A 44-year-old man from Katy, Texas, faces fraud charges for going on a $330,000 shopping spree to gun stores and other shops with his company credit card, the U.S. Attorney’s office said.
Kenneth A. Hoang has been charged with six counts of wire fraud for using the company American Express Company card to buy more than $23,400 on guns, among other things, according to the indictment filed in a Texas federal court on Dec. 11.
TurboCare, Inc., a subsidiary of the engineering company Siemens AG, employed Hoang and issued Hoang the credit card for business expenses, but failed to retrieve the card after firing him in August 2012 for insubordination and missing work.
Around July 2013, Hoang started using the TurboCare AMEX card and bought 17 guns. In the following month, TurboCare discovered the fraudulent purchases and cut off the card.
Hmm--"irresponsible lawful gun owners, Mikeb? I'm pretty sure that wire fraud is a crime. The very crime, indeed, that Hoang is alleged to have committed.
ReplyDeleteYep. Like so many, he was a good guy with a gun until he wasn't.
DeleteIs not everyone a good guy, until one does wrong, and does not everyone deserve to be treated as a good guy, until proven to have done wrong?
DeleteYes, Kurt, and that's why the good guys with guns idea is bullshit. In fact, good guys turning bad is the 4th way guns flow into the criminal world.
DeleteThe gun owners who "break bad" do not constitute an indictment of anyone else--not in the eyes of the rational and ethical, anyway. Ah--I think I've identified the source of your confusion.
DeleteWhat "indictment of anyone else?" What's that got to do with it? When a lawful gun owner goes nuts and shoots up the place, the guns he owns have gone from good-guy ownership to bad-guy ownership. That's the point. After straw purchasing, theft and private sales, that's the 4th way gun flow occurs.
DeleteThe point is that there is no way to prohibit gun ownership by those who have done nothing wrong, but will later, without also prohibiting ownership by those who have done nothing wrong, and never will.
DeleteWell, actually, many of the good guys who turn bad, have done plenty wrong. With proper gun control in place, many of them would be disarmed long before they turned bad in a big way.
DeleteWell, actually, many of the good guys who turn bad, have done plenty wrong.
DeleteWait a minute. Are they "good guys," or guys who "have done plenty wrong"? I can't see a way for them to be both.
You're just being tedious AGAIN with that question. Under the law as it stands now, "good guys" include those who violate many of my ideas covered in the "one strike you're out" policy. Those guys should be disarmed. We'd then see a big drop in gun violence.
DeleteAh--so "good guy" doesn't really mean good guy. Got it.
DeleteThat's exactly right. You're finally getting it. "Good guys" are comprised of good guys and bad guys who haven't been convicted of a felony yet.
Delete"Good guys" are comprised of good guys and bad guys who haven't been convicted of a felony yet.
DeleteAccording to whom? Is there anybody apart from you who refers to not-yet-convicted murderers and rapists as "good guys"? James Holmes hasn't yet been convicted for the Aurora massacre--he's one of your "good guys"?
The English language isn't that tough, Mikeb--work on it.
Kurt, you keep forgetting that you're the one who keeps insisting that the world is simple and divided cleanly between good guys and bad guys. I ask you, was James Holmes a good guy two years ago?
DeleteKurt, you keep forgetting that you're the one who keeps insisting that the world is simple and divided cleanly between good guys and bad guys.
DeleteI remember no such "insistence" on my part--I can understand dividing people into various shades of gray. I do of course, believe that mass murderers are fundamentally different, and fundamentally more evil, than those who recoil at the thought of such atrocities.
I ask you, was James Holmes a good guy two years ago?
Obviously not (except by your ludicrous "ha[s]n't been convicted of a felony yet" standard), and also obviously a dodge on your part. Again I ask: is he now, as someone not convicted, one of your "good guys," as he would seem to be, or is there some subtlety to your rule that I'm missing?
He's in one of those gray areas that you mentioned - until convicted, of course.
DeleteAt least he wasn't using tax money like we've seen happen with various politicians. And it isn't exactly a gun crime. Its simple theft.
ReplyDeleteLooks like this criminal has good taste in firearms. Hopefully they will be sold off to fund his incarceration
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there's another employee of the company on the street job hunting as a result of this. Someone neglected to get the card back when they canned Hoang in 2012. Or barring that, making a phone call and canceling the card. No one noticed till he went on his little shopping spree a year later.
ReplyDeleteOne also has to wonder what he did for the company to have a card that allowed $330k in purchases during a month without hitting some kind of limit.
I also wonder what else he bought, because I don't think that looks like even $25k in firearms.
One place said $330,000 and another said $23,000. But whatever it was, couldn't you call it a gun crime? We certainly can't call him a lawful gun owner, at least.
DeleteWe certainly can't call him a lawful gun owner, at least.
DeleteIsn't that precisely what you called him when you tagged this post "irresponsible lawful gun owners"?
That was my point above.
"But whatever it was, couldn't you call it a gun crime? We certainly can't call him a lawful gun owner, at least."
DeleteNo, I don't call it a gun crime. As I said, its theft from the company he used to work for. In fact, he obviously wasn't a prohibited person since he appears to have made all of his purchases through an FFL which would include the requisite NICS check.
I wonder if the company that owns the credit card can claim the guns since they are the ones that paid for them.
How about your every-day burglar who steals guns from someone's home? Is that not a gun crime?
DeleteIf he had fraudulently used the credit card at Best Buy, to buy TVs, would it be "TV crime"?
DeleteGood point Mike. If you want to liken this to firearms acquired through theft, and make it a gun crime, then how can you call him a lawful gun owner?
DeleteHe wasn't a lawful gun owner after he went wild with that credit card. Then he was a criminal, plain and simple. And I would call what he did a gun crime.
DeleteHe wasn't a lawful gun owner after he went wild with that credit card.
DeleteAnd unless I missed it, we don't know that he was a lawful gun owner before "he went wild with that credit card," either. Maybe he'd already owned guns before then, maybe not, but until we know, it's pure unsubstantiated speculation (one of your greatest pleasures, I know) that he was ever a lawful gun owner.
Kurt, what, all of a sudden you're not interested in giving the benefit of the doubt? You're not interested in presuming the guy's innocence?
DeleteYou'd do anything to argue with me, wouldn't you?
You said, "He wasn't a lawful gun owner after he went wild with that credit card. Then he was a criminal, plain and simple," so you're apparently satisfied that his guilt has been established, and for once, I have trouble arguing. There seems to be no dispute that he used the company credit card long after he was fired. That kinda makes the presumption of his innocence difficult, even for me.
DeleteAnd I would call what he did a gun crime.
DeleteOh? Does that term no longer "conjure up" entirely different crimes?
"Gun crimes" conjure up murder and armed robbery.
"Gun crime" also conjure up the possession of guns by criminals.
Delete"Gun crime" also conjure up the possession of guns by criminals.
DeleteA full, 180 degree reversal from your earlier position.
The illegal purchase of a gun, is a gun crime. But since the article never mentioned the company had the man charged with a crime for improper use of their company credit card, no crime happened.
ReplyDeleteThe company is likely just going to sue the former employee for theft of funds. The will get a judgement against him to which if he ever sells any titled property (houses, cars, other tangible property) the proceeds of those sales will go to repaying the debt to his former employer. He can also pay back the company directly or get a loan to pay them back.
DeleteIt doesn't really matter what he bought using the company card, the company only supplied the funds without their knowledge until accounting caught up with their balance reconciling procedure.
If the company files charges at all, he will be on trial for credit card abuse resulting in defrauding the company out of funds. Its essentially theft of funds, whether it be by credit card fraud, identity theft, check fraud or just flat stealing cash out of the till. It has really nothing what so ever to do with a gun.
However, if charged and convicted, the resulting conviction can bar him from buying anymore guns from 5 years for class A or B misdemeanor, 10 years for a non violent lower class felony, to life depending on the severity of the conviction. Plus time in jail and any fines to be paid for being convicted resulting from theft of funds and fraud. He did defraud the company by using a tool of funds only carried by employees. No longer being an employee and presenting the tool of funds for purchase is fraud.
I think we are saying the same thing. If the company had filed charges, then illegally using the company credit card to by a guy without company permission would be a crime, thus a gun crime.
DeleteAlmost Sandra, but no soap on the gun crime. No gun crime has been committed. Nothing in the article that he has used the guns in a crime, nothing points to that lied on a 4473 to obtain them. The guns were bought legally. The funds he used were stolen, thus it's theft of funds or wire fraud.
DeleteWould it be car crime if he bought a car? How about a house, a boat, a plane. No, he is simply a thief, same as a bank robber, hold up guy. His crime is stolen money, nothing more.
The items he bought, which the guns were a small part of, will be used in evidence against him in court, but the guns he bought and other items were a legal transaction. The retailers did nothing wrong and their transaction was legal.
If you Sandra, went and robbed a bank, took the money to pay a hospital to fix your sick kid, did you commit a kid crime? No, your crime is a bank robber. The hospital isn't concerned with how you got the money, you just had it to pay the bill. The transaction between you and the hospital was legal, HOW you got the money was not.
None of the retailers, or your hospital Sandra, are under no obligation to return any of the funds he used. Items were bought, services were rendered. That's the end of that. It begins and ends with theft of funds.
If you purchase a gun with stolen money, that's a crime.
DeleteSimplistic view, it's a crime to steal the money. But it does not make it a gun crime.
DeleteThe crime is not what you bought. The crime is you got the money illegally if you stole it.
I will help you out a little Sandra, If you stole the gun, its a gun crime. If you used a credit card and bought the gun then denied the credit card charge, had the charge reversed, you stole the gun by defrauding the store, you stole the gun, its a gun crime. If you wrote a hot check, or had the check cancelled after receiving the gun from the store, you stole the gun, its a gun crime.
DeleteIf you stole the cash and bought a gun, you didn't steal the gun, you stole the cash, that's stolen cash NOT a stolen gun, its not a gun crime.
Look a little further Gun, you will find credit cards work differently than cash, especially when you use someone elses credit card. Glad I could help you out.
DeleteRead back a little further in my comments. I'm glad I could help you out since you keep missing the point.
DeleteUsing someone else's credit card is identity theft and wire fraud. Its still not a gun crime. This is something I personally know about since I had my card stolen. The only charges that could be brought was identity theft and wire fraud. I was still on the hook for part of that bill. The reason I was on the hook is because I didn't realize the card was gone until I got my bill. The really bad part is that I found out that I KNEW the person who stole it. I did recover most of the charges but not all and couldn't claim the rest of the property SHE bought with it. Since there wasn't an immediate objection by me, the sale was legal,,,,,, for her from the retailer. Her use of MY card wasn't. She is still in jail right now for credit card abuse (mine), identity theft (mine), wire fraud (card company) and I have a judgement against her for the remaining funds SHE stole. The property she bought with my money is hers, not mine and I could not claim it. The card company is suing her as well. She is going to have a bad time for a long time.
So before you think that you have helped me in any way, do some research. THAT would help you out much more.
Any crime who's end result is the possession of a gun is a gun crime.
DeleteAny crime who's end result is the possession of a gun is a gun crime.
DeleteBut a crime that illegally deprives someone of a gun is not a "gun crime"? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Kurt, this is the result of Mikes superior powers of deduction showing,,,,,,,,,,, again.
DeleteA corporate credit card is different than your personal credit card, but since you are to dense to get it, I won't bother. Enjoy your delusion.
DeleteKurt, this is the result of Sandra's superior powers of deduction showing,,,,,,,,,, again.
Delete