Live data from Hacker News

Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

bitsaboutmoney.com

31–40 of 221 posts

Re: Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Trump has pardoned literally dozens of Medicare fraudsters [0] (Lawrence Duran and Philip Esformes are two of the biggest ones, but there are a bunch more smaller ones), and also fired ~20 people who were attempting to investigate Medicare fraud. I haven't seen any HN articles about this, never mind getting to the HN front page twice a day, so I'll take your retraction and apology now. [0]: https://tennesseelookout.c…

[flagged]

Re: Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

#32

Patrick is too polite to mention it, but frauds work much better if the fraudsters are also fully integrated into the political machine of the people nominally investigating the fraud.

I don't think that's in evidence. Institutionalized and ideologically-driven apathy towards the fraud, sure, but that's not uncommon (see: the defense industry; the finance industry).

Re: Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report to the government about a more than 50% fraud rate was from six years ago. The Minnesota government was not serious about dealing with problem. Most businesses would not last that long with a 50% customer fraud rate. Yes, there were some investigations and convictions, but nothing to on a scale that would deal with problem, nor any systematic change to a level paying huge amounts of money to scammers.

First: assuming your goal is to stop the fraud, does making deliberately inflammatory YouTube videos get you closer to that goal? I think the government's response clearly shows that they're more interested in the optics of "blue state full of scammer immigrants" than any actual resolution. Second: I think one of the points Patrick misses is that fraud did indisputably occur, but that doesn't mean we need to treat Sh…

He's not treating Shirley as a neutral observer; he's lamenting Shirley's involvement, which has impeded efforts to clean this up.

Re: Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

#34

> To the extent that Bits about Money has an editorial line on that controversy, it is this: if you fish in a pond known to have 50% blue fish, and pull out nine fish, you will appear to be a savant-like catcher of blue fish, and people claiming that it is unlikely you have identified a blue fish will swiftly be made to look like fools. But the interesting bit of the observation is, almost entirely, the base rate of…

No? He dunks on Shirley. His point is that professional investigators found and documented much worse things.

Re: Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All terms are made up by humans

Yeah but calling someone a racist is a serious accusation, you better bring receipts or be liable for defamation. Calling them a "secret racist" instead isn't the workaround that absolves you from this.

You cannot in fact be made liable for defamation for calling someone a racist.

(Patrick, a close friend I have known for many years, is not a racist.)

Re: Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All terms are made up by humans

Yeah but calling someone a racist is a serious accusation, you better bring receipts or be liable for defamation. Calling them a "secret racist" instead isn't the workaround that absolves you from this.

> Yeah but calling someone a racist is a serious accusation, you better bring receipts or be liable for defamation

There are a large number of countries with their own systems of law, and its possible that in one of them calling someone a racist might be subject to defamation law, but in most I am aware of that's going to be a problem because its not even a well-enough-defined fact claim to be legally true or false.

Re: Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

#39
post #10
post #3

All I remember hearing about this is how creepy and racist it was to look for kids at a black-owned daycare. It was a scam the whole time?

According to OP, there is substantial evidence indicating about 50% of the daycares are scams. I've seen Nick Shirley's video, I don't think he demonstrated any concrete about any of the sites he visited (he's not a very good investigator), but if the 50% number is correct... well, the broken clock was probably right at least a couple of times that day.

The 2019 OLA report "Child Care Assistance Program: Assessment of Fraud Allegations" is what makes the claim that greater than 50% of reimbursements to child care providers under these specific programs were fraudulent. That estimate is broadly and bipartisanly considered to be directionally true.

Re: Fraud investigation is believing your lying eyes

#40

Under "In which we briefly return to Minnesota": > And I think journalism and civil society should do some genuine soul-searching on how we knew—knew—the state of that pond, but didn’t consider it particularly important or newsworthy until someone started fishing on camera. In... the same section where he cites all of the evidence the government has put together against the fraudsters. What is the issue? That these i…

The report to the government about a more than 50% fraud rate was from six years ago. The Minnesota government was not serious about dealing with problem. Most businesses would not last that long with a 50% customer fraud rate. Yes, there were some investigations and convictions, but nothing to on a scale that would deal with problem, nor any systematic change to a level paying huge amounts of money to scammers.

5 years ago. And it looks like the state was actually taking pretty aggressive moves against the fraud including ongoing investigations and legislation to shut down the fraud. [1]

There was active prosecution ongoing literally right up until Shirly's video. That's taking the matter seriously.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020s_Minnesota_fraud_scandals

Post reply on HN