ASM #252 CGC 9.8 Record Sale - something fishy going on? - Holder Tampering Incident confirmed by CGC 50 50

[Stefan_W]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:10 AM, comicwiz said:

They've been using this "approximately" for everything, including the 350 list. One of the things I've mentioned in past posts as being very unusual. 

Maybe a lawyer can weigh in on this, but to me it is not at all unusual and I would be shocked if they used absolute numbers. When they use "approximately" it leaves the door open in case other instances are discovered, but if they use a hard number they can be shown to be wrong if that number changes. 

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 2/6/2024 at 8:15 AM, Stefan_W said:

Maybe a lawyer can weigh in on this, but to me it is not at all unusual and I would be shocked if they used absolute numbers. When they use "approximately" it leaves the door open in case other instances are discovered, but if they use a hard number they can be shown to be wrong if that number changes. 

the larger the number the worse it looks for them, not the perp. Isn't that what 50% of this thread is about? The gross underestimation of the tainted books that should be shared, and investigated? 

[Stefan_W]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:17 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

the larger the number the worse it looks for them, not the perp. Isn't that what 50% of this thread is about? The gross underestimation of the tainted books that should be shared, and investigated? 

The specific point is whether the legalese in the filing is unusual. People highlighted the usage of "approximately" as being unusual to them, and to me it seemed normal. 

You can bang whatever drum you like in this thread though - the topic is pretty broad with many dimensions to it. 

[MyNameIsLegion]

CGC may also go the civil route to force the perp to disclose the exact manner and method of the scam, which they very much want to plug that hole. In criminal court that would be public knowledge. In civil court, the terms of a settlement can be kept private and then the perp CAN'T disclose how they pulled it off as a condition of the settlement. Hell they could go so far as to pay the perp to tell them if they deem it necessary, ban him for life, put him under an NDA, etc. 

Edited February 6 by MyNameIsLegion

[comicjel]

On 2/6/2024 at 8:35 AM, sledgehammer said:

The sales of CGC 9.8 ASM 194, 238, 252 and 300 are of course, a train wreck right now.

This one feels like russian roulette to me. 

Graded in 2011, now in a new holder.

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/0962187007/

https://www.ebay.com/itm/276168251156?hash=item404ce91714:g:OPcAAOSwY~VlU5hB&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwOuUPQPiR8FvxsYZQ5uszZJFtFKcqjJLCwXbU9ly70SLal5YeAJBjv5Qt0wqQgJpPL0cUwCBYdFNPGmv3QcPOGBR%2B88JPLdVtaYPEynD5EcalTOt%2FSSOGOcgo%2FBgjEt1vWUpGb6Vpe4iM%2FbRX6AguY3q2yPkUxt6YhO9GmbU8aRe4Ej%2FC0v3ru2MYSQDaSBMP4qM%2BEp93Hf7RLCb6fRQlRD59yX1tU2%2BKxZs8eIuM7No%2FUuHAvk8otAopDHEvI7HCA%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR_DH9qivYw

 

I think it is 99% that the comic in there now is not the comic that was graded in 2011.

[BrashL]

On 2/6/2024 at 8:36 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

CGC may also go the civil route to force the perp to disclose the exact manner and method of the scam, which they very much want to plug that hole. In criminal court that would be public knowledge. In civil court, the terms of a settlement can be kept private and then the perp CAN'T disclose how they pulled it off as a condition of the settlement. Hell they could go so far as to pay the perp to tell them if they deem it necessary, ban him for life, put him under an NDA, etc. 

CGC and everyone else knows how he did it, there's no mystery there. These two lawsuits make it plain that:

1) CGC has hilariously bad internal controls. They have issues with hiring and quality of staff, not to mention safeguards against wrong doing and sufficient QC. To say nothing of the consistency of the grading which the community tends to handwave away as if that's the one thing that's infallible amongst the rest of this dumpster fire. 

2) The case is easily opened and resealed

That's it. There's no mystery here. 

[EastEnd1]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:36 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

CGC may also go the civil route to force the perp to disclose the exact manner and method of the scam, which they very much want to plug that hole. In criminal court that would be public knowledge. In civil court, the terms of a settlement can be kept private and then the perp CAN'T disclose how they pulled it off as a condition of the settlement. Hell they could go so far as to pay the perp to tell them if they deem it necessary, ban him for life, put him under an NDA, etc. 

From my armchair lawyering, a criminal case is brought by the State (ie, prosecutor), not the victim.  There could be a criminal case still coming pending further evidence gathering and evaluation.  Bringing a criminal case requires a higher threshold ("probable cause") and is harder to win (unanimous jury vs majority of jurors).  My impression on the civil case is that it came quickly because they are seeking an injunction preventing the scammers from continuing to sell tampered slabbed books, thereby harming CGC's trademark... something they are apparently continuing to do.

[comicwiz]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:15 AM, Stefan_W said:

Maybe a lawyer can weigh in on this, but to me it is not at all unusual and I would be shocked if they used absolute numbers. When they use "approximately" it leaves the door open in case other instances are discovered, but if they use a hard number they can be shown to be wrong if that number changes. 

It raises questions of uncertainty in a situation that should not leave such doubt as to how it's being handled. Also, if you're going to say approximately 369, round it up to 370 for crying out loud. No one is going to hold them to it, esp since they already publicly said there was no insider (and it turned out there was) and there was only one person involved (and there's at least two we know about from the lawsuit filing). 

Edited February 6 by comicwiz

[Gonzimodo]

On 2/6/2024 at 10:58 AM, comicwiz said:

It raises questions of uncertainty in a situation that should not leave such doubt as to how it's being handled. Also, if you're going to say approximately 269, round it up to 270 for crying out loud. No one is going to hold them to it, esp since they already publicly said there was no insider (and it turned out there was) and there was only one person involved (and there's at least two we know about from the lawsuit filing). 

This is one of my biggest pet peeves in life.  Someone will say "about" or "approximately" followed by a very specific number.  JUST ROUND IT SO YOUR STATEMENT MAKES MORE SENSE!!! 

Sorry, everyone, back to business...

[sd2416]

@comicwiz What is your cash app or paypal?  Id like to buy you a drink for all the detective work you have done.  
 

[comix4fun]

On 2/6/2024 at 8:12 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

isn't it normally the other way around? Usually Civil court remedy is the consolation prize or the icing on the cake AFTER a criminal complaint. The fact that they didn't start there speaks volumes. CGC must have more to lose or more to hide than they are willing to risk.  Or, as a business, not a person, they just don't care, and the accountants said it's not worth pursuing. Businesses aren't pre-occupied with human abstractions like "justice" Even though corporations are deemed to have the legal rights of people, they're above all that.

That's a creature of efficiency and piggybacking. If criminal action is happening, and in motion, civil plaintiffs will normally wait and let the case work its way out. If they are suing civilly for the same set of facts and actions on the defendant's part they may want to wait to see if there's a conviction for 1) a finding by the court that part of the penalty is restitution to the plaintiffs and other injured parties if named and 2) a "beyond a reasonable doubt" finding in a criminal case is harder to obtain than "preponderance" in the civil actions and thus make the potential for an end result in plaintiff's favor (or a settlement in the face of certain defeat for the plaintiffs) a certainty and only amount of damages and penalties the only real question. 

If CGC weren't concerned about immediately stopping the businesses and the books and any ongoing actions of the defendants, and they knew there was a criminal case pending that wouldn't cause them to watch the clock for statutes of limitations, they could save some money and doubt as to outcome letting government authorities do the heavy lifting. 

Also, CGC has zero control over a criminal investigation beyond making the complaint. Law enforcement has control over basically all of the steps taken to investigate, prosecute or decline to prosecute these types of cases. This would be, at its heart, an FBI matter (or perhaps US Postal Inspectors in conjunction with the FBI or DOJ), given that it crosses state lines, uses the postal service, and telecommunications and the internet to effectuate the crimes. 

In reality, given the above, waiting isn't a real option like it would be in a more simple state or county case. 

Edited February 6 by comix4fun

[comicwiz]

On 2/6/2024 at 12:40 PM, sd2416 said:

@comicwiz What is your cash app or paypal?  Id like to buy you a drink for all the detective work you have done.  
 

Thank-you, that's very kind. However I would urge you and anyone here who doesn't use @gpanalysis to consider supporting them. We are entering a very precarious time as collectors where our ability to track the activities of bad actors is becoming more important than ever before. Lots of hard work goes on behind the scenes with data providers and aggregators, all making it possible to do the work I was able to do. If you're already a subscriber, please consider supporting a local charity, church, or someone in need in your community. Every litle bit helps, and consider what I've done as my way of paying forward all the help I've received to arrive at the place I am at. 

Edited February 6 by comicwiz

[Sigur Ros]

On 2/6/2024 at 2:52 PM, comicwiz said:

I would urge you and anyone here who doesn't use GPA to consider supporting them.

Will do.

As soon as they aren't CGC-only.

[PopCultureZone1]

I was looking to maybe buy a copy, wasn't trying to be a detective but can someone look at this Batman Adventures #12? It's selling on ebay.  I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, but these do not look like the same comic to me. Ebay listing # 325842709524  cgc # 4320742002

Look at the spine tick by HQ's hat, and many of the defects on the back cover.

[ThothAmon]

On 2/6/2024 at 10:33 AM, EastEnd1 said:

From my armchair lawyering, a criminal case is brought by the State (ie, prosecutor), not the victim.  There could be a criminal case still coming pending further evidence gathering and evaluation.  Bringing a criminal case requires a higher threshold ("probable cause") and is harder to win (unanimous jury vs majority of jurors).  My impression on the civil case is that it came quickly because they are seeking an injunction preventing the scammers from continuing to sell tampered slabbed books, thereby harming CGC's trademark... something they are apparently continuing to do.

This is correct. The criminal investigation is not dependent on the victim but a squeaky wheel certainly gets the grease.Meaning if CGC was pushing the authorities to investigate and prosecute an arrest would be forthcoming.

My guess/belief is CGCs civil lawsuit will never be answered and assuming the defendants are properly served will result in a default judgment. CGCs counsel appears quite capable. 

[drotto]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:27 AM, Stefan_W said:

The specific point is whether the legalese in the filing is unusual. People highlighted the usage of "approximately" as being unusual to them, and to me it seemed normal. 

You can bang whatever drum you like in this thread though - the topic is pretty broad with many dimensions to it. 

Feels typical to me also.  If the investigation is ongoing CGC does not want or give an absolute number in case it needs to be adjusted.  If they gave a concrete number it may make it difficult to submit further evidence.

 

It is similar to a lawer filling a suit that lists John and Jane Does which are stand ins for other people, who may be added to the case later.  It just leaves the door open. 

Edited February 6 by drotto

[Nick Furious]

On 2/6/2024 at 2:57 PM, ThothAmon said:

My guess/belief is CGCs civil lawsuit will never be answered and assuming the defendants are properly served will result in a default judgment.

That's my expectation as well.  Little to no response.  The legal system is a labyrinth and lawyers are expensive Sherpas.  Those who don't have them dare not enter.  Easier to run and hide.    

[WolverineX]

On 2/6/2024 at 10:28 AM, comicjel said:

I think it is 99% that the comic in there now is not the comic that was graded in 2011.

what makes you say that

[agamoto]

On 2/6/2024 at 10:54 AM, comix4fun said:

That's a creature of efficiency and piggybacking. If criminal action is happening, and in motion, civil plaintiffs will normally wait and let the case work its way out. If they are suing civilly for the same set of facts and actions on the defendant's part they may want to wait to see if there's a conviction for 1) a finding by the court that part of the penalty is restitution to the plaintiffs and other injured parties if named and 2) a "beyond a reasonable doubt" finding in a criminal case is harder to obtain than "preponderance" in the civil actions and thus make the potential for an end result in plaintiff's favor (or a settlement in the face of certain defeat for the plaintiffs) a certainty and only amount of damages and penalties the only real question. 

If CGC weren't concerned about immediately stopping the businesses and the books and any ongoing actions of the defendants, and they knew there was a criminal case pending that wouldn't cause them to watch the clock for statutes of limitations, they could save some money and doubt as to outcome letting government authorities do the heavy lifting. 

Also, CGC has zero control over a criminal investigation beyond making the complaint. Law enforcement has control over basically all of the steps taken to investigate, prosecute or decline to prosecute these types of cases. This would be, at its heart, an FBI matter (or perhaps US Postal Inspectors in conjunction with the FBI or DOJ), given that it crosses state lines, uses the postal service, and telecommunications and the internet to effectuate the crimes. 

In reality, given the above, waiting isn't a real option like it would be in a more simple state or county case. 

Finally! A lawyer in our midst!

I've been harping on CGC to bring the FBI into this for hundreds of freakin' pages, which I know they absolutely could do with a phone call if they wanted to.

The problem with those who actually would like to see some *criminal* justice here is that certified collectibles group already has a track record where no criminal investigation takes place, and the whole messy incident winds up locked down in secrecy via settlement agreement.

NGC, CGC's sister company, went through these paces with a fellow named Richard Albright over on the collector coin side of things. Everything CGC has filed thus far in this case mirrors what they did in that one. See: Provenance NGC LLC v. Albright, 1:23-cv-00406

That suit was settled last August. We've yet to see Mr. Albright face any criminal charges for wire fraud. 

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/11938/

My fear is history repeating itself.

While I understand it's still possible charges could drop before any SoL expiry, is it not unusual CGC would be asking victims of this fraud to send their books/evidence in to CGC for their review instead of suggesting those victims reach out to local/state or federal law enforcement agents to at least file a complaint? Wouldn't having all of that evidence fumbling through the multiple hands (heck, even possibly some alleged bad employees who walk out with books!) at CGC not create a problem for any future criminal investigation and prosecution? 

Edited February 6 by agamoto

[grendel013]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:15 AM, Stefan_W said:

Maybe a lawyer can weigh in on this, but to me it is not at all unusual and I would be shocked if they used absolute numbers. When they use "approximately" it leaves the door open in case other instances are discovered, but if they use a hard number they can be shown to be wrong if that number changes. 

I work in data analysis and reporting and we have managers (some lawyers) that have us intentionally summarize with this type of wording. The literal number is what we truly think it to be (at that time) but the "approximately" is a way of acknowledging that "we only know what we know". It's the purest form of transparency maybe?