vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"As indicated in comments, this is common practice in the US as well as EU.  For example, in this Fox Business article, a user had basically the same experience: their card was replaced but without the specific merchant being disclosed.  When the reporter contacted Visa, they were told: ""We also believe that the public interest is best served by quickly notifying financial institutions with the information necessary to protect themselves and their cardholders from fraud losses. Even a slight delay in notification to financial institutions could be costly,” the spokesperson said in an e-mail statement. “Visa works with the breached entity to collect the necessary information and provides payment card issuers with the affected account numbers so they can take steps to protect consumers through independent fraud monitoring, and if needed, reissuing cards. The most critical information needed is the affected accounts, which Visa works to provide as quickly as possible.” What they're not saying, of course, is that it's in Visa's best interests that merchants let Visa know right away when a leak occurs, without having to think about whether it's going to screw that merchant over in the press.  If the merchant has to consider PR, they may not let the networks know in as timely of a fashion - they may at least wait until they've verified the issue in more detail, or even wait until they've found who to pin it on so they don't get blamed. But beyond that, the point is that it's easier for the network (Visa/Mastercard/etc.) to have a system that's just a list of card numbers to submit to the bank for re-issuing; nobody there really cares which merchant was at fault, they just want to re-issue the cards quickly.  Letting you know who's at fault is separate.  There's little reason for the issuing bank to ever know; you should find out from the merchant themselves or from the network (and in my experience, usually the former). Eventually you may well find out - the article suggest that: [T]he situation is common, but there is some good news: consumers do in many cases find out the source of the breach. But of course doesn't go into detail about numbers."
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. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person’s transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. So there you have it: they have to stop reporting inaccurate information, and ""promptly"" notify the credit agency once they've determined what is incomplete or inaccurate. I note no specific statutory timeline for this investigation."
"There are few cases where trades were reverted because of a ""technical issues"", for example: When BATS did its IPO its price went down to a few penny due to a computer glitch, because of that the regulators allowed the trades to be reversed as if nothing happened. I think that some trades during the flash crash of the 6 May 2010 were reversed too. However, if the act is clearly fraudulent, they can try to sue the responsible. If a tribunal were to condemn him to reimburse them and that he has enough money to pay for it, they could get their money back. But think of Madoff, the people that invested with Madoff didn't have their investment reversed as Madoff didn't have the money to pay them back. The sames goes with most of criminal, crooks and even rogues traders. Finally, before thinking of reverting anything, there are laws about financial firms to make them implements proper checks to avoid that kind of fraudulent activities as they are responsible for most of the operational risk, especially when it could impact both the firm and their clients. And if the firm doesn't comply with those laws, they are unlikely to get the tribunal on their side if a problem arise."
I don't know. That's not really my call. I know that he is not in America. I know that he thought he was going to be punished so he left. I know he felt that getting the information out was worth the risk of going to jail for.   Also you now get into if it's ok to preform an illegal act to expose an illegal act.   We are talking about a subway owner who created fake employees in order to pay his minimum wage guys less money.
"You can report it as illegal income and you don't have to elaborate any further.  For instance, spirit the cash off to a state where pot is legal and set up a dispensary.  That is not legal at the Federal level, so it is in fact ""illegal income"" vis-a-vis your Form 1040 and that's all you say. Make sure you look, walk, and quack like a fairly successful pot distributor. That will most likely be the end of their inquiry, since they're not terribly driven to investigate the income you do report.  Having to give 33% of it to the IRS is generally strong motivation for folks to not report fake income.  You're not claiming the money is from pot, you're allowing them to infer it."
Note: I am not a lawyer. This is my personal opinion and interpretation. First, your source is European Law, which obviously doesn't apply outside of the EU. The EU cannot make laws that bind entities in other countries; so you cannot claim that the VAT was needed to be mentioned. Second, if you owe something, you owe it; it doesn't matter if it was forgotten to be mentioned. At best, you can say that under those circumstances you don't want the software anymore, and i would assume you can send it back and get your money back (minus a fee for having it used for a while...) - this gets quite difficult to calculate clearly, so it's probably not a good avenue to follow for you. As the company has to send the VAT to your country (they will not be allowed to keep a dime of it, and have to bear the complete cost for the handling), it is a debt you have to your government; they are just the entity responsible for collecting it. Still, if you just ignore them, they will probably suck it up, and your government will also not do a thing to you. If they only have your email address, they have no way of knowing if you even still have/use this address; for all they know, it could be you never got it. They also cannot simply charge your card, as they probably don't have the card data any more (they are not supposed to keep it after the transaction is complete, and they thought it was complete at the time). All in all, you should be safe to ignore it. It's between you and your god/consciousness, if you feel obliged to pay it, as technically you owe it.
Assuming US/IRS: If you filed on time and paid what you believed was the correct amount, they might be kind and let it go. But don't assume they will. If you can't file on time, you are supposed to file estimated taxes before the deadline, and to make that payment large enough to cover what you are likely to owe them. If there is excess, you get it back when you file the actual forms. If there is a shortfall, you may be charged fees, essentially interest on the money you still owe them calculated from the submission due date. If you fail to file anything before the due date, then the fees/interest surcharge is calculated on the entire amount still due; effectively the same as if you had filled an estimated return erroneously claiming you owed nothing. Note that since the penalty scales with the amount still due, large errors do cost you more than small ones. And before anyone asks: no, the IRS doesn't pay interest if you submit the forms early and they owe you money. I've sometimes wondered whether they're missing a bet there, and if it would be worth rewarding people to file earlier in order to spread out the work a bit better, but until someone sells them on that idea...
Having a flimsy, 9 digit number with no validation that you didn't opt out of yet, did you? Because you can, just ask the Aumish. If you think a national ID would be the start of the government knowing everything you do, you're sorely mistaken. The TSA already knows where you've flown. The IRS knows where you live and have lived. Oh, and your iPhone/ Android knows everywhere you've ever been since you first bought it, which is readily available via subpoena. Whatever it is, your privacy was just violated far worse because of the lack of proper, nationally recognized, ID.
"First read the fine print. If you have to pay it, pay it and switch company. If you don't have to pay it and there is no proof that you abused the component beyond normal usage, you don't have to sue them, just return the invoice with legal (not so layman) text like ""I hereby reject paying invoice number xxxx dated xxx because the black box was used under normal conditions and it stopped working"". In this case you wait for them and answer every other letter with the same text until the decide to either sue you, or drop the whole thing. If you choose this path, remember to save all invoice, copies of your rejections, all written/email/phone calls, picutres of the broken item, serial nubmers, contract etc. If they sue you and they loose (can't prove the item was destroied by you), they have to pay you up to one hour of legal advice cost and drop the invoice, if you loose, you do the same (100 pounds) plus the invoice amount according to Swedish law, don't know about your country. Before you follow any advice here, consult your local consumer protection agency, they usually comes up with smart options, they know a bad company with history and give you the right advice."
"The P11D is a record of the total benefits you've received in a tax year that haven't been taxed in another way, a bit like the P60 is a record of the total pay and tax you've paid in a tax year. Note that travel for business purposes shouldn't be taxable, and if that's what's being reported on the P11D you may need to make a claim for tax relief to HMRC to avoid having to pay the tax. I'm not sure whether it's normal for such expenses to be reported there. HMRC will normally collect that tax by adjusting your tax code after the P11D is issued, so that more tax is taken off your future income. So you don't need to do anything, as it'll be handled automatically. As to how you know it's accurate, if you have any doubts you'd need to contact your former employer and ask them to confirm the details. In general you ought to know what benefits you actually received so should at least be able to figure out if the number is plausible. If your ""travel"" was a flight to the USA, then probably it was. If it was a bus ticket, less so :-) If you fill in a tax return, you'll also have to report the amount there which will increase the tax you owe/reduce your refund. You won't be charged twice even if your tax code also changes, as the tax return accounts for the total amount of tax you've already paid. For travel benefits, the exact treatment in relation to tax/P11Ds is summarised here."
I'm guessing you're in the US? If so, yes, you can be prosecuted, but it's unlikely.  Fraud crimes are up to a prosecutor to pursue, there are a lot of fraud cases and bystanders take low priority, I'm assuming you're passively complicit, not actively.  If this is the case it's best to work with the bank to get your situation cleaned up and move on.  These days, most banks have dealt with wire fraud at least once, and they're familiar with cashiers check fraud.   A fair warning, the bank will report you, if they think you're involved, so if you are not a complete bystander, you may want to lawyer up.  So hopefully you didn't try to spend any of the fraudulent money and hopefully you have proof of a third party, because they will want a connection to that person (name/number/other) to file their report.
What, if anything, do I need to do? Thanks! Nothing really.  Depending on what information you provided on SS-4, the IRS may come asking for payroll tax returns etc. In that case you'll have to respond describing the situation. If they don't - you won't.
You have several options: If they refuse the second option, and the incident has already happened look on the HSA website for the form and procedure to return a mistaken distribution. I have used the two options with all our medical providers for the last 3 years. Some preferred option1, some preferred option 2, but none refused both. One almost did, but then reconsidered when they realized I was serious. While there is an April 15th deadline to resolve the mistake, I have found that by requesting the provider accept one of the two options the number of mistakes is greatly reduced.
I find that there are two violation of law , prima facie , if someone earns money by depositing in the online account and then not reporting it ( including in his total income for the year ) and not bringing in India. Income Tax Act violation 1. It is simply comcealment liable for penalty & prosecution under I.T.Act. 2. You should know that anyone who is resident of India as per income Tax Act and having taxable income ( gross total income exceeding exemption limit) will have to fill up the column in his/her income tax return whether Previously these column were not in the Income Tax Return. So , now anyone who is liable to file return of Income can be tried for false return if he has hiddne assets aborad. 2. FEMA violation RBI permits remittance under Liberalized Remittance Scheme. However this scheme can not be used for certain purpose . It is important to examine whether RBI prohibits use of remittance for any entity or business you have described. You can read following FAQ on RBI site Q. 30. What are the prohibited items under the Scheme? Ans. The remittance facility under the Scheme is not available for the following: i) Remittance for any purpose specifically prohibited under Schedule-I (like purchase of lottery tickets/sweep stakes, proscribed magazines, etc.) or any item restricted under Schedule II of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000; ii) Remittance from India for margins or margin calls to overseas exchanges / overseas counter-party; iii) Remittances for purchase of FCCBs issued by Indian companies in the overseas secondary market; iv) Remittance for trading in foreign exchange abroad; v) Remittance by a resident individual for setting up a company abroad; vi) Remittances directly or indirectly to Bhutan, Nepal, Mauritius and Pakistan; vii) Remittances directly or indirectly to countries identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as “non co-operative countries and territories”, from time to time; and viii) Remittances directly or indirectly to those individuals and entities identified as posing significant risk of committing acts of terrorism as advised separately by the Reserve Bank to the banks.
That's just not relevant.  Of course you can't prove they aren't responsible.  How is she going to hold Equifax fully legally responsible for what happened to her when there was only a 15% increase in fraud?  What's to say she's not in the 85% that would have happened anyway?  How are they going to prove in court that Equifax should be forced to make her whole?  I mean, look at [this list of breaches.](https://www.identityforce.com/blog/2017-data-breaches)  Why isn't one of those guys responsible for paying for her problems?
"If you were making that large of a payment (via a cashiers check or other   withdrawal means from a cash account)   to a credit card, would the payment   generate a Cash Transaction Report? Probably, yes. If it does require the bank to make a CTR, then is there any harm in   that or anything to be concerned about   (like that transaction appearing   suspicious, personal reporting   implications, etc.)? Are there any   other reasons why one might want to   make sure payments to a credit card   are broken up made* in amounts smaller   than $10K? You should be concerned if you cannot explain the source of the money (legally...). If you withdrew cash from your own account and paid your credit card with it, in case of questions asked you can show the account statement with the matching withdrawal, and you're done. The point in this report is to point at people who move around large amounts of cash. Usually, people pay credit cards with checks or ACH transactions, but if you want cash - it's your right, as long as the cash was obtained legally. But if you're paying your credit cards off with the cash you got as a bribe or by selling cocaine on the streets, then you should be worried. By the way, breaking into smaller payments may not save you from being reported to the money laundering detection agencies. The report is per transaction, not per payment, so if the credit card statement is $11K and you pay $5K and $6K - the transaction is still $11K. Also, the bank can file a report even if it is not required (it was clarified in the other answer to the same question you're referring to), if the clerk thinks the transaction is suspicious. This leaves the decision on filing a report solely on the banks ""common sense"" and internal policies which you don't know. So even paying $10 in cash may trigger a report if the bank suspects wrongdoing."
This article might help:   https://www.law360.com/articles/733853/good-news-for-foreign-investors-in-us-defense-industry  It appears it's the responsibility of the defence contractor to prove it's not under foreign influence or control if they want to keep their security clearance, the loss of which would likely put them out of business as a defence contractor.  So if I understand correctly, there's nothing (aside from money) stopping me, a foreigner, from owning a huge chunk of a US defence contractor. They just won't listen if I try to tell them what to do. If I try and force them to do what I say, the US Department of Defence will get angry and I'll lose all the money I invested.
"Hypothetically, yes! From the U.S. BEP's guidelines on Damaged Currency: Under regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury, mutilated   United States currency may be exchanged at face value if: ""50% or less"" includes ""0%"". However, it is probably going to be very difficult to prove that the currency existed, had a specific face value, and was completely destroyed (instead of being replaced with a decoy at the last minute.)"
You've already done everything I would suggest: Contact the collections agency, being careful in what personal information you provide. Check all three of your credit reports, for any trace of incorrect information. At this point, since you've confirmed that the social security number that the collections agency has does not match yours, and you've confirmed that you have nothing in your credit report about this debt, I don't think you need to worry about it. Collections agencies employ a number of tactics to try to collect on bad debt.  The first dilemma they have is finding the debtor.  Sometimes this is easier than other times.  In this case, they obviously don't know where this person is, so they just started contacting people that have the same name as the debtor, hoping that they will get lucky.  Intimidation is a major collections agency tactic, so I'm sure the letter you got was strongly worded. Your phone call to them may or may not have convinced them that they have the wrong person.  (Believe it or not, people sometimes lie to collections agencies.)  So the biggest thing you may have to deal with is continued harassment by the agency.  If they think you are lying to them, you can expect more phone calls and more harassment. The FTC has a FAQ page about debt collection.  If you hear from them again, don't fall for any intimidation tactics that they might say to you.  Just tell them not to contact you again, and report them if they do.  They will eventually get the message and go away.
From a tax perspective, it doesn't matter whether what you are doing is fraud, illegal, or perfectly legit.  If you make money, the IRS will want you to pay taxes on it.  Drug dealers, pimps, hobos, professional gamblers, extortionists, coupon collectors.  The IRS doesn't care.  They want their taxes. Now, where do you pay taxes?  There are two likely options:  I'm not a tax lawyer so I can't say which would be more correct.  My expectation is that the IRS would be fine with either.
Title is misleading.  This only applies to medical marijuana patients, people with conditions/disabilities, as it falls under disability discrimination to fire someone because of the medicine they are legally prescribed.   However, if you aren't a lawful medical marijuana patient and fail a drug test in MASS, your employer can absolutely fire you with little recourse.
I'd think the first question here is: Did they overpay you? And if so, what were the circumstances? At one extreme: If you lied on your timesheet and said you worked 50 hours when really you only worked 40, and they paid you for 50 hours, and now they've figured out that you didn't really work those overtime hours, then yes, they overpaid you and you owe them the money. Or if you reported your time accurately but they made an honest mistake, like you worked 30 hours but for whatever reason they paid you for 40, then they really did overpay you and you owe them the money. Or if a check was just mis-printed because their computer system screwed up or something, sorry, you don't get to keep the money. Yes, we all have fantasies about the bank accidentally adding a million dollars to our balance and somehow we get to keep the money, but sorry, it doesn't work that way in real life. If there's been a mistake, once they figure out the mistake, you have to give the money back. If it's something more complicated, it might be debatable.  If you're not sure what the details are, find out the details and investigate. Do you have any evidence that what they are saying is not true? How much money is involved? If we're talking $20, it's not worth going to court over. You'd have to pay a lawyer way more than the $20. A court MIGHT order the company to pay your court costs if you won, but they might not. And if you lost, you could have to pay their court costs, which could be way more than any possible gain. There are times when it's better to just eat the loss and get on with your life. Of course, the same could be said from the other side: If the amount of money is small and the case is debatable and you refuse to hand over the cash, they may just give up figuring it's not worth the trouble. I don't know that I'd want to gamble on that, though. If there is serious money involved, at least several thousand dollars, then it could make sense to talk to a lawyer if you think you have a case.
People had their identity stolen all the time prior to Equifax.  How, exactly, does she plan to prove this their fault?  Yes, there was a 15% increase in fraud from norms in August, but how do you prove their data caused your loss?