Question: What about Payers who commit crimes?
Answer: With millions of people becoming Payers, it is as certain as anything can be that some of the Payers will commit crimes and some Payers will pay unfairly: perhaps even in exchange for some consideration or other. Payers are only human and since they have power there will always be temptations.
If a Payer commits some crime such as assault or another crime of harming some person illegally, they would, no doubt, be dealt with by whatever criminal justice system existed. Such things are beyond the definition of the non-POM. I would expect the Payers to pay for justice as much as they could in that only the appearance of justice could satisfy the public which dominates the Payers.
Crimes of property would be pretty much limited to vandalism and theft. Vandalism would still be a normal criminal justice system problem as with assault. But theft would almost always be the taking of a luxury item. This would not only be criminal justice violation but also a violation of their requirements and regulations for their status as Payers. In other words, I would expect the Payer organization to have its own trial and, upon conviction, evict the thief from the ranks of the Payers. But the computer would still not allow the transfer of ownership of any luxury to that ex-Payer. Therefore, the former Payer, even if not in confinement, would be known as a cheating Payer and would have no access to luxuries and would be exposed to the contempt and social outcast status of the community. I would expect such a person to find life in the society at that point quite impossible even assuming anyone would feed, clothe, or house such a person. I would expect someone who had disgraced themselves in this manner to leave the nation altogether.
Payers convicted of crimes against the community and people who become Payers while in jail remain Payers and might retain their ability to pay. It’s like being a priest in that way. Since they have not been convicted of biased payments, they could still be Payers in good standing even if they have committed some other offense. That, too, would be up to the Payer Organization to decide.
But now let’s get to the heart of the matter, bribed Payers who pay for some consideration. This will happen as I say above. But the consolation is that it will be relatively rare, certainly much more rare than the current woes of political corruption, corruption in our law enforcement agencies or violations of trust in our financial institutions. You see, no one can give a Payer money. This cuts off the most common means of corruption in a POM economy. Secondly, since no luxury is acceptable for a Payer, any bribery using luxury items would be limited to those which are easily concealed. Detection of such a bribe would not only be relatively easy but the source of the bribe would be easily traced. All payments by Payers identify the person paying (the Payer), the person paid (presumably the person offering the bribe), and the benefit for which the payment is being made. Thus, if the owner of the luxury item is paid by a Payer who is found in possession of the item, the connection is difficult to deny.
Next, remember that the people who volunteer for Payer status know they will be giving up luxuries. Therefore, the Payers would be far less likely to be tempted by luxury bribes than ordinary people like you and me who love luxuries.
Therefore, the "considerations" which might sway a Payer would be more social in nature. But the number of people who can influence a particular Payer must be relatively small and the relationship, being obvious in most cases, would mean that the Payer would not be expected to pay those persons because of the appearance of bias.
But the most important reason why bribery would be rare is that the amount of money a single Payer could pay will undoubtedly be small. To get a larger payment one would have to bribe several Payers who would conspire. This widening of the bribery would make detection almost certain. But let’s assume that somehow it was managed and someone who deserved nothing was credited with millions of dollars. Remember that such a large payment would have to be matched by a similar huge benefit to others. If there were no such benefit it would be an obvious scam. If there were such a benefit they would have to show what the paid person had done to create that benefit. In other words, serious cheating on a large scale becomes very obvious. And though the person who received the money would be able to keep it, they might find themselves punished in some way (exile?) anyway. Certainly all the Payers involved would be barred from paying anyone ever again.
Therefore, cheating would happen but it would be quite rare. The rate of cheating would be so low and of such a small scale that it could reasonably be ignored by the public at large.