    Problem for society is that it will cost many times her offence to keep her in prison. $110,000 a year in Aus, according to one source. The court costs alone would buy quite a nice wardrobe.

    She should be made to work in a clothing sweatshop for six months.

    • trapper on 22/10/2019 - 16:47
      +2

      That math is incomplete though, and actually misses the main mechanism by which society is repaid.

      Deterrence.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 17:04
        +1

        Research into deterrence shows that imprisonment has, at best, no effect on the rate of reoffending and often results in a greater rate of recidivism.

        Possible explanations for this include that:

        • prison is a learning environment for crime,

        • prison reinforces criminal identity and may diminish or sever social ties that encourage lawful behaviour and imprisonment

        • imprisonment is not the appropriate response to many offenders who require treatment for the underlying causes of their criminality
          (such as drug, alcohol and mental health issues).

        • trapper on 22/10/2019 - 17:21
          +2

          Deterrence is not about individual reoffending though, deterrence is about all the people who never offend in the first place!

          ie, All those other people considering a fraud scam to rip off Zara may think otherwise when they see this woman going to jail.

          • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 17:24

            @trapper: Agreed and Zara knows it. They are making an example of her.

          • outlander on 22/10/2019 - 19:52
            +1

            @trapper:

            deterrence is about all the people who never offend in the first place

            Doubt it does much there either. The ordinary people who hear about it and get dissuaded, were never going to do it anyway. Its not like there's millions of people eying Zara clothes, planning schemes to update their wardrobe, who suddenly read about this court case and go 'Rats! My plans for a glamorous life of crime are dashed.'

            The only time I think deterrence really works, is for high financial crimes, where the person has to think long and hard, waying up the pros and cons, before going forward with it. And based on recent trends, those tend to be punished very very lightly, so it doesn't even work there.

            • vikvance on 22/10/2019 - 20:28
              +3

              @outlander:

              The ordinary people who hear about it and get dissuaded, were never going to do it anyway.

              If there is no penalty, then of course everyone is going to do it.

              Imagine if there was no real penalty for not paying your train fare. In a few weeks, no one would buy a ticket.

              It's the same thing in this situation. If fraudsters are let off without any penalty, then more and more people will think about committing fraud.

              • abb on 25/10/2019 - 14:24

                @vikvance:

                If there is no penalty, then of course everyone is going to do it.

                My understanding (read: CBF looking up that study I read the abstract of a year ago), the likelihood of being caught is the most important deterrence factor.

                If the penalty for fare evasion is $100 fine, but an average traveller's ticket is only checked once per year, many people will cheat the system. If you jack the fine up to $1k and leave the inspection rate the same, not many people will change their behaviour.

                However, if you keep the fine at $100 and increase inspection rates by a factor of 10, a whole bunch of fare-evaders will start buying tickets.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 21:48

          We can't just execute these people…

          … can we?

          • juki on 22/10/2019 - 23:58

            @[Deactivated]: create a situation in which they execute themselves? I'm just being sarcastic for the sake of it.

            I had no idea that a prisoner cost so much - maybe we are spending too much on prisons, how much is a person in
            - a mental health institution
            - a dementia ward
            - a regular hospital bed

            i think this is just zara wanting to get some buzz and kind of deter this kind of theft

            • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 09:26

              @juki:

              i think this is just zara wanting to get some buzz and kind of deter this kind of theft

              That may be their motif for pressing charges but Zara cannot criminally convict anyone.

              The judicial system has found the plaintiff to be guilty of said criminal charges.

    • vikvance on 22/10/2019 - 20:29

      Problem for society is that it will cost many times her offence to keep her in prison. $110,000 a year in Aus, according to one source.

      We pay taxes precisely so that the government protects us and maintains law and order.

      Businesses pay taxes too & deserve equal protection by the government against criminal elements.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 16:54
    -6

    Jail term is harsh. The whole thing could have been better handled by Zara by:

    • employing staff who can tell the difference between brand new clothing and worn ones from last season. How hard is that?

    • having a chat with the customer and letting her know they are onto her.

    • Ughhh on 22/10/2019 - 17:00
      +9

      Isn't that victim blaming?

      • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 17:16

        Is it victim blaming to say that a multi-million dollar company should have risk management strategies in place to stop petty theft/ consumer fraud?

        I, personally, wouldn't be happy if my tax money was spent on keeping that woman, or those shoppers who routinely scan mushrooms as carrots, in jail. Would you?

        Furthermore, research shows that imprisonment has no deterrence effect.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join