If your intent in publishing the information is that others make use of it to commit fraud, and they do, then that sounds like "working from a common plan".GE Morton wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 10:53 amIt would not be a conspiracy unless the discloser and the fraudulent charger were in communication and working from a common plan. But the discloser could be charged with aiding and abetting a felony.LuckyR wrote: ↑May 26th, 2022, 1:58 amTo my mind this case is a perfect example of conspiracy to commit a crime. One is the good memory publisher and the other is the fraudulent charger. Under US law they would be equally culpable.GE Morton wrote: ↑May 25th, 2022, 12:56 pm Hypothetical: You're standing behind another person in a supermarket checkout line. That person runs her credit card through the scanner. You have a photographic memory, see the card, and commit all the info on it to memory. Then you go home and publish that information on a sketchy website. Within hours, dozens of people all over the post charges to that card, amounting to thousands of dollars, until the bank finally cancels the card. You post no charges yourself. Have you committed any crime? Have you behaved immorally?
More debatable are the cases where there is no common plan:
E.g.1 you publish with the intent that somebody use the info to commit fraud, but nobody does. Have you then done wrong ?
E.g. 2 your intent is innocent - you use real overheard details in a work of fiction, either unconsciously or consciously in an effort at making your fiction more realistic. Some fraudsters read your work of fiction, try out the card number(s) that they lift from it, and find they are successful. Have you then done wrong ?