Ruby

The provided text includes a detailed account that describes behavior which may rise to the level of fraudulent activity. Here is how the text references deceptive conduct for financial gain—potentially qualifying it as fraudulent:

1. Deposit Not Refunded After Cancellation:

   • The complainant alleges that they sent a $200 deposit for a session, which the service provider voluntarily canceled.
   • Although the provider initially promised to refund the deposit "ASAP," the individual states they had to chase the refund repeatedly over the course of a month, with multiple unacknowledged or incomplete responses.

2. Partial Refund and Disputed Amount:

   • Only $100 of the $200 was eventually returned. The provider allegedly claimed to be unaware the deposit was $200, despite reminders and proof.
   • Despite sending a screenshot of the original $200 payment, the remaining $100 was not refunded at that time and the provider allegedly stopped responding altogether.

3. Accusation of Theft:

   • The poster explicitly calls the provider "just a thief," which is a direct claim of dishonest intent and criminal behavior (theft).
   • They note that other service providers in similar situations refunded deposits fully and promptly, suggesting that this behavior deviates from standard industry practices and norms.

4. Intentional Deception or Negligence:

   • The repeated excuses (bank fraud issues, being too busy traveling, forgetting) and failure to locate the original proof of payment (even when it was in the email thread) are framed as deflections or evasion.
   • The complainant suggests that the provider was either grossly negligent or engaging in intentional deception to avoid refunding money.

5. Financial Loss and Harm:

   • The complainant notes that they lost $105 after fees and exchange rates are considered—this shows a concrete financial loss resulting from the alleged behavior.
   • The mention of discouraging future transactions with other professionals due to this bad experience also illustrates broader harm beyond immediate financial loss.

In summary, the text presents a scenario where a client claims they were misled, partially refunded, then ignored after providing proof of payment, and ultimately left with a financial loss. The core allegation—accepting money under a service agreement, canceling the service, not providing a full refund, and cutting off communication—describes behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as deceitful and intended for financial gain, which falls within definitions of fraudulent activity.