francisbiz: It's a very tricky a one, not going to be a straight case. The case is going to drag afar, involving the best of it proof and counter proof.
1, The bank must proof beyond doubt that the credit card was tampered with and that the card could indeed be tampered with.
2, The producers of the credit card for the bank are going to face an uphill task to prove that the impute in the card was re-written and would also face serious business risk by admitting publicly that there version of credit card can be so easily manipulated .
3, The bank customer can deny that he did not tamper with the card impute, after-all their were no witnesses. But his background must be dug into and they may find out that he could be a trained IT expert and majored in software hacking. If similar activities could be traced to him, then he ma go in for it.
The property owners may have a back-up prototype of the credit card.
[b]THIS CASE WILL BRING OUT THE BEST OF I.T. BRAIN STORMING![/b]

What are you yammering about?

Who said anything about the plastic card? Did you even read the darned article?

HARDDON:

who is really at fault?

shouldnt the bank have re read the docs b4 signing just to be sure?

his argument would be that he made adjustments and forwarded it to the bank for consideration, which they did concur to.

hook on the neck .cant cough it out, cant swallow it.hehehe

coogar: argakov should go to jail for forging a document.....if he tried this in america, he would get at least 300 years in a cold cell surrounded by serial räpists!

vivacious vivi:
Clearly u didn't read d story. Where did it mention that he forged the documents?!

Mannylex: Russians, smart peeps... The case in court would be a tricky one. But what is the difference between this guy and companies that put hidden charges? Well I don't see this as fraud. The guy gave a counter contact and the bank signed. They shot themselves in the leg with that.

coogar:

i dunno how it works in russia but this would put anyone in trouble in the EU or the united states where the banks wield a lot of power.

he should have notified the bank of any amendment and alteration. his intention from the outset was to deception on the strength that the banks will not read the fine lines of the contract.

coogar:

alteration of any document = forgery!
he altered the terms of the contract to suit his greed. that should get him about 10 years in prison for fraud!

eddiebruk:
You are so silly, how would the bank have known he wanted an unlimited credit card if they didn't read and understood that he made mention of one in his agreement..? the Bank accepted his agreement and gave him an unlimited credited card willingly after reading his aggreement....there is no case to answer by that man.

eddiebruk:
They bank accepted his conditions, so there is no such thing as forgery in this case

coogar:

you are a consummate rëtard....
the no-limit credit card wasn't what was in dispute here but the interest rate, APR, and the other indices. the bank was offering a no-limit card from the outset but this con artist scanned their documents, made alterations on his computer and sent it back on the off-chance that the bank would not bother to read all the fine lines.....

this is an open & shut fraud case - try this in western europe or america and you would spend the best active years of your life in jail. the only reason people are supporting this man is because everyone has been shafted by the bank in the past or they want a "david vs goliath" battle. otherwise, this is a glaring case of fraud. the consumer should have notified the bank of any changes or amendments just like the bank would have done if they are amending any fees/interest rate.

coogar:

you are a consummate rëtard....
the no-limit credit card wasn't what was in dispute here but the interest rate, APR, and the other indices. the bank was offering a no-limit card from the outset but this con artist scanned their documents, made alterations on his computer and sent it back on the off-chance that the bank would not bother to read all the fine lines.....

this is an open & shut fraud case - try this in western europe or america and you would spend the best active years of your life in jail. the only reason people are supporting this man is because everyone has been shafted by the bank in the past or they want a "david vs goliath" battle. otherwise, this is a glaring case of fraud. the consumer should have notified the bank of any changes or amendments just like the bank would have done if they are amending any fees/interest rate.



this is a weak point.....
because a university gave you an admission based on a fake certificate you produced during registration does not bind them to let you graduate even after your forgery is discovered!

yes, the bank should have done their due diligence but this man altered a bank document that was sent to him to sign. that alteration is fraud if he fails to notify the bank he's amended the clauses. why would a bank give out a no-limit credit card with no interest rate? which part of the world can this happen?

eddiebruk:
tell me how this can be called fraud when there was every proof that the bank read and accepted his terms and conditions be it a no limit credit card or interest rate to suite his needs/demands..?

why would anyone accept an agreement they cant keep up with..? it is very clear like 3D that the bank read, understood, and accepted his agreement, so don't call this fraud my friend.

eddiebruk:
I am sure that banks have a way of knowing an Authentic document just as they know how to discover an Authentic Check/Fraudulent check, if a bank cannot spot the Authenticity of their own document then they should employ more professional service or methods to do so, the bank is simply to blame for their lousy mistake.

coogar:

the bank did not read the agreement cos they never thought the agreement they sent out could be altered. the man scanned the bank document - probably still with the letter heading of the bank. this is fraud, simple as ABC!!



they did not....
no bank would give out a no-limit credit card with 0% interest rate. this man can technically buy the whole of banana island with his credit card and not have to pay any interest rate. that's daylight robbery.

~ZN~:


I presume there was some other phrase added to the fine print: "This document may not be altered by anyone but the Bank and any alteration not authorized by the Bank constitutes fraud."

If he had made the corrections visible or something with a note drawing their attention to the changes, he would probably be on solid ground. But he didn't - he scanned it into a computer and probably made the amendments look typographically like the original.

Anyways, this is quite a tricky one. I'll be following this to the latter. Not to mention, the owners probably have deep pockets and connections - typical russians.

What a fellow. I can imagine a lot of folks won't be doing business with him in future.

Kgdavid:


wrong! obviously there was no such clause and even if there was, it would be meaningless. both parties have a right to review a contract before signing and like someone earlier said the amendment to the contract would be viewed not as an amendment to the original contract but as a counter offer to the original contract. therefore, such a clause is completely meaningless except if the amendment was physically made on the original contract agreement. it is absolutely not the responsibility of the offeror to highlight the provisions and clauses of a contract. that is the reason why you are given a contract agreement to read and sign on. ceteris paribus, there is no case against the man.

Kgdavid:
wrong! obviously there was no such clause and even if there was, it would be meaningless. both parties have a right to review a contract before signing and like someone earlier said the amendment to the contract would be viewed not as an amendment to the original contract but as a counter offer to the original contract. therefore, such a clause is completely meaningless except if the amendment was physically made on the original contract agreement. it is absolutely not the responsibility of the offeror to highlight out the provisions and clauses of a contract. that is the reason why you are given a contract agreement to read and sign on. ceteris paribus, there is no case against the man.