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

Comments

- - - Ughhh on 22/10/2019 - 17:25
      
      Should non multi million dollar inviduals, in particular women, have risk management strategies when picking clothes or going for a walk?
      
      Does having money not qualify one as a victim?
      
      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?
      
      That's a completely seperated issue that I'm not talking about, thus will not respond with an opinion.
      - [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 17:29
        
        -1
        
        @Ughhh: Like @trapper has pointed out, Zara is making an example of this woman. They are not exactly guileless in this.
        
        The woman carried out the scam over 15 months,
        
        That's a long time. The cynic in me can't help but wonder if someone from Zara's legal team didn't say, "Let's give her enough rope…"
        
        trapper on 22/10/2019 - 17:51
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Prosecuting people who rip you off is the rule not the exception.
        
        Who hasn't seen or heard 'Shoplifters will be prosecuted'? This is no different.
        
        Also this systematic and on-going fraud is worse in many ways than simple shoplifting. (although shoplifting is often also systematic and on going…)
        
        [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 18:33
        
        @trapper:
        
        Prosecuting people who rip you off is the rule not the exception
        
        Trying to recoup your losses first is more the norm than going straight to prosecuting. I couldn't even find the estimated loss that Zara suffered due to her fraud. Do they even know? Do they even care?
        
        To be clear, I agree that what she did was wrong and she deserved to be punished. Did she deserve to be incarcerated for months and have her sentence broadcasted all over the world? I'm not so sure about that one.
        
        trapper on 22/10/2019 - 18:45
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: You are still missing the point. They don't care about recovering the $1.50 for a candy bar someone stole, it will cost far more time and effort than the candy bar is worth.
        
        They care about DETERRENCE.
        
        [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 18:48
        
        +1
        
        @trapper: My comment was more directed at all those feeling bad for Zara and saying I'm victim-blaming the company. Zara played the game well and is reaping the benefits in free publicity and deterrence.
        
        Ughhh on 22/10/2019 - 17:58
        
        @[Deactivated]: It's unfortunate that we live in a world where generosity is often viewed as weakness, form of weakness or fault.
        
        The woman carried out the scam over 15 months
        
        At what frequency? Once every day, once every 2 months? Either way, I would assume Police and legal team need to gather solid evidence. Zara also can't just ban a customer for no reason, even if they can legally, it would be bad PR. If the company can't provide a good reason to the public, customer will most likely scream out discrimination etc etc. Many business' write off the stolen items due to cost to bring it to court, but if Zara can afford to stand up for themselves, they have every right to. What the woman did was way over the line.
        
        [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 18:44
        
        +1
        
        @Ughhh:
        
        Zara also can't just ban a customer for no reason
        
        Yes, they can. If you read the rest of the article:
        
        Earlier this year, a number of retailers — including online fashion powerhouse Asos — revealed they would be updating their returns policy and potentially black-listing offenders in future.
        
        Many business' write off the stolen items due to cost to bring it to court, but if Zara can afford to stand up for themselves, they have every right to.
        
        I've found this article where it says that 6 incidents of fraud were recorded. Just because Zara has the clout to send someone who has stolen 6 items of clothing from them to jail for 6 months and have their sentence broadcasted all over the world, doesn't mean it's right.
        
        trapper on 22/10/2019 - 18:49
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        because Zara has the clout to send someone who has stolen 6 items of clothing from them to jail for 6 months
        
        Zara doesn't have any 'clout' to send anyone to jail. They just report the crime to the police and pass along whatever evidence they have.
        
        [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 18:52
        
        @trapper: They have a legal team. It's a David and Goliath battle.
        
        gromit on 23/10/2019 - 16:14
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: It is a criminal prosecution, Zara's legal team is irrelevant and won't be involved. Or does Spain somehow work differently where corporations run the criminal justice system?
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 17:42
        
        @gromit: Have you been to Spain?
        
        I remember reading an article when I was there ( circa 2015?) where the chief magistrate of the supreme court described Spain's legal system as only fit for "chicken thieves" and that corruption and kickbacks were rife. I'll try to find a source for it if you need one.
        
        gromit on 23/10/2019 - 17:46
        
        @[Deactivated]: and how is that relevant to Zara's legal team? or are you implying the Zara's legal team bribed the prosecutors and judge?
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 17:48
        
        @gromit: I was only answering the part about whether spain's legal system was different to ours. It was when I lived there.
        
        As for Zara/ Inditex legal team , all I can say is that they must be pretty good if the group has escaped fairly unscathed from accusations such as not paying their employees, slave and child labour, as well as exploiting Syrian refugees.
        
        gromit on 23/10/2019 - 17:59
        
        @[Deactivated]: you seem to have a grudge against Zara or perhaps just like to support criminals. either way none of what you have said is relevant for prosecuting what is a fairly obvious and intentional crime by Spanish prosecutors. I can't claim to have much knowledge of either Zara or the system in Spain, but regardless none of those seem remotely relevant to the facts of this case.
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 18:01
        
        @gromit: I don't have a grudge against Zara. I do however refuse to sympathise with a company who has often been linked to what amounts to , at best, unethical practices. Why do people have such short memory?
        
        gromit on 23/10/2019 - 18:09
        
        +6
        
        @[Deactivated]: The two are unrelated. If I rob your house, it doesn't matter whether you are a scumbag or a saint I get prosecuted all the same if caught and you don't have to have any sympathy for Zara to want a criminal prosecuted, nor does it excuse any crimes or offenses committed by Zara. likewise it is irrelevant whether Zara are good or bad as to whether you prosecute a criminal. You implied earlier it was a David and Goliath battle due to Zara's size when that isn't the case at all as you aren't prosecuted by the company, you are prosecuted by the judicial system. Only in Civil matters is the size or clout of a company relevant. You want all criminals treated equally not by whether the people or companies they wronged are good or bad.
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 18:21
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]: *memories
- trapper on 22/10/2019 - 17:24
  
  +2
  
  Having a chat with the woman won't deter any others considering or already pulling the same scam. News articles about her being jailed will.
- [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 21:50
  
  +1
  
  employing staff who can tell the difference between brand new clothing and worn ones from last season. How hard is that?
  
  So Zara should bear the financial liability for someone else's criminal behaviour?
  
  having a chat with the customer and letting her know they are onto her.
  
  So she can adapt her technique?
  - TerryJustTerry on 23/10/2019 - 11:09
    
    +1
    
    No no no Tshow, you don't understand.
    The lady should not have to change her behavior the massive business must!
    
    /s
  - [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 17:56
    
    So Zara should bear the financial liability for someone else's criminal behaviour?
    
    Of course not. They , like most retailers, will find a way to pass it down to consumers :p
    
    So she can adapt her technique?
    
    Banning her was always an option. Colesworth does it. So does Target. Thankfully common sense prevails here. I would hate if my tax money was being spent on investigating and incarcerating these petty thieves.
- burningrage on 23/10/2019 - 21:39
  
  I like the recent posts that almost always absolves everything wrong (criminal or civil) once one of the party has the magic words "multi million dollars"
  
  "It is okay to rip multi million dollars corporation" as an example.
mini2 on 22/10/2019 - 17:13

+4

Still a lot more elaborate than the usual 'oh snap I bought this last week for x% more now I gotta buy one discounted and return them using the old receipt' method.
- sparkles on 23/10/2019 - 08:15
  
  +2
  
  Agree, this Zara thing was a complete an utter rort. Returning used clothing with changed labels is 100% fraudulent. Returning a brand new identical item because the price dropped shortly after purchase is a completely different scenario and completely above board if it's within the returns period.
try2bhelpful on 22/10/2019 - 17:31

+3

Personally I think jail for this is not optimum; especially given how many people end up with things like "good behaviour bonds" for violent crimes. I do think she needs a fairly stiff fine and banning her from Zara is a good move. The publicity on this case will probably be a much worse punishment than anything else because Google will not be her friend. The question is where some of us draw the line. I, certainly, wouldn't do this but we have managed to get a few freebie months out of something like Stan by changing our email address.
kahn on 22/10/2019 - 17:36

+8

That's an elaborate method to avoid washing one's clothes.
Donaldhump on 22/10/2019 - 17:52

she deserves it, if its done over and over.

although i do recall doing this with cd's at a young age, i am not proud of that btw
- orangetrain on 22/10/2019 - 18:03
  
  You could have been jailed for 6 months. You got lucky they ignored you.
  
  on the other hand, if you made a copy of the CD and gave it to a friend, that's 5 years jail, mate.
  - Donaldhump on 22/10/2019 - 18:10
    
    they didn't ignore me i never got caught, but it was once and i was 15 (no excuse but dumb and stupid)
    
    i think doing over and over as a repetitive premeditated plan and as a adult, it is deserving of prison time, but more economical to be house arrest with an ankle tag or wrist tag…
    
    as for the 5 year jail time for copying a cd, pretty much 99% of the western world would have violated this law one way or another, your mum recording tv to video back and the day was a crime… pretty mental being put in jail for longer than a rapist for copying a cd….
    - trapper on 22/10/2019 - 18:14
      
      +1
      
      Copying a CD was never a crime, distributing copies to other people was the crime.
      - Donaldhump on 22/10/2019 - 18:15
        
        @trapper: cool
        
        s /"copy a cd"/"copy a cd and give to a friend"/ g
        
        idonotknowwhy on 23/10/2019 - 12:50
        
        @Donaldhump: That wouldn't do anything, since the string wouldn't be matched.
        Also, you only mentioned it once, so no need for the g (global) at the end.
        
        Donaldhump on 23/10/2019 - 13:07
        
        @idonotknowwhy: u must be bloody bored.
        
        fc
        s /"copying a cd"/"copying a cd and give to a friend" # remove the /g as recommended despite being not hurting
        
        idonotknowwhy on 23/10/2019 - 15:45
        
        @Donaldhump:
        
        u must be bloody bored.
        
        Yeah that's why I'm here lol.
        
        Don't forget the closing / before the comment ;)
[Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 18:52

+1

…so what you are saying is that she is better than Catalonia vice president Junqueras and Minister of the Interior Forn?
whooah1979 on 22/10/2019 - 19:39

-1

Gaol time and a criminal conviction. Good luck finding a job after getting out.
- [Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 21:52
  
  If only our legal system would uphold the law and actually set criminal convictions against traffic obstructors.
- fossilfuel on 22/10/2019 - 22:37
  
  Good luck finding a job after getting out.
  
  Why find a job when she can steal jobs?
[Deactivated] on 22/10/2019 - 23:47

+3

Lionel Messi tax evasion:

"Messi and his father Jorge were found guilty by a Catalan court last July on three counts of tax fraud between 2007 and 2009 to the tune of €4.1m on image rights. The Argentine was never expected to serve time in jail. Under the Spanish system prison terms of under two years can be served under probation."

Ronaldo tax evasion:

"MADRID (Reuters) - Portuguese soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo was fined almost 19 million euros ($21.6 million) for tax fraud on Tuesday but will avoid serving a 23-month prison sentence after agreeing a deal."

That part about the sentences under two years being served under probation is probably going to apply in this Zara case. Bit of a show trial. There's a fair chance that headline is clickbait, as receiving a 6 month jail sentence is not the same as being jailed in Spain.
sparkles on 23/10/2019 - 08:23

+1

The irony is Zara clothing isn't even very good.
- [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 09:28
  
  +3
  
  I don't see the irony. More a statement of fact (opinion to be fair).
ccrap on 23/10/2019 - 09:15

Love the legal debate from the IANALs, but FYI OP has mischaracterised the facts - the story is not about returning an older identical item, it’s about passing off older different items by learning how Zara’s SKUs work to figure out things like what the codes are for eg colours, clothes types etc - ie a clear cut case of fraud!
- HighAndDry on 23/10/2019 - 09:45
  
  +1
  
  An older item is still not the same item as the one on the invoice, even if it's the same SKU. It's still, as you put it:
  
  a clear cut case of fraud!
- [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 12:00
  
  THX for the DL on her MO.
ColstonAUS on 23/10/2019 - 11:38

-1

Surely a fine to the sum of an estimated value of what was stolen + a large penalty amount would be enough of a deterrent. There are people who avoid jail time for far worse violent crimes. Keep in mind Zara is a multi billion dollar company so its not exactly crippling their business, which is no excuse but still, 6 months in prison is harsh
Kamsi on 23/10/2019 - 12:03

+2

There is always some fked up people who do anything like this thinking they can get away with it. Too bloody lenient.
ronnknee on 23/10/2019 - 13:18

Buying a new item, to return an older identical item using the receipt/tag, might be a jail-able offence

Not sure if you read the article.

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.
[Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 13:40

+4

Interesting.

"The owner of Zara saved “at least” €585 million in taxes by using aggressive corporate tax avoidance techniques in Ireland, the Netherlands and Switzerland, a new report from Europe’s Green Party/EFA claims. Some €60 million of this is related to the group’s Irish operations."

"In the Netherlands, royalty fees are paid by Inditex retail branches to a Dutch subsidiary, where they are taxed at 15 per cent. This Dutch subsidiary got € 3.7 billion in revenue in the 2011-2014 period and had a net income of €1.7 billion, with just 203 employees (as of 2014), according to the report."

To be fair, the woman should be jailed in one of the tax havens Zara funnels it's money into.
- Bunnyburger on 23/10/2019 - 13:43
  
  +1
  
  "bUt iT's LEgAl!"! ;)
  - HighAndDry on 23/10/2019 - 13:50
    
    If they were legal, then yes, "but it's legal" is perfectly valid.
    
    Do you make no personal tax deductions?
    - [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 14:03
      
      +1
      
      If everyone did it, who would pay for the Spanish legal system, police and prisons that Zara relies upon?
      
      "According to our estimations, shifting royalties to the Netherlands has cost in missing tax revenues: €218 million for Spain, €25 million for Germany, €57 million for Italy, €76 million for France, €20 million for Greece, £22 million for the UK, €18 million for Belgium and €6 million for Austria”."
      
      I think it's reasonable to ask if the Netherlands should jail her instead.
      
      Regarding deductions, I claim no deductions. Your point?
      - HighAndDry on 23/10/2019 - 14:21
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        If everyone did it, who would pay for the Spanish legal system, police and prisons that Zara relies upon?
        
        That's for the Spanish Government to legislate.
        
        You may as well ask the same question of individual tax deductions.
        
        Regarding deductions, I claim no deductions. Your point?
        
        Literally impossible unless you make no income and pay no taxes.
        
        whooah1979 on 23/10/2019 - 14:28
        
        @HighAndDry: Frugal and living a under rock.
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 14:35
        
        @whooah1979: "Frugal and living a under rock."
        
        It's astonishing how many people who disagree with me are illiterate. Would you like a second try or do you still have stage fright?
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 15:26
        
        -1
        
        @HighAndDry: The wrongness of your statement shows you don't own assets. You shouldn't try to apply your situation to others.
    - Bunnyburger on 23/10/2019 - 22:15
      
      +1
      
      I think they're termed aggressive tax avoidance techniques because they're elaborate methods used to reduce/avoid tax. To equate personal tax deductions to the concoctions of a full legal team wouldn't be fair. Moves like these are typically skirt on the gray area of the law, they're usually legal until they're not, then a settlement is usually negotiated.
      
      When you're a titan of a company you can exert influence on how you get taxed, bargain with the tax department, and put up a jolly good fight with the help of a magic circle law firm in court. The common man on the street can't do this. On paper everyone is subject to the same laws, but in practice we see a difference in outcome due to the power differential that exists.
      
      Also no need to take a shot at me.
gromit on 23/10/2019 - 15:54

" might be a jail-able offence"

what do you mean "might"?, fraud is a criminal offense, depending on scale of fraud there aint no might about it.
- [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 16:00
  
  +1
  
  There is a 'might' about it. Jail sentences under 2 years in Spain often do not involve being jailed, being served out of jail under probation.
  
  Jose Mourinho accepted a one year sentence for tax evasion and served nil.
  - gromit on 23/10/2019 - 16:04
    
    no the statement was "it might be a jailable offense". IT IS A JAILABLE offense, whether you end up in jail is up to the prosecution and courts to decide.
    - [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 16:30
      
      The statement was:
      
      "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)."
      
      Now if the salesperson notices the item is used/tampered/altered and refuses to process a return, doesn't call Police, where is the offence? Everything you have said requires escalation that might or might not occur. They might threaten that if it happens again, they will call police. Where is your jailable offence? An unsuccessful attempt, no police involved and never judged in a court? That's just unreported attempted fraud.
      
      I think you are also missing that OP was trying to break the news gently to all the return fraudsters on OzBargain.
      - gromit on 23/10/2019 - 17:44
        
        @[Deactivated]: not reporting an offense doesn't mean an offense didn't occur. It is a jailable offense both here and in most countries, whether you end up in Jail is determined by whether you are caught, reported, prosecuted and sentenced. regardless of whether any of those occur it is a jailable offense.
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 18:17
        
        @gromit: Well you are wrong on an obvious technicality. The quote says buying a new item with an intention:
        
        "Buying a new item, to return an older identical item using the receipt/tag"
        
        It says nothing about an actual future fraud attempt, just the initial purchase. You jumped the gun. That bought item might or might not be used for fraud. It's not necessarily a jailable offence to purchase a new item with intent to change tags. Changing the tags and attempting the return would be the offence. It depends on your later actions, so the use of the word 'might' is perfectly OK. If the buyer gets cold feet after purchase, there is no jailable offence for purchasing with intent to defraud at a later stage if you never follow through. You've bought the item and paid for it. Say in the store "I plan to change tags and return older items" and they will tell you to go away. You are more likely to be charged with creating a public nuisance.
        
        Basically you would have to demonstrate that confessing to buying an item with intention to fraudulently return it but never doing it can get you in jail. The use of the word 'might' was fine.
        
        gromit on 23/10/2019 - 18:40
        
        @[Deactivated]: ummm.. ", to return an older identical item using the receipt/tag" that is fraud.
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 18:41
        
        @gromit: No, as written, it's a future intention. If you can find a jail sentence given for preparation to defraud by buying a harmless item for retail price alone, I will stand corrected.
        
        gromit on 23/10/2019 - 18:44
        
        @[Deactivated]: in that case the OP is even more wrong as there is no might as nothing has no action has been taken.
        
        [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 19:00
        
        @gromit: I think 'might' was used by the OP to disavow responsibility for legal advice and/or to politely call people who have done the full shebang only 99% criminal.
hashtagbargain on 23/10/2019 - 16:32

+2

UNPOPULAR OPINION:

There should be more to the story… I feel like things would have been different if she had a worthy lawyer to defend her. IMHO this should be a civil case and not criminal, like someone above mentioned her job prospects are now ruined. Mental illness perhaps, who knows?

I think this is overreach on Zara's behalf. Couldn't they just ban her from the store/chain and be done with it? Not sure why they let her keep coming back even after her little game was discovered.
- HighAndDry on 23/10/2019 - 17:33
  
  -2
  
  Couldn't they just ban her from the store/chain and be done with it?
  
  Couldn't the woman just not have engaged repeatedly in fraud?
- salmon123 on 23/10/2019 - 18:05
  
  +3
  
  I think this is overreach on Zara's behalf
  
  Yup, big and powerful companies get preferential treatment from the criminal justice system world over.
  
  Did any executives go to jail for the GFC? valdez oil spill? Gulf of mexico? Bhopal gas leak?
- [Deactivated] on 24/10/2019 - 11:42
  
  Mental illness perhaps, who knows?
  
  The lawyer that came up with this defence needs to be immortalized alongside OJ Simpson's (aka. Chewbacca) lawyer.
kurnugi on 23/10/2019 - 17:04

+2

O bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao!
[Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 18:30

+1

How does this deserve jail time? I'm guessing that's suspended jail sentence?

She didn't make any money off it and Zara probably made money off her? She just really likes Zara lol.
- [Deactivated] on 23/10/2019 - 21:03
  
  Time to the the tricksies on ANZ cause I like their product… monies!
OzzyOzbourne on 23/10/2019 - 22:30

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/road-rager-in-a-…

Even carried box cutters and drugs in his car

Gets a slap on the wrist
mafmouf on 23/10/2019 - 23:46

"She has slapped with"

Who TF writes and edits these "articles?"
- DeafMutePretender on 24/10/2019 - 00:55
  
  +2
  
  Modern day "journalism"/art graduate students.
jaimex2 on 24/10/2019 - 11:36

This isn't Spain. Although I'm all up for elbargain.com.au
- [Deactivated] on 24/10/2019 - 11:44
  
  +3
  
  ElCheapoDelToroEspecial.com.es

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

Related Stores

Comments

New Forum Topics