[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've read your posts here and really don't think anything shoe has done is ethically bad or inherently morally wrong or anywhere nearly related to "kiting" (as defined by wikipedia and investopedia..this was the first time i heard that word).

[/ QUOTE ]

It actually is identical to kiting.

With kiting you deposit a cheque and withdrawal the money via cash-back. When that cheque is presented you issue a new cheque to the bank the original cheque was drawn on. The end result is that you end up with an interest free loan and as long as you keep the shell game going you haven't done anything illegal. His scheme is exactly the same just in slow motion.

[/ QUOTE ]

it seems here that the bank would verify the funds and you'd immediately get caught and it is very unethical. you are misrepresenting funds that you don't have in order to cover previously drawn upon funds that were taken out via presentation of a check for which funds couldn't back it. this seems like it is a misrepresentation to the bank and in fact, very illegal. you have written a check for which you don't have funds to back it. that is the very definition of illegal/fraud.

here, there is a legal and perfectly legitimate loan being extended to shoe.

you didn't deal with this statement i made in the post above either:

[ QUOTE ]
shoe would be on the line for the $ if he lost it in the stock market, if he doesn't, then he deservedly made money and just has to pay the requisite taxes and the pricipal (assuming no interest thing worked out) back to the credit card company.

[/ QUOTE ]

since he is on the line for the money and has absolutely no intention fo defrauding the creditor, how can this be anything like kiting?

thanks,
Barron