King forgot his crown

Dude outed himself when he told Janice his birthday was the 35th of March.

I'm stupid, can someone explain to me how this is illegal? Like morally questionable I get, but how is it illegal?

According to a quick Google fraud in Japan is
obtaining property or illicit economic advantages through deceit.
Gifts I assume are property here
- Jesus Christ! Can we get some of that law in the US?!
- Presumably he had to give 35 presents too.
- So like...makeup?
I'm definitely not a legal expert, especially for Japan.
but this sounds like a con artist.

We need to ban birthdays so this never happens again.

Monkey's paw curls. Now abortions are legal and forced.
- I thought Monkeys Paw had adverse outcomes.
So... We will be just spawns now?

At the same time?

In one bed no less. Must be an Alaska king

Take it he wasn't reciprocating the gifts?

I think the only way this makes sense is that he'd start dating someone, say his birthday is coming up, dump them after receiving the gift and repeating the process.
- Do you get someone a gift if you're only known them for a week? Serious question.

That’s a super shitty thing to do

He’s basically cheating and stealing from 35 people

Genius.

Kinda clever.

Hoping that isn’t real because that’s kind of an f-ed up definition for fraud. Also, what a legend.

Found the guy with 35 girlfriend.
- I’m down to 28 now. Apparently some of them saw this thread …
Look at that smile. He regrets nothing.
Also: Daily Mail source?.......this story is entirely fiction and made up, guaranteed.
This guy cheated on 35 different women for gifts and you go:
Also, what a legend.
I hope that's a /s 😔
- There's a certain threshold when you're no longer upset, just impressed. Like if someone ate my slice of cake vs they ate the entire fridge.
- I mean the article itself is apparently satire so yeah.
It's pretty much the textbook definition of fraud. What are you talking about?
Fraud is defined as intentional deception to deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim.
He intentionally deceived 35 people for material gain. It's even more fraud if he deceived each one about only dating them.
In the US that could also potentially be rape by deception if any of them slept with him because they thought they were exclusive.
- It’s a poor definition because gift exchanges are strictly voluntary and non-reciprocal engagements. I’m not saying what he did was ok or even legal in other contexts. My only point is that I wouldn’t consider this fraud because the victims were not compelled to give. This isn’t a Nigerian prince scam where the victims were promised greater returns at a later date. These victims gave with the expectation of monetary loss.
- I do Not See the fraud here. If He would have given the Girls His real Birthday, He would have still received the Same amount of Gifts. Nothing would have changed in exchanging the Gifts.
  The only Thing, which it probably helped at, was that He could plan ahead for the birthdays, avoiding a Potential meet-in of each girl, that He dated on the Same Day. The only Thing He is gullible of ist deceiving the Woman on their Relationship. Which is Not an offenes in a legal Sense. There is no punishment for 2-timing, so 35-timing should Not have either
- It's pretty much the textbook definition of fraud. What are you talking about?
  Fraud is defined as intentional deception to deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim.
  That's what most politicians do every election. Just saying.
- There is no mention of any consideration (a legal term meaning he didn’t promise them anything in return) provided by the “boyfriend”.
  This would not be fraud under English common law.
- Well there's your shady gray bit right in the definition. Is it unlawful to lie about your birthday?
- deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain unlawfully from a victim
  Does either of those fill though?
Fraud is a very complicated crime. I absolutely hate that I need to know the basic for my law degree as it fills a thousand pages of commentary literature in just one of the largest German legal commentaries because it's just that complicated.
- As I said in another reply, my thinking is thus:
  It’s a poor definition because gift exchanges are strictly voluntary and non-reciprocal engagements. I’m not saying what he did was ok or even legal in other contexts. My only point is that I wouldn’t consider this fraud because the victims were not compelled to give. This isn’t a Nigerian prince scam where the victims were promised greater returns at a later date. These victims gave with the expectation of monetary loss.

Is that the gift economy I keep hearing about?

no