vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Most likely scenario (A): You spend tons of time and effort talking to them, with the end result that they take away the extra points.  You feel screwed having to do their job for them - they've given you no benefit for looking out for them, and you're left with the points you've earned but maybe less desire to go back and use them. Most likely scenario (B): You just use the points, they eventually figure out the problem and fix it.  They send you a nasty letter, demanding some sort of compensation that they have no legal obligation to (because points are not money, you will have rendered existing points for service, and they have, per your existing phone call which can be substantiated in existence though not content through phone records, confirmed that they are yours) - they may go so far as to bar you from their premises.  If you don't use enough points to go ""negative"" before they fix it, you may avoid this. If they can deal with this competently from a customer service/PR standpoint, then in scenario (A) they may understand you quickly, and they may leave you with some extra points for your trouble.  In scenario (B), pretty much the same thing - they'll let you have the points you used and even leave you a little extra. I suggest in either case you only engage in written communication with them or, if your jurisdiction allows it, record voice conversations.  You need a record of what you've been told."
In the US, the bank is legally required to report any cash transactions over 10k$ to the government. This normally has no consequences, and you will never hear about it. No need to worry about it. If the amount is very high, or you do it repeatedly, or the government has other (pre-existing) reasons to look at your finances sharply, they might ask you where the money came from and what you did with it, but your explanation is perfectly fine (assuming it is true). The idea is to catch money-launderers that try to get large illegal cash incomes into the banking system. Classic example is the drug lord who makes a million a month in cash from selling drugs, and needs to get this million into the banks (as you can't buy houses or luxury cars or yachts with cash without getting FBI attention right away).
Yes it does. They are required to report all of those transactions to me before they happen.  I don't live a perfect life, in fact, far from it. But I sleep pretty good at night knowing that I'm at least doing this much.
Simply file an amended return to correct the mistake. This happens all the time and is a standard procedure that every legitimate tax pro can handle. You can work it out with the tax pro about whose mistake it was and who should pay for the additional service.
A market crash won't affect your cash held with your broker - however if the broker defaults (goes bankrupt), you may lose some or all of that cash. If you read the customer agreement that you signed when opening the account, it's very likely that there's a clause that stipulates that under certain circumstances, the broker has the right to use your cash and/or your positions without notice. If the broker default you may not be able to recover the assets they've been using. As an example, look at clause 14 of the Interactive Brokers US customer agreement. This is a fairly standard clause. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may have a partial or full legal protection against such an event (e.g. the SIPC protection for US-based brokers which would apply to you if your broker is IB LLC, even if you are not a US resident/citizen).
If the correction results in you owing them money, you typically just need to pay them the appropriate amount. I believe they charge back-dated interest on the amount if it was supposed to have been paid in the past, but if it's for this year's taxes then payment isn't due until the end of April and so interest would not apply. In some circumstances, they may apply fines or press charges for tax evasion, but only if they have reason to believe you intentionally/knowingly attempted to misrepresent your tax return in order to avoid paying taxes. You can challenge their decision to fine you, but you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Obviously that's the opposite for any criminal charges. The good news is, lots of people accidentally enter the wrong numbers and the CRA is aware of this and rarely takes action against them, other than making them pay what they owe. They have ways to look for suspicious behavior and differentiate that from innocent mistakes. So don't worry, you should be fine, not fined.
...or it'll get disclosed in a breach right along with the rest of your info because someone ignored security protocol.  To think otherwise is to assume that the credit reporting agencies are taking proper security precautions when it is really, really clear they aren't.
"In *[United States vs. O'Hagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Hagan)* the Supreme Court established the precedent of interpreting SEC rule 10(b) using the ""misappropriation theory"". The theory establishes that:  &gt; misappropriating confidential information for securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty owed to the source of that information, gives rise to a duty to disclose or abstain.   You're correct that from a legal perspective the rules are anything but clear outside of company insiders. However, your own admission is consistent with what anyone in the securities industry knows is true - if you trade on material non-public information, you risk being charged.  I think most would conclude that it's unethical irrespective of the letter of the law. It damages the integrity and functioning of markets. Furthermore, if the law was clarified, I think it's highly unlikely it would state ""trading on material non-public information is permissible for anyone who is not a company insider"". Instead, I would expect it to be consistent with ""Trading on material non-public information is illegal. If in doubt, abstain."" And this is exactly what the government officials should be doing - abstaining."
If this is a practical, rather than hypothetical, question, the best advice that we could give would be to see a lawyer. If you think your teenager has done something illegal, get a lawyer. The lawyer will then take care of notifying the relevant parties and manage the accusations. In most cases, it would be sufficient to notify the police directly. They understand the concept of scams, and many of them have teenagers of their own. Most of the time, they will try to work with you rather than against you. But if you are really worried about it, this is what lawyers do. A lawyer can separate the teenager and the police, so the teenager makes no admissions. But the lawyer can get the necessary information to the police so that neither the teenager nor you is subject to an obstruction of justice charge. We can help you by pointing to resources or suggesting ways to document what has happened or is happening. Or just point out that something is a scam. But if you are worrying about prosecution, we can't really help you. You can't confide the relevant details to us. There is no asker/answerer confidentiality. Everything is published on the internet with archives. Without those relevant details, how good will our advice be? Talk to a lawyer. The lawyer can tell you what you can and cannot do. And what you tell the lawyer is privileged. So even if you admit criminality, the lawyer can't then tell anyone. And if you're worried that the lawyer might be restricted by what you've said, you can fire the lawyer and hire another. The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Trying to fix things for your teenager is digging. Go to a lawyer and share your concerns. Maybe some of them are groundless. From what you've shared, you could go to the police. But perhaps there is more that we don't know. If so and you are reluctant to share publicly on the internet, that's sensible. Go to a lawyer and share in private. If you are indigent and can't afford an attorney, look into Legal Aid.
This is referred to as an HSA Mistaken Distribution. An HSA mistaken distribution occurs when you take a distribution and later find out that it is not for a qualified medical expense.  For example, this could occur if you accidentally pay for a restaurant dinner with your HSA debit card.  It can also occur if you take a distribution to pay for a medical expense, but then are later reimbursed by insurance. This is discussed in the instructions for IRS forms 1099-SA and 5498-SA.  (Note: these forms are submitted by the HSA bank, not the consumer, so the instructions are addressed to them.) HSA mistaken distributions.   If amounts were distributed during the year from an HSA because of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause, the account beneficiary may repay the mistaken distribution no later than April 15 following the first year the account beneficiary knew or should have known the distribution was a mistake. For example, the account beneficiary reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that an expense was a qualified medical expense and was reimbursed for that expense from the HSA. The account beneficiary then repays the mistaken distribution to the HSA.  You have until April 15 in the year following the refund to repay the HSA and avoid the extra tax and penalty that should be paid if you were to keep the distribution that was not ultimately used for medical expenses.  When you send the money to the HSA bank, you need to explicitly tell them that it is a mistaken distribution repayment, so that they can report it to the IRS correctly and it will not affect your contribution limits.
From a page on consumerfinance.gov A debt collector generally may not contact your employer or other third-parties about the debt. Debt collectors may ask your employer to verify your employment, or ask for your address or telephone number. Note - they aren't even allowed to tell the employer that they are trying to collect a debt. So - even if you were the guilty party, this isn't allowed.  They've already broken very clear laws and thus are probably not trustworthy, so (echoing what others have said) don't give them your own personal information.  If they've done one day's research on the law governing their industry they know this is illegal.  If they've actually gotten any money from your employer, it's theft.  If they haven't then it's just attempted theft.  Contact the police regardless. Also - contact a lawyer.  You may well have the right to sue them.  They've broken Federal laws in a way that causes you injury.  Odds are they've broken state laws as well. One last point - do you even have proof that these are debt collectors collecting a real debt, rather than people trying to get you to give them your SSN?  Perhaps their business plan is to look at company webpages and send bogus requests to the employers for some random employee and then see what information they get back (I'm not him, here's my personal information).  Be very careful to not give any personally identifiable information (date of birth, address, SSN, mother's maiden name, etc).  Anything they ask about you don't provide.
140 to 113?  That doesn't even begin to equal the mess they created.  This borders on criminal negligence but they'll get their wrist slapped and move on. IMHO, a proper punishment would be jail for the CEO, CFO and CTO.   White collar crimes should be punished as severely or more severely than violent crimes.     Edit:  as a small business owner I'm responsible for the whole financial cost of repairing someone's credit if I have a breach. Will they repair the credit for 130 million Americans?
In most cases of fraud, your liability is limited to $50 if you report it within certain number of days (I think 2). After that the liability grows to something like $500. You are covered even if your negligence has caused the breach. In addition VISA guarantees credit cards - in most cases you have 0 liability. Finally checking & savings accounts are FDIC insured up to $250,000 in case the bank goes bankrupt. The $250,000 is a total for all accounts at the given bank. It's up to  you to report and ask for refund though and sometimes you have to jump through hoops to get it but usually it's fairly straightforward and it usually takes only 2 or 3 days.
"The Fair Credit Reporting Act specifies in some detail on pages 50-54 (as labeled in the footer, 55-59 as pages in pdf) the process that occurs when a consumer initiates a dispute. The safe outcome for the reporting agency is to remove the information in dispute from reports within 30 days if the reporting party does not certify the information is complete and accurate (with other statutory timelines for communication to the customer and the reporter). If you initiate a dispute, then the agency is following the law by deleting the reported information, outside new input from the furnisher. If this is unsatisfactory, you have the following statutory right within § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i (d) Notification of deletion of disputed information. Following any deletion of information which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified or any notation as to disputed information, the consumer reporting agency shall, at the request of the consumer, furnish notification that the item has been deleted or the statement, codification or summary pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section to any person specifically designated by the consumer who has within two years prior thereto received a consumer report for employment purposes, or within six months prior thereto received a consumer report for any other purpose, which contained the deleted or disputed information. The section that binds furnishers of information (§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2], starting on page 78 in the footer) places on them the following specific duties: (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. ... (2) Duty to correct and update information.
Its strange The U means You figure it out! What should be done is report all U levels when making an announcement! This gives an accurate total story of the state of employment without pandering to the left or right. We should not accept any comments/reports without asking for all levels. How can we form an opinion with tainted/censored/lying info.  Is this no different than saying housing starts are up yet don't get told we have foreclosures and unsold homes still in the market?
"I just want to point out that this can happen anywhere, teachers with tenure who get into big trouble ""retire early"".  The whole country could do with a heaping helping of accountability. I've already seen unauthorized charges on my credit card, and I'm sure it'll continue for years to come."
Skewed in what way? Present a reason why somebody would falsely report information. If you're saying its skewed lower, then you're saying people with low salaries don't tell the university their truthful salary or don't report. Why would someone do that? Wouldn't they feel indignant that their education wasn't getting them enough money and would want to demonstrate that to the school?
Question 1: Who do I report such fraud to? Walmart, or their card processor. They may be in their right to require the original purchaser to do the report. Generally, credit card and debit card fraud must be reported to the bank within 60 days of the statement for them to take responsibility. I don't see why gift cards would be different. You can also report it to the police, but I believe you'll be asked to file a report in the jurisdiction where the card was used. Again - time is of the essence, and there's nothing much they could do with your report now. Question 2: How can I recover the $100 value of my Walmart gift card? At this point, 2.5 years later when the card was used to buy prepaid cards, there's no way to catch the thief and recover the funds. Had you reported it promptly, Wlamart could have block the prepaid cards sold or track their usage, but now is too late. Question 3: Is Citibank in any way liable? (The gift card was   fraudulently used shortly after---within the same month---I received   it from Citibank.) I doubt it unless you can show a pattern. It could be someone working for the Citibank, someone working for the USPS, or someone just stole a bunch of numbers and waited until they became activated.
Based on your comment that you were not owed the money, yes you do have to return it.  The paperwork you agreed to when you setup the direct deposit, gives them the ability to reverse the transaction. I do not know the maximum time they have to pull it back, but they could do it without warning. If you spend the money and they pull it back, you will not be warned and you might overdraw the account. They might not notice for days or weeks, depending on how they do their audits. It is unusual for a large company to do this because their time card systems are designed to prevent this problem.  If they are on US government contacts this would be bad for them. If they then billed the government for work that was not done, or they billed the wrong customer, they can face fines if the government finds out. You probably have some time before you have to tell them, but I would wait no more than a business day or two before contacting them. You might find out that they do owe you the money.
"Im not sure, but let me try. ""That person"" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market.  God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this.  Actually, good ""hypothetical"" question."
"Yes, the ""speed bump"" explicitly can not impact the reports to the SIP. Two years ago this would not be a big deal, because the SIP was stupidly slow, especially under load. So, you send your report to the SIP faster than you publish your own market data feed, and the SIP just takes forever to publish, meaning your own market data feed still gets to the clients first.  Now that the SIP is blazingly fast this is no longer the case. You still, as an exchange, have to publish to the SIP first (or, within microseconds of jitter, at the same time) but if you have some sort of artificial delay on your market data that is longer than the SIP processing time the SIP updates will arrive first. Doubly so if the consumers are colocated with one of the SIPs.  Edit: For what it's worth, [Matt Hurd has a pretty solid write up covering NYSE American, but it pertains to IEX as well](https://meanderful.blogspot.com/2017/05/nyse-american-attack-of-clones.html)  [BATS also comments on this phenomenon in their SEC comment letter on NYSE American; see footnote 1 on the first page](https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2017-05/nysemkt201705-1718167-150440.pdf) (pdf). The link is somewhat recursive, since it points back to another of Hurd's posts, but still just as accurate an assessment."
The government cares about taxes, and illegal activities. Stashing money under a mattress is not illegal, but earning cash and not paying income tax on it usually is. In many cases money stashed under the mattress was obtained illegally and/or income taxes were not paid. It seems that no matter what we do (except spreading thin our assets to multiple accounts in multiple banks), the government will always be notified of any large bank transaction and we would be forever flagged since. Is this correct ? Yes, reportable transactions will be reported. Also spreading around in multiple accounts/transactions to avoid reporting is called ""structuring"" and is on its own a crime. This is for cash/cash equivalent transactions only, of course. Not sure about the ""forever flagged since"", that part is probably sourced in your imagination."
"You absolutely, positively can land in jail in the United States of America for an unpaid, NON-governmental debt: ""In 2011, Robin Sanders was driving home when she saw the blue and red lights flashing behind her. She knew she had not fixed her muffler, and believed that was why she was being pulled over. She thought she might get a ticket.Instead, Sanders, who lives in Illinois, was arrested and taken to jail.As she was booked and processed, she learned that she had been jailed because she owed debt — $730 to be precise, related to an unpaid medical bill. Unbeknownst to her, a collection agency had filed a lawsuit against her, and, having never received the notice instructing her to appear, she had missed her date in court."" So, a private company is able to marshal the power of the State to arrest a person for a non-criminal act: being in debt. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/24/debtors-prisons-then-and-now-faq#.kzmmbtcOZ"
True, but I don't think that's our only problem. It's a complicated issue, but we've seen the militarization of police, many people fear the police too much to report serious crimes (which might be reformable, but not if Internal Affairs corruption is anyone's idea of reform). Both of these issues stem from a fundamental lack of respect for the populace at large on the police's behalf, a natural response to seeing society's worst day in and day out.   There's also the benefit of having one more level to escalate your issues up. If the insurance company doesn't issue a fair decision, the courts may, and while a police officer doesn't have a legal duty to protect and serve (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0), an insurance company has a contract and a service you paid. Also, though I'm not sure how relevant it is in the insurance industry, companies are competing with each other and thus have an incentive to report their competitor's illegal activity, unlike the blue code of silence.   These problems may be fixable, but they certainly are not easily so.
"Why would you ask ""is the money yours"", when you know it isn't?   When we were young children we were told ""two wrongs don't make a right"". As an adult we know that breaking the law ""to get back at"" someone we perceive as breaking the law is illegal.  In sports and in real life, the retaliator often receives a worse punishment than the initial rule violator.   In the case mentioned, the second part of the ""scam"" would proceed if you participated or not.  The person would go to their bank and indicate a mistaken deposit and have such refunded to their account.  By the correct amount yours would be debited.  Woe to the person that spent this money prior to the debit."