Defraud used in a sentence

Defraud in a sentence as a verb

I'm not saying its right to defraud them. I'm saying I can believe they condoned it at one point.

You defraud people, you get fired for life from the securities industry. You have to take a Series 7, so you have no excuse.

The problem is that, apparently, you lied to us in order to defraud your customers.

I'm code reviewing their system to document it and find a comment describing how they defraud us. That got awkward fast.

You decide you want to defraud a bunch of people, so you gin up a fake conference, it's easy to put up a fancy web page and sucker people in, then you take the money and run. You think this doesn't happen?

You can't defraud people in selling products - ditto. You can't buy land to build a smokestack plant in a quiet residential neighborhood - ditto.

He ran a pump and dump scheme to defraud investors. He evaded prosecution by jumping jurisdiction.

Historically, large numbers of people and companies have had no compunctions with taking advantage of this to defraud a lot of people, frequently while causing them pain or death. The FDA is intended to fix that.

And when they defraud the federal government they recover that money by getting more tax money. The key here is that it isn't a "new" crime, its the support of criminal activity which has gone on forever.

If your neighbor is thinking about how to make a bomb, or how to **** someone, or how to commit *******, or how to defraud and deceive others, wouldn't it be better if the secret police put a stop to it there? We could live in a post-crime society.

Your liability in that case can be criminal, maybe even if you didn't deliberately defraud the government. So, those two cases are not comparable.

This may seem obstructionist, but it's based on a long history of dishonest merchants tampering with this type of equipment to defraud customers.

It's hard to see a bet that won't be permitted to pay off as anything other than a way to lure and then defraud employees. I think it's time to start insisting on accelerated vesting if you want anyone to take your option offer seriously.

It would be up to the merchant to pursue legal action if your attempt to defraud the contract was substantial enough for them to care. If this was an ongoing problem for them, they would have to debate if their "deal" is really valued by their consumers and worth continuing to offer.

It's especially sad to think of good startup investment money being used to defraud a competing company rather than invest in good customer service.

In the absence of controls I can think of many ways to defraud Square out of millions of dollars in the matter of hours. They're strong enough to take the hit it now, but one single such attack while they were younger could have put their success in considerable danger had they not taken some precautions.

You may change your name legally for any reason as long as you are not trying to defraud anyone if you live in the US or a common law country. Your name is someone that you choose to be known by. Generally you just need to go to a judge and get a court order of your new desired legal name, and prove that you aren't trying to evade taxes or defraud anyone.

Seriously, I've never seen a place where cheating was so accepted: just about every other taxi ride attempted to take me the "scenic route", almost every business deal ended up with them trying to screw or defraud us. What a nightmare of a place to do business in - never again.

Satoshi wrote this in the original Bitcoin paper, which logic I think still holds today: If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than \n all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it \n to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate \n new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such \n rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than \n to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

It is clearly a reaction to that agreement and its purpose is to lay out an argument that can be used to maintain plausible deniability regarding anticompetitive agreements by arguing that these activities are just friends being polite and displaying good manners, rather than a conspiracy to defraud top talent of market wages.