Thank you for attempting to defraud the system

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'm sure that this happened, cuz I've actually encountered similar SCs back when I worked on a checkout. In the UK, there's a similar scheme; the "milk tokens" one. It's now called Healthy Start, cuz tho in the past the tokens were just to buy fresh milk, you can now use them to buy fresh or frozen fruit, fresh or frozen veg and formula.

http://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/

Back when I worked on the checkout, I had quite a few SCs try to buy such items as flavoured milk, junk food, alcohol etc with the milk tokens. Some just shrugged and accepted it when I told them; others threw a tantrum and required a supervisor to explain to them why their tokens could not finance their beer addiction. So I can quite honestly believe that an American SC on a similar scheme would attempt to defraud a store... tho, not why the manager would allow them to do so, seeing as it's against the law.

[Andara Bledin]

I had someone on food stamps or WIC (not sure which) try to buy my lot of groceries and pay them cash for it. I told them not a chance, and let the store know they were trying it. No idea if anything came of it, however.

^-.-^

[KabeRinnaul]

Perhaps if it wasn't quite so a-b-c-d in how it follows the usual self-aggrandizing pattern, I wouldn't be so suspicious.

...so any story which follows the pattern of "(1) I saw SC behavior. (2) The manager is spineless. (3) I'm sick of this shit and stepping in. (4) Owned, bitches." is suspicious?

Considering we've all seen our share of scammers and spineless management, and felt the urge to call them out on it...

Unless I have completely misunderstood how the system works, that sweet potatoes are WIC approved does not automatically mean the customer in question had a voucher that covered them. Are they not each for a specific item? I distinctly remember from CS that they were very specific.

Most items are extremely specific. But in WV at least, the produce vouchers just say "$6 of fresh produce, EXCLUDING: (list)". Wouldn't be surprised if it's similar elsewhere.

[Tanasi]

Perhaps to improve upon what the OP did would have been to allow the fraud to take place, take note of the date/time, if possible the cashier's name, manager's name and customer's name. Do not say anything about the act to any involved. Then report that information to the appropriate agency.
The proof would then at that point exist's the mgr's doesn't suspect anything and then won't try to cover his tracks.
I would dare say if there was a monatary reward system for the reporting and prosecution of government fraud, there would be a lot less fraud and a lot of people that actually need the help would get it. I would so far as anyone or business convicted of fraud be permanently banned from all such programs. Criminals shouldn't prosper in the short run nor the long.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't think allowing a crime to take place for the purpose of reporting it is really the right way to go.

It may be more effective in the long run, but it's not more correct in my worldview.

^-.-^

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I don't think allowing a crime to take place for the purpose of reporting it is really the right way to go.

It may be more effective in the long run, but it's not more correct in my worldview.

^-.-^

And that would be your right to feel that way. And I would not fault you if it were you that stopped the fraud then and there. I think I'd still point out my thoughts on the matter and why it might have been better off to let the transaction go through so they have evidence to go on.

Let me bring up another point. Say someone did stop the fraudulent transaction. This could be you, me the OP...anyone really. Then they go to the authorities and report it. The agencies that regulate and watch for this sort of thing look into it and do not see the transaction you spoke of. So they can't do anything but watch them for a while.

Meanwhile, the manager just lays low for a while. Perhaps he pulls the customer aside in the future and does the transaction at the Customer Service desk and then publicly announces that he "discussed it" with the customer. Perhaps even finding a way to disguise the item on the receipt by SKU'ing it to something of the same price that *is* on the WIC approved list.

What then was accomplished? Not much. All that was done was that the manager was warned that he was at risk of getting caught and needs to hide it better.

Or the manager just stops doing it altogether but still gets away with all the fraud he's done in the past.

Neither of which is something that I do not see as being correct on my worldview.

That said, either is the right choice. Doing something to stop it is better than just saying "meh" and letting it happen. My point is that one may be the more effective of the "right" choices.

[Tanasi]

I don't think allowing a crime to take place for the purpose of reporting it is really the right way to go.

It may be more effective in the long run, but it's not more correct in my worldview.

^-.-^

While I agree with you, police do that all the time. It's hard to get conspiracy convictions on crimes that never happened. Heck I'd doubt they'd even investigate.

[bainsidhe]

I don't think I've ever heard of improperly-rang-WIC as being illegal, otherwise every time a cashier mistakenly rings up string cheese instead of WIC-approved block cheese, people could be arrested. I'm not saying it isn't illegal, just that I wasn't aware.

Here's my take on the whole thing: The store needs retraining. Not only could they lose their right to process future WIC transactions (which is BAAAD, since those customers buy a lot more than just WIC items), the store loses reimbursement for any incorrect checks. At least around here, WIC reads the transactions very carefully and each receipt prints on the back of the WIC check. The product and amounts have to match, the proper fields need filled in, and you can't write your number sevens with a line across (something I do by habit, which resulted in rejected WIC checks for my store). If the transaction is deemed invalid, the store isn't reimbursed.

That manager was an idiot and needed a come-to-Jesus moment. I'd complain to the local WIC authority, which should at least cause the store to be under extra scrutiny. The government takes WIC transactions seriously and the store will be retrained. I'm guessing the SC knew the store was improperly trained and was gleefully taking advantage. Some people are tools.