What's new

eBAY scam. Quite ingenious, but I fell for it, sort of. (1 Viewer)

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
Ryan, thanks for the answer to the question.



I understand why they'd have to charge the buyer initially, since they don't know if he knew it was stolen or not. However, if they can't prove he knew that or had reason to believe that, it would IMO be better to let him keep what he paid for.
Since the buyer did nothing wrong and had no way of knowing he did something wrong, he shouldn't be treated like a criminal.

I can see how in theory this could prevent people from buying stolen goods, but I would think that a lot of innocent people would get in trouble for something that wasn't their fault.

/Mike
 

Philip_G

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2000
Messages
5,030
I would be heading off to ebay and printing out the auction if I were you, that item will be gone in 90 days and you might find it beneficial to have a copy for your records :)
 

Mike Lenthol

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
322
Well, here are some more facts:

1.) I've contacted the shipper, and they did confirm that a stolen credit card was used

2.) They admit it is not my fault

3.) They admit they are aware of the scammer, and have hundreds similar cases
 

Keith Mickunas

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 15, 1998
Messages
2,041
So MickeS, if you went on vacation, and someone forged some paperwork and sold your house, when you came home would you just say "Golly, I guess I have to find a new place to live."? Hell no, you get the cops, throw those people out, and take what's rightfully your's.

You're basically saying that if something is stolen, then it goes through a seemingly legitimate transaction, the new owner should be able to keep it and the legal owner is out of luck. That isn't fair to the legal owner.
 

Philip_G

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2000
Messages
5,030
I think in this situation the one who loses is the CC company, I think they're the ones out the $$.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058


It's not fair to anyone. But why should he be punished and not me? He's as much of a victim as I am. Since he has possession of it, it should now be his.

/Mike
 

Ryan Wright

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 30, 2000
Messages
1,875
He's as much of a victim as I am. Since he has possession of it, it should now be his.
No way. This would totally encourage theft. People wouldn't care about buying stolen goods if they knew they got to keep them. Just get your friend to rip off some high end equipment and sell it to you for a couple of bucks. Then if he gets caught, you claim ignorance and can keep the items. If he doesn't get caught, then you share in the loot.

The way it works now is right: You're both a victim of this scumbag. You can sue him for stealing your stuff, and the buyer can sue him to get his money back. But in the end, the item still belongs to the original owner, and should always be returned. In this case, two victims really are better than one.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058


The whole discussion is moot if the buyer buys something expensive for way less than it's worth. It only applies if it's reasonable to assume the buyer had no reason to suspect anything was wrong. Obviously, if someone bought something for way less than it was worth and it turns out to be stolen, there is no way he'd get to keep it since he should have assumed it was stolen, or he can't prove that he did everything in his power to verify that the item was in fact legit.

/Mike
 

Bryan X

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
3,469
Real Name
Bryan
In fact, you can find yourself arrested for possession of stolen property. If you can convince a judge that you didn't know it was stolen, you might get let off the hook.
From what I understand the level of mens rea is lessened in this crime to include negligence because a person should know, for example, that when they get "too good" a deal on something, it's probably stolen. This lowered culpability requirement is aimed at junk dealers and pawnbrokers.

The best reference I can find regarding ownership of stolen goods is at diylaw.info.

According to their site:

If you buy goods that turn out to be stolen the original owner can reclaim them from you. You can however reclaim the full price from the seller.
 

Anthony_J

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
242
Quite a long thread, so forgive me if this has been said already. I had this subject drilled into my head during the Uniform Commercial Code review for the CPA exam...

You're basically saying that if something is stolen, then it goes through a seemingly legitimate transaction, the new owner should be able to keep it and the legal owner is out of luck. That isn't fair to the legal owner.
That's right. As long as the 2nd buyer of the property (the one who purchased it from the thief) can prove that it was a "good faith" transaction (e.g., honest intentions, no reason to believe that the product was stolen, etc.), then the original owner of the product has no legal recourse against the 2nd buyer.

The original owner has a legal case against the thief, but that's it.

Mind you, good faith can be disputed in many ways. An extremely low selling price, scratched off serial number, name tags or some sort of customization that wouldn't pertain to the theif (seller), etc. are all things that can be used to prove that the buyer should have known that the item was "hot", which gives the original owner a basis to get the property back.
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
Hm, that's not how I read the UCC. Section 2-403 provides that a purchaser of goods acquires all title which the purchaser's transferor had or had power to transfer. A person with a "voidable title" has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value.

But a thief doesn't have "voidable title"; he has VOID title. See, e.g. Met-Al, Inc. v. Hansen Storage Co.
844 F.Supp. 485 (E.D.Wis.,1994). Thus the thief cannot have power to transfer good title to a BFP. Since the thief's title is void, the purchaser's title is voidable (but not void, since he was not the thief and is acting in good faith).

Now, another step in the chain can cure this. A steals your DVD player (let's stay away from the Corvette and stick with untitled goods). A sells it to B, who has no reason to know it's stolen. B, if he keeps it, does not have good title. However, if he as middleman sells the player to C, who also has no reason to know that it's stolen, then C's title is good since B has the power to sell the player under his voidable (but not void) title. In that instance, C gets to keep the player and your recourse is against A and B (probably B since A will have spent all the money on drugs).

This is all very confusing because the UCC never defines what it means by "voidable title" but that's how it works in Wisconsin anyway. So much for uniformity.

Good luck on the CPA exam ;)
 

Mike Lenthol

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
322
It seems the law is awfully outdated when it comes to sorting out this online mess :angry: Especially the CC business with their own terms and agreements.
 

Ryan Wright

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 30, 2000
Messages
1,875
But a thief doesn't have "voidable title"; he has VOID title. See, e.g. Met-Al, Inc. v. Hansen Storage Co.
844 F.Supp. 485 (E.D.Wis.,1994). Thus the thief cannot have power to transfer good title to a BFP.
Correct.

I called my local police department on this question. If I can prove that an item belongs to me (receipts with serial number, etc), they will sieze it from whomever "owns" it and return it to me. Additionally, there is a strong chance the person in possession of it will be arrested, depending on their story, criminal history, etc.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
What about that e-mail that was quoted early in the thread? How was that used to get someone's money? The link seemed to go to a legitimate eBay page?

/Mike
 

Mike Lenthol

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
322
Many of the buyers will be refunded for their purchase
since the funds had not yet been transferred to the seller's
account. If you do receive a refund on your credit card, we would be
willing to accept the amount you were going to pay the seller as
payment for the order. If that resolution is acceptable to you,
please mail a check or money order, payable to *COMPANY NAME*, to the
following address:
It seems the shipper, is trying to recoup the losses and it's not worth for them to pursue small items since the bill will probably be picked up by someone else and not them anyway. Think I should cut them a check and condone their lax policy on shipping to who knows where? Or wait until they come to me with a claim at least in a postal letter and not some probably mass email.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top