A Day in the Life of a Nigerian Scammer

prostoalex writes "The media made a Nigerian scammer's career look too easy. Get online, introduce yourself as a corrupt government official willing to take the money out of the country, and wait for the wire transfers from victims to start rolling in. So, the Associated Press takes us through a day in life of Nigerian scammer. It's a life that takes place in Internet cafes with aged screens and free Webmail accounts. However, by the end of the article the AP talks about some people who have made a good career out of it - three cars, two houses. That is, until the next crackdown comes along."

Comments

wake up...

[duhasteifersucht]

Step 1: Wake Up Step 2: Take money from stupid Americans Step 3: Go to sleep Are we sure this guy isn't working for Microsoft?

Re:Have a heart.

[Anonymous Coward]

old age doesnt excuse stupidity.

that is a stupid move no matter what era of history. no one was ever that trustworthy.

and you are incorrect, most victims are not young so that shoots the shit out of that theory you had

modC d0wn

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a life to Can no longer be are having trouble platf0rm for the surprise to the Software lawPyers

Resolving the negotiability of a Money Order.

[NRAdude]

(I spent about two hours preparing all this text for you. It is self explanatory and can be peiced together to abate any bad faith in the conduct of a bank to render credit where credit is due, on your behalf, as well as emphasizing the role of a bank in misplaced credit.)

I vaguely remember many of the abatements in considering the deniability of a Money Order, specifically those issued in likeness of UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. One trait is the FRANKLIN watermark, the second is that none are issued greater than USD 750.00. Regardless, those instruments issued by USPS are actually fraud from the inception, because they are non-negotiable outside of UNITED STATES. By banking laws, a USPS Money Order is fraud, so I find it verry questionable jurisdiction when someone is charged with forging a forgery. Isn't that silly?

So for those of you that don't know and would like a more casual participation in the fraud, DO NOT ACCEPT A USPS MONEY ORDER GREATER THAN USD 750.00, unless you know how to abate its issue. There are those of us that know how to open a Postal Savings Account, or a Postal Chequing Account, and are afronted by these titles everyday. Consider some of these summary judgments and definitions espoused in subjects of Negotiable Instruments Law:

First, for those of you that don't know what "good faith" means when applied to commerce...

Ordinary Holder; A holder is a person who is in possession of an instrument drawn, issued or indorsed to him or to his order or bearer or in blank.Holder in Due Course; A holder in due course is a holder who takes the instrument (a) For value; and (b)In good faith; and (c)Without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person." (See Bank of Costa Mesa v. Losack (1977)). Good faith means nothing more than "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned." (U.C.C 1201(19); cf. U.C.C. 2103(1)(b) [good faith in the case of a merchant under Division 2 means "honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade"].)

Payment of Forged Check. The relation of banker and depositor gives rise to an implied contract that the bank will pay out the depositor's money only upon his order. If it pays it out on a forged check, it must bear the loss and cannot debit the depositor's account. This liability of the bank for payment on a forged check is absolute, and has nothing to do with the bank's negligence. No matter how great its exercise of care, it pays a forged check at its peril (Janin v. London & San Francisco Bank (1891) 92 C. 14, 22, 27 P. 1100; see 1955 A.S. 388; Brady (Bailey) (5th ed.) clause 22.3; Clark (Rev. ed.), 6.2; 10 Am.Jur.2d, Banks clause 603.)

Paymentt on Forged Indorsement (General Rule)
The drawee bank is also liable if it pays on a forged indorsement. This is because it is bound to pay only in accordance with the depositor's order. As in the case of a forged signature, a forged indorsement is no indorsement at all, and, when the bank pays on it, it is paying in violantion of the depositor's order. (See U.C.C 3401(1), 4401(1); Los Angeles Inv. Co. v. Home Savings Bank (1919) 180 C. 601, 604, 182, P. 293 [decided under former statute]; 1949 A.S. 548; 1951 A.S. 450; 1952 A.S. 355; 7 Hastings L. J. 42; 4 Stanf. L. Rev. 24 [pointing out that short (1-year) statute of limitations often defeats the depositor's recovery]; and see generally Brady (Bailey) (5th ed.) clause 23.2; Clark (Rev. ed.), 6.4; 10 Am.Jur.2d, Banks clauses 622, 623; on forgery as a real defense, see U.C.C. 3404, supra, clause 87; on effect of negligence, see infra, clauses 170, 171; on rights of drawee bank against holder, see infra, clause 177.) Payment on a forged indorsement constitutes conversion (U.C.C. 3410(1)(c)). The measure of damages is presumed to be the face amount of the unstrument (U.C.C. 3419(2)),