Slashdot Mirror
P-P-P-PowerBook for a S-S-S-Scammer...
kormoc writes "It all started with a ebay auction when the seller got a email from a dude who wanted to scam him. It was a normal setup and it went horribly wrong... for the scammer. This has turned from a awful plight for a ebay user to a wonderful prank on the scammer. Throw in some crazy brits with digicams and you have the making of a great story.
Mirror
Mirror"
That should get the coffee out your nostrils on a fine sunday morning. Note that you have to download the PDF to read the story.
Despite all that's been written above, there's no doubt that our scambuster broke the law. And moreover it doesn't actually seem that the "scammer" did anything illegal (though it seems likely that he was going to).
* The sale was agreed outside ebay, by email. So it's irrelevant that ebay cancelled the auction. There is undoubtedly a binding contract between the author and the "scammer" to sell a powerbook for $2100.
* Any failure on the part of the seller to deliver the powerbook is a breach of contract. Ditto a failure by the buyer to pay. If both fail to do their part, they are both in breach and can sue each other. E.g. say I have a painting that I think is junk and you think is by Van Gogh. I agree to sell it to you for $100. I don't deliver, you don't pay, we're each furious because we each think we got the better part of the deal. We can sue each other. Two legal wrongs do not cancel each other out.
* Our hero has sent the scammer a fake powerbook. That's not only breach of contract, it's misrepresentation (since what he sent did not match the description). And it is also fraud, because he deliberately sent the wrong item. Those are civil offences. As for criminal, it's clear deception - even if our hero gained nothing, he has caused the victim (sorry, scammer) to lose. And I'd imagine lying on a customs form is some form of perjury.
* as for the alleged scammer, what has he done wrong. He's failed to pay for an item he never got. As I said, that's breach of contract, but the damages would be minimal (especially given the scale of our hero's deception). In criminal law, you could charge him with attempted deception. On the other hand, there was no deception involved since our hero knew exactly what was going on and was never deceived. So in actual fact, it looks like our scammer has done nothing criminal.
* regarding jurisdiction, for the breach of contract it may be US or UK, my inclination is US since that appears to be where the offer was accepted. But for the criminal law, the victim/scammer was in the UK the whole time, so it's pretty clear the UK courts have jurisdiction whether ot not the US courts do as well.
So the net result of this brilliant prank is that our hero has committed one or more criminal offences, and the scammer has done practically nothing wrong. Is this the way things should be? I guess that depends on your view of vigilante justice. Funny that at no point does our caped crusader consider reporting anything to the London police (or the FBI, considering a US college professor was apparently involved). Yes, they'd have probably done nothing but he should have at least attempted a legit channel. This scammer may have been burned, but he's not behind bars - do you really think he's going to give up for a few hundred bucks when he's probably already made thousands? And while it looks like this scammer was for real, there's a real danger of copycat "anti-scammer scams" that will end up screwing an innocent party at some point.
Overall, I'd rate this as a pretty childish attempt at revenge which shows a basic disrespect for the norms of society.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
:laffo:
Either that or the "fucking idiocy of foreigners."
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.