Forum - View topicINTEREST: Man Nabbed After Selling Counterfeit Yu-Gi-Oh! Card for US$3,600
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
zunderdog24
 Posts: 362 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Wasnt this an episode of anime crimes division?
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
-SP-
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
If your dumb enough to buy something this expensive without examining it yourself, you are kind of asking to get scammed.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Kyo Hisagi
Posts: 255 |
|
|||||||||||||||
People spend their money on what they want. Collecting something never was a cheap hobby. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
TsukasaElkKite
 Posts: 3947 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
As TV Tropes says, Crack is Cheaper.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
SWAnimefan
Posts: 634 |
|
|||||||||||||||
While you words ring true, they also are very harsh regarding the reality of the situation. Scammers that sell counterfeit goods on websites never show the real picture of the item that's to be sold. Instead, they find pictures of the legitimate item(s) elsewhere on the internet and use that picture. So even to a trained eye, it looks legit, until you get the actual item and learned that you got scammed. So the old adage applies, "Buyer's beware". |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
YamiWheeler
Posts: 97 |
|
|||||||||||||||
And it's still against the law. And the scammer still gets arrested and prosecuted. Not sure what your point is. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Shiflan
 Posts: 418 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Yes, of course it's against the law, and hopefully the scammer will get prosecuted. That said, I think the point is that if you're going to buy expensive collectables you can protect yourself from being ripped off by inspecting the item in person before handing over payment. Buyer beware, as they say. Sending over thousands of dollars (equivalent) for something they were not able to inspect in person is a very unwise move, and the buyer was lucky that the police caught the perpetrator and hopefully got their money back. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
russ869
Posts: 422 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Sounds like it wasn't even a very good fake.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
YamiWheeler
Posts: 97 |
|
|||||||||||||||
So the point is literally obvious common sense? I'm not sure why everyone who comments with this advice thinks they're giving out some sage-like wisdom. Do you really think that people don't know that? The reality, however, is that the chances of anyone being able to inspect a collectible that there are only 6-of in the entire world, in person, is very low. We're also given the benefit of an image listing the fake and the real card side-by-side that lists which one is which. Do you think the actual eBay auction used that image? Or just used an image of the original card they found on the internet? Chances are, the auction looked as genuine as any other. I personally wouldn't take the chance regardless because I lean on the suspicious side, but I'm also not an avid collector. If the buyer was willing to spend $3600 on a card, then clearly the item was worth it to them to take a chance on, especially if there were no red flags. It doesn't mean that they slammed down the money carelessly, and just because it ultimately didn't work out in their favor doesn't mean they're an idiot who doesn't understand basic common sense. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Shiflan
Posts: 418 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Yes. As sad as it sounds, yes yes yes. Common sense is not common. I have dealt in collectibles of one sort or another ever since my high school days. MTG cards. Star Trek and Star Wars memorabilia. Later in life I got into military artifacts and my family is into antiques, especially old British silver. As sad as it sounds, the number of people who make uninformed purchases is staggering. Getting outright scammed by a criminal is another problem beyond that. This sort of news can be a good teaching moment for people who want to avoid either problem.
Can't inspect it, don't buy it is a simple rule. Or at the very least make sure that your method of shopping has a guarantee you can invoke if you get ripped off, like PayPal's buyer protection, or that offered by a credit card company.
Of course it looked genuine. That's how scammers work. The point is that a wise purchaser doesn't even take the risk in the first place. If you can't inspect in person then it's all about trust. Many collectors will trust well known dealers in their hobby or the major auction houses, for example. But trusting Christies or Sotheby's is a totally different thing than trusting an online seller you've never heard of before. Case in point. And they're lucky to have gotten their money back! Scams like this happen often and it's almost unheard of for them to get busted. This story has a happy ending where most similar cases don't.
Sounds like you have common sense. The victim in this scam did not. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
megazero
 Posts: 337 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Off-topic: Blues-Eyes White Dragon should be Blue-Eyes White Dragon.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
YamiWheeler
Posts: 97 |
|
|||||||||||||||
That's a nice bumper sticker, but I have another one. "Money is a good motivator." Especially when you're at risk of losing thousands of your own. I don't think you're giving people nearly enough credit. Sure, the average person might fall for scams due to recklessness, but someone willing to drop $3600? Like I said, just because it didn't work out doesn't mean they don't have common sense. Besides, I'd argue that to "fall for a scam," the scammer needs to get away with it. A scam that results in the scammer going to prison and the victim getting all their money back isn't much of a scam, now is it?
I wonder if that's because many people just don't consider their options when they get scammed. Buying online in general these days has so much consumer protection attached to it. Here, we have both Consumer Contracts Regulations for distance selling, and the Consumer Rights Act for the quality and authenticity of the product. I'm sure other countries have similar protections. It's not that people don't have any recourse, it's that people are unaware that they do or think it's not worth the trouble. Knowing your rights makes any risk you make when buying goods online much more calculated.
A rigid rule like that means that you might never end up collecting anything of value. Once again, there are only 6 of these cards in the world. Sometimes you have to take risks. As for buyer protection, if this was done via a reputable auction website, chances are the transaction was conducted via PayPal and the site itself likely had protections against scams as well, which makes the risk more calculated.
The victim took a calculated risk. Now the scammer is being prosecuted, and if the victim didn't already get her money back (she likely already has), she can sue him for it, and since he's already admitted guilt, it'll be a walk in the park. The situation turned out great, TBH. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Shiflan
Posts: 418 |
|
|||||||||||||||
First off, the person in question did indeed fall for a scam due to recklessness. This isn't up for discussion. It did, in fact, happen. Second, what does the amount of money have to do with anything? It's possible to get scammed for a dollar and it's possible to get scammed for millions. I have seen someone buy a rare Chinese porcelain plate at auction for well over a million dollars only to find out a few months later that it was a 19th century fake. One would hope that when large amounts of money are involved that people would be more careful, but as our Yu-gi-oh example illustrates sometimes people still send money for things without doing their homework. And that's especially true for collectors lusting after that rare piece they just have to have for their collection.
The fact that they sent a lot of money online without being able to properly inspect the item they were purchasing is the reason why they don't have any common sense. That would have been true even if it did work out and the card was legit.
Of course it's a scam. But there's also the aftermath of them getting caught. That doesn't change the fact that their prior actions were a scam. And that's what the court would find too: Guilty of fraud (or whatever equivalent). Look at it this way: Is drunk driving only bad if you cause an accident? Or is the very idea of being intoxicated behind the wheel a major concern?
Knowing your rights is important. But the problem I was getting at is that a lot of the time scammers can get away with things because they can be difficult to track down. It's easy to spoof email addresses, use PO boxes for correspondence and payment, etc. And in the case of lesser amounts of money the police and the companies involved (i.e. PayPal) don't have the time or the manpower to bother going after the scammer. Back in my days of dealing MTG cards I would often hear of people being ripped off, sometimes with fake cards. Of course this got reported to the police, but what do people expect them to do about it, exactly? Do people really expect a full-on investigation like they saw on CSI or Law and Order over a $100 fake Mox Ruby? Do people expect that the police even know how to identify a fake vs. legitimate rare Yu-gi-oh card?
It means you have to put forth more effort as a collector to physically travel to see the items in question before you buy them, not that you never buy them at all. I've traveled to other states to examine collectibles I've considered purchasing before. I have flown from Texas to England to examine a rare knife. And these days you can talk to the seller with skype or video chat and ask them to show the item while you talk.
Great? Surely you are kidding: The buyer didn't get their card. The buyer is out their hard-earned money for a long period of time, assuming they have even gotten it back yet, if they get it back at all. The buyer lost valuable time reporting the scam to the website, police, etc. The buyer can sue? Sure. That costs more money upfront, takes months for a court date to be scheduled, and even when the victim wins the lawsuit that doesn't automatically mean they get their cash instantly. If the scammer already spent it, or hid it, then what? There's nothing "great" about any of this except for a scammer getting prosecuted. For everyone else concerned it's been a giant waste of time and manpower. Hopefully it will become a learning experience for the victim and others. It certainly ended better than it otherwise could have, but I think it's being rather silly to call the whole situation "great". |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
YamiWheeler
Posts: 97 |
|
|||||||||||||||
We have no idea why they "fell for the scam." Recklessness is conjecture because we cannot ascertain that from the evidence that we have available in the article. So, no, it's not a fact. Moreover, what people consider to be reckless behavior is subjective, so it will probably never be a fact.
Typically, even if there are some examples of people dropping a lot of money carelessly, most people care about their money and are very protective of it. If she didn't care about her money at all, she wouldn't have gone to the police.
Once again, we have no idea what homework was or was not done.
That's just one opinion though, like I said already, that rigid attitude might mean that you may never collect anything of value. It has nothing to do with common sense, it has more to do with differing priorities.
Being intoxicated behind the wheel is a major concern because you can cause an accident. If alcohol didn't negatively affect your perception and sense of control to the point where an accident wasn't any more likely than if you weren't drunk, then drunk driving likely wouldn't be any concern at all.
Sure, not every case of card fraud is going to become a criminal case, but the point that you're missing is that the consumer is protected. Even if the scammer isn't caught, your money is still safe thanks to these safeguards. That's the point. Knowing your consumer rights is vital in making a calculated decision, otherwise, yes, you are just being reckless.
No offence, but if I was a collector, I'd rather take the chance in a shadyish auction, knowing my recourse if anything were to go wrong, than spend the time and money to fly to another country just to examine a collectible. Especially considering that essentially drives up the cost of the item you're thinking of purchasing. Let's not even talk about the time and money you've wasted if you then decide not to purchase the item. Maybe I wouldn't make a very good collector, or maybe I'm echoing a sentiment that many collectors would agree with, who knows.
Based on the facts that we have: - The scammer admitted guilt, which means if the buyer does need to sue him, it won't be very difficult to make the case and win. She can also use the admission of guilt as evidence of fraud to petition a bank, credit card company, transaction website, etc. (however she paid) to try and get her money back, as each of these entities has their own fraud protection checks in place. They can't just ignore an admission of fraud, especially if he goes on to be convicted of it. - The item was sold on an auction site, and as I said before, any reputable auction site will have protections against this sort of thing hard-coded into their policy. So to summarize, the buyer didn't get their card, but was able to put a scammer behind bars, and ultimately will almost certainly get back all of the money she paid. Some time was lost, sure, but that's the cost of taking the risk and is negligible, IMO. Not only that, but since the scammer has admitted guilt, it might open up the door for other people who were defrauded by him in the past to also file a complaint, who knows. Overall, it sounds pretty great to me, considering the situation. Obviously it would've been better if the card had been the real deal, but considering it wasn't, I don't think the outcome could have been any better. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Shiflan
Posts: 418 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Why they fell for it isn't relevant. The question is whether or not they did. And the answer to that is clearly "yes".
We know that the person didn't see the card in person before they bought it and thus were deceived by a scammer posting dishonest pictures. That's sufficient to suggest recklessness.
Most people tend to prioritize safety over other things. That's why people make and heed common sense recommendations like don't flaunt a lot of cash or jewelry when traveling, don't leave your home or vehicle unlocked, don't post personal information online, shred your bank receipts or other documents with personal data on them, don't walk alone at night in dangerous parts of town, and so on.
And likewise, sending a bunch of money to a random seller online is a major concern because you can be easily ripped off. If sending money for things sight unseen didn't increase your risks of being the victim of a scam then it wouldn't be any concern at all. The two are exactly the same, except perhaps in the severity of the potential consequences. The behavior is risky, and by changing that behavior the risk can be eliminated.
That point is wishful thinking. Despite well-meaning customer protection laws your money is never safe. THAT is my point. Most cases like this never go anywhere. The scammer isn't caught, the person never gets their money back. Customer protection exists, but it is incredibly naive to rely on it because it's far from reliable.
I suspect that's naivety talking. 95% of the time if you get ripped off in a "shady auction" there is no recourse. You can make phone calls, file complaints, talk to the police, but it is extremely unlikely that you will actually get your money back.
Of course that's a risk. But it's one that errs on the safe side. Better to lose a few hundred bucks than it is to lose several thousands. It's no different than calling for an expensive taxi ride when you've been drinking to avoid the risk of driving while intoxicated, or, for a different example: having insurance. Better to pay the low premium than risk a huge bill if and when something goes wrong.
It seems you can describe anything as positive when you "consider the situation", which I find nonsensical. No. We don't have to "consider the situation". The whole point is that the whole "situation" wouldn't have ever existed if the victim exercised some common sense. I'm puzzled as to what your point really is here. You seem to be trying very hard to argue against a common sense safety rule. Why, exactly, do you think people should be reckless with their hard-earned money and engage in behavior that makes them more susceptible to scammers? |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group