Amazing Fraud #15 ? 0

[fantastic_four]

You have to call them. Like I said, they were a little lost, but I walked them through it. Buzzetta also called.

 

Paypal may or may not put the 21 day hold on it. I was roped into a second chance offer scam where the seller had a ton of nice books legit. He just decided to take as much money and run. I have 10k tied up right now in credit card limbo as PP is reviewing an item not received with another case. I'll get the money back, but I'm on the hook for 15 days interest on it.

 

This isn't even fraud. It's deceptive and the seller is going to play with words to stick the buyer.

 

Why does it require comic collectors calling them? What is the point of the reporting function if they don't do anything until you call to follow up. Especially when they admonish you against contacting them once you have filed the report.

 

 

You don't need to contact us about your report again.

 

They require proof. You want them to have a high standard of proof, otherwise a whackjob scammer could decide to seek retribution against people who rat him out by constantly reporting legit auctions for weird scams that they dream up just to harass you.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Yes, and they have been reported numerous times and have had their listings pulled, only to be back up and running within a few days. What surprises me, is that it may take dozens of complaints via the Report Item link (as evidenced here) on an auction page before ebay does anything. Even then, if the seller simply tweaks it, they can relist and start all over again.

 

One would think that ebay has some culpability once they have been notified of false claims or bait and switch descriptions, but apparently, that is not the case.

[fantastic_four]

One would think that ebay has some culpability once they have been notified of false claims or bait and switch descriptions, but apparently, that is not the case.

 

If you provide them definitive proof, they may indeed have culpability, although I'm not really sure of it. I'd be pretty surprised if they wouldn't carry some sort of liability in various states if they were consistently ignoring verifiable proof. If you just give them your word that they can't independently verify for themselves, then no, they wouldn't be culpable.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I don't think definitive proof does anything for ebay. Because it is not like they are going to buy it to check our proof.

[The-Collector]

You have to call them. Like I said, they were a little lost, but I walked them through it. Buzzetta also called.

 

Paypal may or may not put the 21 day hold on it. I was roped into a second chance offer scam where the seller had a ton of nice books legit. He just decided to take as much money and run. I have 10k tied up right now in credit card limbo as PP is reviewing an item not received with another case. I'll get the money back, but I'm on the hook for 15 days interest on it.

 

This isn't even fraud. It's deceptive and the seller is going to play with words to stick the buyer.

 

Why does it require comic collectors calling them? What is the point of the reporting function if they don't do anything until you call to follow up. Especially when they admonish you against contacting them once you have filed the report.

 

 

You don't need to contact us about your report again.

 

They require proof. You want them to have a high standard of proof, otherwise a whackjob scammer could decide to seek retribution against people who rat him out by constantly reporting legit auctions for weird scams that they dream up just to harass you.

 

I don't want a lowered standard of proof. My problem is that here a high standard has been met and little action has been taken.

 

UPSMAILFRAWD was selling nm copies of IH 181 he did not own for well over a year. With even a cursory investigation you could link the shill bidders from one closed account to the more recent purchases on his new account. He even used the same scans!

 

I am all for due process. But it seems ebay either does not have a functional process or if it does it is not enforcing it.

Edited July 24, 2013 by The-Collector

[crazyhips]

reported as fraudulent as well. don't know that his cut and paste will cover him as the specs/pics/title at the top represent the comic as the original.

 

hard to believe someone can sleep at night doing this to another human being.

[fantastic_four]

I don't think definitive proof does anything for ebay. Because it is not like they are going to buy it to check our proof.

 

There are many forms of proof that don't require them to see the item, which is why they do yank lots of auctions. The easiest way is to prove that they lifted an image from someone else's auction by just telling them which auction it got lifted from.

[fantastic_four]

I don't want a lowered standard of proof. My problem is that here a high standard standard has been met and little action has been taken.

 

UPSMAILFRAWD was selling nm copies of IH 181 he did not own for well over a year. With even a cursory investigation you could link the shill bidders from one closed account to the more recent purchases on his new account. He even used the same scans!

 

I am all for due process. But it seems ebay either does not have a functional process or if it does it is not enforcing it.

 

I'd have to know more about that example of shilling--sounds highly circumstantial from your description.

 

Related to the auction being discussed in the thread, has Wally contacted them yet? He's the person in the best position to get the auction yanked since he has the original version of the image with the CGC label in it.

[The-Collector]

I don't want a lowered standard of proof. My problem is that here a high standard standard has been met and little action has been taken.

 

UPSMAILFRAWD was selling nm copies of IH 181 he did not own for well over a year. With even a cursory investigation you could link the shill bidders from one closed account to the more recent purchases on his new account. He even used the same scans!

 

I am all for due process. But it seems ebay either does not have a functional process or if it does it is not enforcing it.

 

I'd have to know more about that example of shilling--sounds highly circumstantial from your description.

 

Related to the auction being discussed in the thread, has Wally contacted them yet? He's the person in the best position to get the auction yanked since he has the original version of the image with the CGC label in it.

 

You can convict on circumstantial evidence.

 

Do you believe eBay do a god job of policing fraud?

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I don't think definitive proof does anything for ebay. Because it is not like they are going to buy it to check our proof.

 

There are many forms of proof that don't require them to see the item, which is why they do yank lots of auctions. The easiest way is to prove that they lifted an image from someone else's auction by just telling them which auction it got lifted from.

 

Sure, but when you have someone selling reprints as originals, why does it take multiple complaints to have the auction killed? The auction is being reported as Significantly Not As Described (SNAD) which will require the buyer to go through the hassle of repacking and returning the item, per ebays buyer protection requirements. Of course:

If the buyer is uninformed and doesn't file the SNAD, ebay still gets their cut.

If the buyer can't be bothered with returning (probably not the case here, but often in smaller $ transactions) eBay still gets their cut.

If the buyer fails to file within 45 days, because they are hospitalized, die or other problems, ebay still gets their cut.

If the buyer fails to get signature confirmation when returning, eBay still gets their cut (and the buyer is out the full amount).

Ebay also gets the float and the interest on the money the entire time, up until the seller gets the item back.

 

I just think ebay is too disincentivized to yank auctions.

[Taco]

I just noticed the seller has canceled bids from the time this thread was started.

 

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p2047675.l2565&rt=nc&item=231019679403

 

They're on this website.

[Taco]

Did anyone submit a tip to Bleeding Cool? I know they mostly report on moderns, but they have posted articles before about things to watch out for (like when the two people were selling fake signed Saga #1s). And they also have a network of other websites that just re-report what they do.

[fantastic_four]

You can convict on circumstantial evidence.

 

Do you believe eBay do a god job of policing fraud?

 

Not circumstantial evidence as loose as what you just described related to shilling.

 

I think eBay errs on the side of what makes them most profitable, and that means no, I don't think they do a good job. I've spent a few hundred hours over the last decade trying to get eBay to get rid of some specific scammers, and all I can really say is that if you give them solid proof, they usually act--but far more often than not, there is little or no definitive proof that's possible to get. And I also believe few people understand what "solid" proof is and just think if they report someone, that should be the end of it. Most people expect eBay to act as legal and ethical enforcement, but the main problem is that eBay has few ways of gathering evidence if the person doing the reporting doesn't give it to them. I wouldn't be surprised if they periodically and/or sporadically fail at acting upon solid proof given the volume of scammers they deal with, and yea, they deserve to get hammered each and every time they do that.

 

There are some famous professional scammers that use eBay as their main cash cow, but those guys are so good at evading proof that I do understand why eBay hasn't banned them. In the comics world, Danny Dupcak is the main one I'm aware of.

[fantastic_four]

Sure, but when you have someone selling reprints as originals, why does it take multiple complaints to have the auction killed?

 

Usually it's because most complaints don't provide enough evidence. Has eBay got any evidence related to the auction in question in the thread? I haven't noticed that anyone's sent them solid evidence yet, but I may have overlooked it.

[passion4comics]

Why is he cancelling bids?!?!?

[passion4comics]

Sure, but when you have someone selling reprints as originals, why does it take multiple complaints to have the auction killed?

 

Usually it's because most complaints don't provide enough evidence. Has eBay got any evidence related to the auction in question in the thread? I haven't noticed that anyone's sent them solid evidence yet, but I may have overlooked it.

 

As per the phone call. Offering a 1962 original copy and photos and then in his text saying it's not an original 1962 copy.

[nearmint]

If someone's going to do this right, they need to place a big bid and not talk about it in this thread.

[Buzzetta]

I don't think definitive proof does anything for ebay. Because it is not like they are going to buy it to check our proof.

 

There are many forms of proof that don't require them to see the item, which is why they do yank lots of auctions. The easiest way is to prove that they lifted an image from someone else's auction by just telling them which auction it got lifted from.

 

Sure, but when you have someone selling reprints as originals, why does it take multiple complaints to have the auction killed? The auction is being reported as Significantly Not As Described (SNAD) which will require the buyer to go through the hassle of repacking and returning the item, per ebays buyer protection requirements. Of course:

If the buyer is uninformed and doesn't file the SNAD, ebay still gets their cut.

If the buyer can't be bothered with returning (probably not the case here, but often in smaller $ transactions) eBay still gets their cut.

If the buyer fails to file within 45 days, because they are hospitalized, die or other problems, ebay still gets their cut.

If the buyer fails to get signature confirmation when returning, eBay still gets their cut (and the buyer is out the full amount).

 

I just think ebay is too disincentivized to yank auctions.

 

The reply to this was that there is so many reports filed across the system that there is a backlog. This makes sense actually. eBay has at least a couple of million items listed each day. We found ONE thing wrong and the button humping seems to be off the charts. There is a line of complaints that they process. Priority is reasonably given to phone calls.

[fantastic_four]

As per the phone call. Offering a 1962 original copy and photos and then in his text saying it's not an original 1962 copy.

 

You can't tell from the pic he stole from Wally that it's an original because he quite obviously and intentionally edited in that voice bubble over top of the CGC label. What WOULD be solid proof is if Wally sent them the original pic without the CGC label edited out.

[nearmint]

Priority should be given to items with the most complaints, whether they be emailed or called in.