Anti-insurance fraud is bad? All go to fraud is good? You have a point? Extended insurance requires the insured to go in person to check in for the actual flight. But the relative's 20 IDs were fraudulently obtained by the suspect, and these fraudulently obtained people would go to the airport and check in with their IDs? And where did the information used to submit the delay insurance come from? Didn't the woman get it through improper means?

Breaking the delay insurance contract and creating false information that should not be recognized to get a huge financial compensation. This is not fraud? Delay insurance specifically requires the insured person to actually check in at the airport. The 20 people who were cheated out of their IDs would go to the airport to do so? The information she submitted was legal and reasonable?

The delay insurance contract is a stipulation. I must check in at the airport in person. These scammed people will go? And who got those boarding passes and delayed information from them through nefarious means? Is it possible that your relative went out and committed a crime in your name and he's fine if you don't sue him? Can't the law take care of it? No factual evidence has been provided as to whether or not the airline itself had a loophole in its work that led to the successful payment. There is no legal basis for her guilt. The conviction is based solely on the word of the police. With big data, you're telling me that the airline didn't know if she had boarded the plane or checked in? And I emphasize again, according to Article 198 of the Criminal Code, she did not commit fraud at all, at most, it's considered improper income, and you can ask for restitution. And fraud? Who did you scam? How? The insurance company's insurance contract rules can also rise to the criminal law?

The amount of improper income is huge and is punishable. In addition, she exploited the loophole that airlines and insurance companies to data is not fully integrated, the airline only provides flight delay information. The insurance company receives a photo of the boarding pass and confirms that the flight was delayed and then releases the money. There are a lot of such bugs ah, in the past, the marriage registration of various places is not connected. So a lot of people used this bug to get bigamously married. Now it's connected. These people who remarried are taking advantage of the fact that back then marriage registration information was not ****ed up in each city, so does that count as smart on their part? Instead of breaking the law?

For flight insurance companies, he should not and do not have to judge the policyholder is cheating relatives information to buy or to help relatives to buy it, delayed is to pay money, is not delayed to charge you premiums, delayed to go back to check you are not cheating relatives? Then in the future to help friends to buy tickets do not have to let friends write a power of attorney ah? According to you if it's not fraud if you don't cheat your relative's information, then it's not the insurance company's turn to sue him for misappropriation of information if you want to sue for this stuff, the insurance company got the real information and wasn't cheated, he just cheated his relative.

What I'm wondering is whether this exclusion of liability is legal. If it's not legal, the woman didn't commit a crime. If it is legal, does the insurance company have evidence that these people failed to check in, the one you circled only requires checking in. Exemption #6? Has been informed of circumstances or conditions under which a flight may be delayed or canceled? , I find this one strange, the scope of this possible definition is too vague, is this clause legal? I'm still leaning toward the insurance company paying out the money in this case. Whether or not the woman should be arrested depends on which of the relatives she impersonated sue her for copyright infringement; after all, most of that money was paid out by the insurance company to the rider whose name was written on the ticket. In cases where the police can't directly determine whether a criminal offense is involved, no case should be filed at all, and a common procedure is that the plaintiff will be advised to initiate a civil lawsuit, and the civil court will give both sides a chance to plead their case, and then apply to turn to the criminal court if it becomes clear that the criminal portion of the process is involved. Instead, the police themselves can not judge the case, directly file a case, the first to arrest the person.

That is, the use of another person's identity, is not enough to become a crime of insurance fraud, because the crime of insurance fraud requires the subject of the crime to be ? The policyholder? The insurance company is the only one that has the right to use the identity of the insured to make a decision. the insured? and? The proceeds of the person? At this time, she does not have the status, can only consider the crime of fraud, however, she did not fabricate the facts and let the insurance company to create a mistake in understanding, as long as the insurance company in accordance with the content of the contract will be paid into the designated account, even if the final flow of the Ms., it does not constitute a mistake in understanding. Because, the content of the contract is legal and valid.

And then there's the question of if I don't get paid for a delayed flight because I lied to a relative; does that mean that if the flight wasn't delayed, I don't have to pay the premiums? If there are still premiums to be paid, then why is it that under the same conditions, no money is paid for delays and premiums are paid for non-delays? That's clearly a non-reciprocal relationship. It's like me going to gamble based on a theory that I think has a higher probability of winning, and if the casino loses big money they say, you won by law, I won't pay you, but if I lose, I have to pay. That's not reciprocal. There is no way to tell whether the insured person went to the airport in person to check in after the delay, which is a loophole that exists in insurance companies and airlines, and can't be used as a basis for a violation of the law and penalties. The woman did fraudulently obtain her relative's identifying information, but all of the actions she did were legal. If the insurance company can prove that she violated the contract, the company can rightfully withhold payment. Right now it's pretty clear that the insurance company can't prove she violated the contract and is playing hardball to force the police.

Exclusion doesn't mean that the insured is required to not do it, it means that I won't pay you if you do it, which is two things. According to the contract is that you can not pay me, but your own underwriting laxity to pay, and in turn say that I lied to you, which is appropriate? You want to claim information that I did not give you? Didn't you pass the claim audit? Was it because you were lazy and didn't ask for proof of boarding, or did I make up the fact that I boarded the plane to deceive your eyes? The criminal law can be extended but not analogous ah, even if illegal, but not illegal and criminal can be directly equated ah!