Talk:Return fraud

POV issues

I added the POV tag for a bias in favour of over-describing practices as fraudulent. This page reads like advocacy for the interests of retailers, and asserts without verification that certain practices, particularly wardrobing, are a form of return fraud. The first cited article for this proposition only had the word "fraud" in it once, and it's a quote from a retail lobbyist. The second link is largely paywalled and seems to be mostly an empirical study of the frequency of the practice. Throughout the article, all of the citations are from retailer-affiliated source who have a vested interest in describing practices that they find undesireable as fraudulent. Few are from neutral sources, such as whether the criminal law treats a given practice as a form of fraud. I've cleaned up the article somewhat, but it requires the affirmative presence of good sources and writing, not just the removal of the bad. Asasa64 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that some of the statements are not neutral regardless of truthfulness. "Return abuse is a form of 'friendly fraud'" for example is neither true, nor if it were true would it be neutral in tone. The appropriate term in such a case would be chargeback fraud to avoid coloring the nature of the article. Similarly, "The retail industry experiences a significant fraud and abuse problem, losing money in the range of $24 billion per year, roughly 7% of all returns and exchanges." The use of significant and problem in this context is obvious geared in favor of retailers. The same meaning and tone could be conveyed by stating, "The retail industry experiences returns fraud and abuse at an estimated loss of $24 billion per year, roughly 7% of all returns and exchanges." The tone definitely needs addressing. 66.185.175.26 (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge

This article's content is already well-described in just a few lines in Returning. Though this is a longer article, much of the information here is redundant to that article, and that one covers more information and has much better inline citations. Therefore, I am suggesting a merge. Hellno2 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Legality

I think this article could use a section on the legality of return fraud (maybe only in the USA?), as all types of return fraud are not illegal everywhere in the USA, and this article somewhat implies that it is. For example, many states do not have laws against "renting" or "wardrobing." Obviously, this should be done in a way that sticks with Wikipedia guidelines for showing information about a singular country, but there really isn't a good comprehensive resource on the 'net for this sort of thing yet. --Josmul123 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wardrobing merge

How do you merge it I agree Awesomecat713 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Support proposal to merge Wardrobing to Return fraud (on the grounds of duplication, or at least overlap). @Awesomecat713: I hope that you don't mind that I move your discussion down, as you wrote in a section related to a 2009 proposal that was discussing a different merge proposal. I think that you were probably intending to write on the proposal related to Wardrobing, but please correct me if this is wrong. You can see how to complete a merge at WP:MERGETEXT. Klbrain (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how much discussion this will inspire. I think this proposal could justifiably be resolved with a bold merge. WP:MERGEINIT Arllaw (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Return fraud to Refund Fraud: Suggested Merge and Renaming of Overlapping Articles

Proposal to rename and consolidate: "Return fraud" → "Refund fraud" Return fraud should be treated as a unified topic under the existing Refund theft article. However, a more accurate and concise title would be Refund fraud, as this better reflects the the issue.

The subject has grown increasingly notable, with a growing body of official documentation particularly regarding insider threats demonstrating its impact. At present, multiple Wikipedia articles overlap in their coverage of this area. Consolidating them into a single, clearly defined article would improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and provide a more organized overview of the topic.

Examples of topics to Cover (with Documented Proof)

• REKK Fraud Ring (Amazon v. Radeckas et al.) In a default judgment entered on February 25, 2025, a federal court in Seattle awarded Amazon over $2.4 million in damages. The judgment targeted the fraud ring leader, Domantas Radeckas, and four former Amazon warehouse employees, who were found to have conspired in approving fraudulent refunds for goods not returned via social engineering, phishing, insider bribery, and trademark misuse. See: Courthouse News Service – “Judge Orders Amazon Fraud Ringleader, Ex-Workers to Pay $2.4 M over Fake Refunds”.
• REKK Civil Complaint The underlying allegations are detailed in Amazon’s complaint filed December 7, 2023, in the Western District of Washington. The filing describes how REKK operated a Telegram-based refund-fraud “service,” offering illicit refunds for a fee, and systematically recruited and bribed insiders in Amazon’s fulfillment infrastructure. See: Amazon’s Complaint (Case No. 23-1879-JLR).
• Artemis Refund Group (ARG) International Scheme A federal indictment unsealed November 9, 2023, in the Northern District of Oklahoma charges ten individuals with conspiracy to commit wire fraud as part of an international “refund-fraud” scheme operated by the Artemis Refund Group. The scheme involved orchestrating false refund requests across multiple online retailers, resulting in millions in losses. See: DOJ Press Release – “Ten Members of International Cyber Fraud Ring Indicted for ‘Refund Fraud’ Scheme Targeting Online Retailers”.
• Dearborn, Michigan “Simple Refunds” Scheme In the Western District of Washington, a Dearborn, Michigan man was indicted September 27, 2023, for a refund-fraud scheme operating via Telegram as “Simple Refunds.” He and his associates allegedly orchestrated nearly $4 million in fraudulent refund claims by impersonating purchasers, falsifying tracking information, and recruiting insiders at UPS and USPS to manipulate delivery records. See: DOJ Press Release – “Dearborn, Michigan Man Indicted for … Nearly $4 Million Refund Fraud on U.S. Retailers”.
• Amazon’s Corporate Response to Organized Retail Crime (ORC) Amazon has publicly articulated a comprehensive strategy to combat ORC including return/refund fraud and insider misconduct. The company's approach includes deployment of advanced fraud-detection algorithms across fulfillment networks, the implementation and expansion of Amazon Transparency for product serialization and traceability, active collaboration with law enforcement (e.g., ORC task forces), support for legislation like the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act (CORCA), and aggressive civil and criminal actions against perpetrators. See: Amazon – “Amazon Takes a Holistic Approach to Addressing Global Organized Retail Crime” (updated June 13, 2024).
• Bank of America (2024) – “Return and Refund Fraud Prevention” provides additional guidance for retailers on prevention methods.
• Manassas Mail‑Return Fraud Scheme (2021) From 2017 to 2020, Farhaad Riyaz of Manassas systematically exploited Amazon’s return system by ordering high‑end products (such as a $2,600 Fender Telecaster guitar or a $37,000 home theater system), then returning inferior items (such as a $400 Squier Telecaster or a $2,000 home‑theater model) while receiving full refund credit. He defrauded Amazon of over $300,000 through this mail‑fraud scheme. Riyaz pleaded guilty in December 2021. Source
• Hacienda Heights Refund Scam (2022) Ting Hong Yeung, a third-party seller from Hacienda Heights, admitted to defrauding Amazon of approximately $1.3 million between 2013 and 2020. He exploited Amazon’s payment system by listing high-value items at discounted prices, submitting fake tracking numbers, stalling refund requests, and sometimes shipping low-value items (like crystal ornaments) instead of the original purchases. Some refunds were even facilitated using tracking data from items he’d fraudulently acquired using false identities. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud in March 2022 and was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison in August that year; restitution includes property seized containing gold and silver bars. Source

• In March 2025, Matthew Bergwall of Darien, Connecticut, agreed to pay over $1.5 million in restitution for a fraudulent return-shipping scheme, with more than $1 million going to Amazon and the remainder to other retailers. This case highlights the financial impact of refund fraud on major companies. Darien college student to pay Amazon $1M in restitution for shipping scheme

AxiomGaming (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you proposing adding some sort of list of ostensibly notable cases to the article as examples of return fraud? I personally don't like lists of that sort, which tend to be simultaneously overinclusive and underinclusive while doing little but add to the length of articles. However, lists aside, I would agree that clearly described examples can help people understand a topic. Arllaw (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The Refund fraud article appears to have been written to promote a specific website, and then never developed. It doesn't seem helpful as an article, so I think it would be reasonable to merge (if there's anything worth saving) and redirect. However, I would oppose broadening the subject of this article beyond return fraud. Other forms of embezzlement or employee theft are best discussed in other articles. Arllaw (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merger proceeded based upon there being no objection to the proposal during the discussion period.

---

I propose merging Refund theft into Return fraud. The content in Refund theft can easily be explained in the context of Return fraud, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Return fraud. Arllaw (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This seemed like a suitable candidate for a bold merge, so I am not surprised by the lack of discussion. At the same time, I would welcome any comments before proceeding. Arllaw (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.