Slashdot Mirror


FTC Busts Domain Name Scammers

coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission said today it had permanently killed the operations of a group that it said posed as domain name registrars and convinced thousands of US consumers, small businesses and non-profit organizations to pay bogus bills by leading them to believe they would lose their Web site addresses if they didn't. As with so many of these cases however, the defendants get off paying back very little compared to what they took. With today's settlement order, entered against defendants Isaac Benlolo, Kirk Mulveney, Pearl Keslassy, and 1646153 Ontario Inc., includes a suspended judgment of $4,261,876, the total amount of consumer injury caused by the illegal activities. Based on what the FTC called the inability of the settling defendants to pay, they will turn over $10,000 to satisfy the judgment."

125 comments

  1. DOA - Domains of America by davebarnes · · Score: 1

    I used to get mail from these jerks all the time.
    It must have profitable as they spent a fortune in postage.

    --
    Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
    1. Re:DOA - Domains of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they actually bought this site and are doing something "legit" with it. Ridiculous.

    2. Re:DOA - Domains of America by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also used to receive postal mail from these guys, but haven't seen anything recently

      On a somewhat related note, I have noticed that the fake lottery scammers and 419'ers seem to have migrated from email to actual physical postal mail. It's not a lot (over the last year I've received maybe 4-5 of them) but it makes me wonder whether these scams are actually lucrative enough to cover the cost of postage (often from overseas). The other possibility is that these scammers have figured out a way to hack the postage metering system so they're sending their mail for free (minus the cost of paper).

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:DOA - Domains of America by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      On a somewhat related note, I have noticed that the fake lottery scammers and 419'ers seem to have migrated from email to actual physical postal mail. It's not a lot (over the last year I've received maybe 4-5 of them) but it makes me wonder whether these scams are actually lucrative enough to cover the cost of postage (often from overseas). The other possibility is that these scammers have figured out a way to hack the postage metering system so they're sending their mail for free (minus the cost of paper).

      Probably more lucrative. As in, the hit rate is much higher for postal mail than email, because face it - those 419 emails are so common no one believes them when they easily get as many as 1 a day or so. Plus since most spam filters already discard them (they all look the same), the chance of snagging a mark is low.

      However, because people don't usually get much postal mail, it's a bit more "unique" and people probably aren't on their guard as much. Plus, you can put it on expensive-feeling paper with official-looking letterheads, and peopl can be easily convinced. Put it in an official looking envelope and you've pretty much scored. Sure it costs a few bucks, but the payback can be huge.

      Anyone happen to notice that the amounts claimed have been steadily decreasing, though? It used to be crazy large amounts like hundreds of millions, then it's decreased to millions and less - hundred thousand-ish now? Looks like the recession's hit us all!

      And I remember getting a letter from Domains of Canada, claiming to be the registrar for my domain. I'm not stupid, however, as I never actually registered my domain within Canada, and I know it expires yearly around March (I got the letter sometime in July).

    4. Re:DOA - Domains of America by UberMorlock · · Score: 1

      I received a couple of letters from these people for www.tabaxipixiebob.com last year. I dismissed them out of hand simply because I am sufficiently happy with the current host-and-registrar. However, if I had been interested in making I change, I would have considered these people. Fortunately, I would have done research about the company first, which is what would have saved me from a very expensive mistake.
      Granted, 1and1 isn't a great host (and I've got my eye on a new host/registrar), but there haven't been any service outages and the services supplied by 1and1 meet the site's meager needs.

    5. Re:DOA - Domains of America by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It must have profitable as they spent a fortune in postage.

      They caused over $4million in damages and had to pay a fine of $10k.

      It might be profitable, yes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:DOA - Domains of America by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, they actually bought this site...

      Are you trying to trick me?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else read that as "killed the operators of the group"? That would have been so badass.

    1. Re:Headline by drewhk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, like putting them into the automatic mail sorting system.

    2. Re:Headline by drewhk · · Score: 1

      Thinking more about the problem, probably some size adjustments of the subjects would be necessary, and adding more horsepower to the machinery seems also unavoidable. But yes, the desired result is achievable.

  3. What happened to debtor's prison? by ZipK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they can't pay the full judgment, why not have them work off the bill in debtor's prison?

    1. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Refresh my memory. How is debtor's prison different from pound-me-in-the-ass prison?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the latter one, the taxpayers fund your stay. In the former, you have to fund your stay WHILE paying back what you owe. They were outlawed because people would never be able to get out of debtor's prison.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    3. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      They have a nicer letterhead?

    4. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by ZipK · · Score: 1

      You can tell your family where you hid the money and they can take a really nice vacation instead of paying to free you.

    5. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by jonadab · · Score: 3, Informative

      Debtor's prison does not exist in the US, for historical reasons. (Basically, at the time our constitution was written debtor's prison was being, or had recently been, significantly abused in Europe as a political tool to squelch opposition. Our founding fathers did Not Want That Happening Here, so they proscribed debtor's prison entirely.)

      The provision that prevents our congressmen from being stopped and prosecuted if they are on their way to a session of congress exists for similar reasons. Also the third amendment in the Bill of Rights.

      However, we *can* throw somebody in prison for a crime, and I'm pretty sure fraud on this kind of scope qualifies. Unfortunately, our courts are generally pretty soft on white-collar crime. But that's not a constitutional issue, just a practical and social and judicial one. Come to that, our entire judicial system is pretty severely broken at this point.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    6. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't pay the full judgment, why not have them work off the bill in debtor's prison?

      Because indentured servitude was abolished as slavery.

      This is also why bankruptcy laws exist.

    7. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tangentially, the bigger problem is low settlements imho. Remember the blatant spyware empire (Direct Revenue) run by Joshua Abram, Daniel Kaufman, Alan Murray and Rodney Hook? They pulled in almost $100m scamming people yet got away with an FTC fine of $1.5m and, to top it off "without admitting to any wrong doing".

      Walking away with the loot because of a low fine is more of an insult than being fined and not having cash left to pay it off.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Revenue

    8. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by Renraku · · Score: 1

      What do you mean 'taxpayers fund your stay'?

      You still have to pay the prison that kept you back for the time you spent in it.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    9. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      meaning, your tax dollars are spent on feeding, clothing, and giving immediate medical care to incarcerated felons.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    10. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Debtor's prison does not exist in the US

      Did you know that if you bounce a check at the casinos in Vegas they'll throw you in prison if you can't pay your debts?

    11. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Bouncing a check isn't the same thing. That is more like lying about how much money you have.

    12. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still have to pay the prison that kept you back for the time you spent in it.

      A few states, Missouri comes to mind, have provisions to attempt to recapture the costs of incarceration from inmates. But most inmates don't have sufficient assets to go after, even in those states where it's provided for. Most inmates are housed, fed, clothed, and provided medical care, etc., at taxpayer expense, at least in the U.S.

    13. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by alanshot · · Score: 1

      you are correct. and there is also an absurd condition that happens in those states when a person is exonerated.

      I recall a year or two back the story of a guy who spent a sizable (5yrs?) duration in prison before he was found to have been convicted on bad evidence, bogus testimony, fly in the typewriter, etc.

      Anyway, this guy was found to be wrongly accused and totally innocent. He was released and cleared of all charges. Not just had his sentence commuted, but ALL charges dropped, apology from the DA, etc.

      So he is released with a handshake and apology from the warden, only to be told "oh, by the way, about that room and 3 squares a day we gave you for the last few years... Here's a bill for your stay. Will that be Visa, Mastercard or Discover?"

      I never heard what happened to that guy... Last I heard he was still fighting the validity of the "bill".

    14. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      So he is released with a handshake and apology from the warden, only to be told "oh, by the way, about that room and 3 squares a day we gave you for the last few years... Here's a bill for your stay. Will that be Visa, Mastercard or Discover?"

      I'm sure the wrongful conviction lawsuit will cover that, with a few million left over.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    15. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but since the prison can charge anything they want and you're forced to accept their offer, it may not be.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    16. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by oldspewey · · Score: 1
      1. Examine "bill" from prison
      2. Add $3-4 million for wrongful conviction
      3. File suit
      4. Profit
      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    17. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the $10,000 fine covers the 10 years you spent in prison for murder? Even if you a) had the money, and b) paid the fine, it wouldn't nearly cover the cost of your incarceration. For some reason, America tends towards exorbitant bail, but ridiculously low fines (which means poor people are unable to get bond out before their trial, making them more likely to take a plea deal, more likely to get convicted, and less able to work in the time between their arrest and actual trial.)

    18. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't pay the full judgment, why not have them work off the bill in debtor's prison?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    19. Re:What happened to debtor's prison? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      A lot of rules are different in Vegas. Gambling, for instance, is legal there even if the games are run by private enterprise (whereas, gambling is almost universally illegal in the United States except when run by a government or non-profit organization). Basically, the local law enforcement is effectively at least half way under the thumb of the casinos.

      However, "they'll throw you in prison IF you can't pay your debts" does not really describe debtor's prison. Debtor's prison is when they'll throw you in prison *until* you pay your debts, just because you can't pay, irrespective of how the debt was incurred. If you do something illegal (bounce a check, for instance -- yeah, it's a minor crime, but it IS illegal) and they throw you in jail for some fixed term determined at sentencing, or until your (speedy and public) trial comes up, that's fundamentally different from "Oh, man, a storm wiped out half my crop this year and I can't make my crop-share. I'd better skip town before the land owner has me tossed in the clink, or I won't get out until my family coughs up the whole amount!"

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  4. Blame Canada by cosm · · Score: 1

    1646153 Ontario Inc.

    I wonder if they trademarked that number? Epic spammer business name is epic.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All registered businesses in Ontario have a business number. If you don't have a name, you can call yourself by that number, such as the aforementioned.

    2. Re:Blame Canada by greed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to detract from the humour.... If you incorporate without a name, you get to be known by the serial number associated with your incorporation.

      There was a similar scam in Canada, with some registrar sending out renewal notices to other registrar's customers. I forwarded one to the RCMP fraud division, and they said it wasn't technically illegal so they wouldn't do anything.

    3. Re:Blame Canada by cosm · · Score: 1

      +1 Informative

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    4. Re:Blame Canada by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I forwarded one to the RCMP fraud division, and they said it wasn't technically illegal so they wouldn't do anything.

      You know, that's the RCMP's answer to everything. I have sent them so many tips on how to catch these guys - from the phone numbers they call from, the email servers they use, the post box they send from, and even how I as a regular citizen was capable of tracking all that info to at least a common city - if not an address that they could raid.

      However, there is nothing I can do, and the police all claim that this kind of cyber crime isn't in their jurisdiction, so no one does a damn thing about it. I had someone sending me emails saying that they were going to sell me medical records for a low cheap rate - which already sounded sketchy enough as is but I decided to follow it through on the premise that if this was someone illegally selling that kind of stuff I could aid in his capture.

      However, the RCMP basically told me that until they actually sell it - it wasn't enough for them to go on, and that following through would make me a criminal for purchasing it, and that they weren't capable of following the lead. That was the day I lost my faith in the legal system.

    5. Re:Blame Canada by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      You know, that's the RCMP's answer to everything.

      Not true, not true. If you pie a politician, you'll get a very very stern talking to from the RCMP.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contact CTV, CBC, Global, or one of the newspapers? Everyone likes a good "the RCMP aren't doing their job" story.

    7. Re:Blame Canada by tibman · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a good reason for masked heroes to exist.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  5. 4 million dollar scam = $10k? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how is it that they can steal $4 million and yet they can only pay $10k? did the rest get spent on hookers and blow? i honestly cannot believe that they'd be able to burn through that much money without keeping SOME sort of nest egg for themselves.

    1. Re:4 million dollar scam = $10k? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I could burn through that much money just by having my dream home built.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:4 million dollar scam = $10k? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i honestly cannot believe that they'd be able to burn through that much money without keeping SOME sort of nest egg for themselves.

      Sure, but is that nest egg able to be discovered by the lawyers? When you have that mush cash, it can't be TOO hard to figure out/find a way to hide some of it offshore.

      Also, easy come, easy go. A lot of criminals spend cash like there's no tomorrow, because they know if they get caught, they forfeit it.

      Besides, if I was an evil mastermind with untold millions, I'd spend it on the construction of an immense underwater fortress, and then kill all the people who knew the location. How are you going to find my money without a team of superheroes?!

      Mwua-ha-ha.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:4 million dollar scam = $10k? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's really not that difficult to make illegally-gained money "disappear". For example, overpay for fictional services provided by businesses set up by people who aren't officially tied to your main business. It's a lot harder to prove that money paid for, say, marketing consulting wasn't legit, at least without launching a full-scale investigation into the company that supposedly provided it. If that company is actually semi-legit (but happens to be taking a kickback, or has the perp's wife's sister-in-law as an employee, skimming the extra off into her own bank account, etc) the money might never be traced back to you, or can't be reclaimed even if it is. It's effectively laundered. Toss in a few overseas bank accounts, and a whole bunch of money becomes unrecoverable and undetectable by the authorities, but still remains available to you.

    4. Re:4 million dollar scam = $10k? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I could burn through that much money just by having my dream home built.

      Which is a physical asset that can be seized and sold.

    5. Re:4 million dollar scam = $10k? by duguk · · Score: 1

      I could burn through that much money just by having my dream home built.

      Which is a physical asset that can be seized and sold.

      Not if it's made out of dreams.

    6. Re:4 million dollar scam = $10k? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      True, but the FTC doesn't seem to believe in civil asset seizure (much like DA's in drug cases do).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    7. Re:4 million dollar scam = $10k? by mldi · · Score: 1

      Hollywood accounting. You seen those numbers? They somehow get it on paper that they get a loss on major films that do really well in the box office.

      Good accountants truly are undervalued.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  6. Also in the News: by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

    FTC outlines new business model.

    Hey guys, I'm the cyber police and you've all been backtraced. Hand me your sloshdat credentials or your consequences will be permanently altered.

    1. Re:Also in the News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Hand me your sloshdat credentials or your consequences will be permanently altered.

      In order to prevent anyone *else* from seeing my sloshdat credentials except for you, I have transferred them directly to your computer and hidden them in a special file called /dev/random. They are preceded by the phrase "sloshdat credentials", so you can grep for them easily. HTH.HAND.

  7. DROA by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

    That would be DROA

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Registry_of_America

    I got their invoices all the time. Good for a laugh at least. I'm sure they scammed thousands.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:DROA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're still scamming thousands of people. They're still in business and many of my clients still get tricked into paying them money.

    2. Re:DROA by Daas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They apparently also run The Domain Registry of Canada. I received a bunch of letters from these scammers. These guys have scanned the one they received.

      http://www.sibername.com/support/droc.php/a

    3. Re:DROA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      They apparently also run The Domain Registry of Canada.

      And they've given me, who runs The Domain Registry of Slovenia, a bad name.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:DROA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my earlier years I'd get these, and get a little nervous about them. I was sure they were bogus and never paid them, but the language they used and info they provided did seem awfully convincing. I'm glad someone finally put a stop to that.

  8. Not debtor's prison by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should be pounding rocks with a sledge hammer for 20 years instead. If the penalties for screwing with people's lives through these kinds of scams, identity theft, and all the botnet thievery were serious and enforced, maybe there would be less of it. In a time when our lives are increasingly open - and privacy a joke - then righteous behavior becomes a (inter) national necessity. Otherwise we have anarchy.

    1. Re:Not debtor's prison by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Informative
      IANAL but it looks to me like the summary is misleading: they only settled with three of the defendants, and the other one had to pay the full $4,261,876. The article doesn't say why they settled with three of the people, maybe they were just secretaries and didn't know the full extent of what was going on. Here is the relevant quote:

      The settlement order, entered against defendants Isaac Benlolo, Kirk Mulveney, Pearl Keslassy, and 1646153 Ontario Inc., includes a suspended judgment of $4,261,876, the total amount of consumer injury caused by the illegal activities. Based on the inability of the settling defendants to pay, they will turn over $10,000 to satisfy the judgment. The default judgment order was entered against defendant Steven E. Dale and includes a judgment in the amount of $4,261,876.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Not debtor's prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they should be hung on a 20' pole for all to see. Photographs should be distributed to all newspapers. This is what happens to cocksuckers. They don't even have to spend a day in jail, aren't convicted with felony theft charges, and now only have to pay back $10,000. The prosecutor and judge should also be put in prison for failing to uphold the law. It's called conspiracy to commit or aid in the commission of a felony. They are allowing them to essentially escape(get off on the charges) by destroying evidence(ignoring it).

    3. Re:Not debtor's prison by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      No they should be hung on a 20' pole for all to see. Photographs should be distributed to all newspapers.

      and with the facebook generation. They would say "Cool look at me, I'm in the paper" the problem with many of these types is they have no shame

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  9. Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by sirwired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, I don't know why the FTC even bothers. If these clowns aren't criminally prosecuted, what exactly is the point? $10k, and an order to Go Forth and Sin No More is just a waste of time.

    And the "Go Forth" orders are routinely ignored... I think Kevin Trudeau has been slapped by the FTC for infomercial scams no less than three times, and he still doesn't give a $hit.

    SirWired

    1. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Riddle me this: Why is it that these guys get their judgement whittled to $10,000 for doing an active crime with victims, while some guy who left a directory full of songs on LimeWire gets stuck with a multi-million dollar amount that the only way it can be discharged is an immediate bankruptcy... and most likely a judge would turn that down?

      Yes, IP violations are crimes, but scamming people out of money is a far greater crime than downloading the latest remix of "Oops I Did It Again."

      I wish the FTC would have gone whole hog on these people, wage garnishment, tax return attached, property seized, etc. so the fine is paid.

    2. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by 3seas · · Score: 1

      the 10k is to pay for the legal process. its call payola

    3. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The obvious lesson here is that if you *MUST* either download a song, or scam thousands of businesses out of hundreds of dollars each, the federal government wants you to NOT download the song. Why else would the punishment/fines be higher?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That actually is a very good question. I think it's because people don't have any effective lobby groups; unlike the RIAA/MPAA/etc. people just get to vote, which has become quite meaningless.

    5. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      the obvious lesson here is: if you must download a song, scam thousands of business out of hundreds of dollar each, buy all the songs there are, and save just enough for the fine the courts will slap on you.

      obviously the government wants this - must be something to do with keeping money sloshing around boosting the economy or something, so go knock yourselves out. I believe the Domain Registrars Association of America business is still available.

    6. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by h00manist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why is it that these guys get their judgement whittled to $10,000 for doing an active crime with victims, while some guy who left a directory full of songs on LimeWire gets stuck with a multi-million dollar

      Money buys good lawyers. Good lawyers can make a person innocent or incriminated on demand. Legal battles are like real battles in one respect though -- the result isn't predictable and guaranteed just by using overwhelming force. A low-power, underfinanced, disadvantaged opponent can sometimes be very resourceful. Vietnam won, in the end. The music industry isn't winning, in spite of lawsuits. Microsoft is still winning, though, nobody's managed to circle the wagons quite efficiently yet.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    7. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by h00manist · · Score: 1

      That actually is a very good question. I think it's because people don't have any effective lobby groups; unlike the RIAA/MPAA/etc. people just get to vote, which has become quite meaningless.

      If you study the history of rebellions, they were all rather organized. No organization among people means they are accepting, not rebelling. Businesses and money runs the government, and people "just work here", and "just live here", basically doing nothing other than contribute their labor and money to their masters.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    8. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by kevinpfromnm · · Score: 1

      The greater crime than both is seeking out "Oops I did it again". Playing it in public should be a capital offense.

    9. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yes, IP violations are crimes

      Really? I thought they were just a civil matter, not a criminal one.

    10. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that these guys get their judgement whittled to $10,000 for doing an active crime with victims,

      something tells me each of their attorney's got paid substantially more than $10k, and the sad fact is that everybody in the system made their money that day. That's the way the court system works, that's the way the fcc works and that's how America works. Follow the money. - I ain't got it and neither do you - and neither do any of the poor slobs that were misled. That's why anybody who should give a damn doesn't.

      forget about term limits. vote in every election, and vote *every* rat bastard incumbent out of office. and do it every time. because there is no difference between an incumbent and a rat bastard incumbent. Your government employees simply aren't working for us anymore GET IT?

    11. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought they were just a civil matter, not a criminal one.

      Such a dreamer you are.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Another pointless FTC slap on the wrist by alanshot · · Score: 1

      sounds more like a shakedown than a punishment.

      a TRUE punishment would be "According to our investigation you made exactly 4 million dollars pulling off this scam of billing people fraudulently. As punishment you owe us $4,010,000 in penalties, PLUS JAIL TIME."

        "Attention consumers: Anyone who can produce proof they paid these yahoos please come forth with your cancelled checks, etc for a full refund."

      now THAT would be a punishment.

      Just for the record, that $10k/4M ratio isnt even a slap on the hand IMHO. Ladies and Germs, that penalty is a whopping 0.24% of the gross these idiots are accused of netting.

      To put it in perspective, had a bank manager embezzled $50,000 of his customers' money for personal gain, this would be the equivalent of a $117 fine with no jail time.

      thanks alot FTC. /sarcasm

  10. This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scammers should get good old western justice, a choice of the rope or a bullet. Letting high end crooks off only encourages the scum pond to proliferate.

  11. How profitable is this really? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    How much of the $4,261,876 they scammed people out of was used to cover the cost of postage for these bogus bills? It's trivially easy to get addresses out of the whois database, but couldn't you potentially actually lose money on this scam?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  12. In due time... by swb · · Score: 1

    It wasn't that long ago that stealing a man's horse was a hanging offense, and in most circumstances you were given wide latitude to use deadly force to defend yourself against theft, precisely because loss of resources like a horse could imperil a person's life.

    Our era of bounty and consequence-free living is nearly over, though, so you can rest easy, it won't be long before we will be living in an era where these guys will get what they have coming to them.

    1. Re:In due time... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting. I was just thinking that the reason we're living in such an impolite society is because the penalty for cold-cocking someone for being rude is so huge.

      You're saying that since we have such comfy lives, we don't punish people for taking some of our stuff, since it's easy to replace.

      I get the feeling that you're referring to some kind of resource scarce apocalyptic scenario where Thog hits Grog over the head with a relic broken-off parking meter[1] because Grog tried to take Thog's supper?

      I don't know if the rule of law will disintegrate so quickly... but your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      [1] Bonus points for anyone who gets this reference.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:In due time... by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The rules regarding theft of property and the use of lethal force (which in today's language is nearly any force, not just the use of firearms or dangerous weapons) have really changed radically since the mid-1960s.

      Prior to the mid-1960s, the law appeared fairly soundly on the side of theft victims. I trolled the back issue database of the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column and was surprised to see a ton of stories from about 1965 and earlier where theft victims shot thieves *in the back* as they ran or even *drove* away, often killing them and getting absolutely no resistance from the police.

      Since then there have been a number of legal changes but I also think there has been an increasing pacification of society and a concomitant attitude that "it's only stuff" and it can be replaced by insurance or whatever.

      I'm sure this has something to do with the proliferation of "stuff" people own; the more we own, the more is at risk of theft, but at the same time, the more we own, the less value any of it has to us, let alone life/death value.

      At any rate, its an interesting to think it was perfectly acceptable to shoot a man in the back for stealing your wallet 50 years ago and now it's considered homicide.

    3. Re:In due time... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the rule of law will disintegrate so quickly... but your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Depends on the level of 'resource scarce apocalyptic scenario' you're talking about. Read the book One Second After (EMP takes out all electronics in North America and elsewhere).
      Small towns - a week, followed by an uneasy local truce. Urban areas - 1-2 days.

    4. Re:In due time... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Prior to the mid-1960s, the law appeared fairly soundly on the side of theft victims. I trolled the back issue database of the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column and was surprised to see a ton of stories from about 1965 and earlier where theft victims shot thieves *in the back* as they ran or even *drove* away, often killing them and getting absolutely no resistance from the police.

      I think it's a little far-fetched to say the law was soundly on the side of theft victims. I think the reality is that the law, as written, was rarely enforced against theft victims. The situation we have now is a victory for the rule of law.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:In due time... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I'll check my library to see if they have it/can get it through interlibrary loan.

      Sounds fascinating.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:In due time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The situation we have now is a victory for the criminals, and no-one else. If the law gives the scum who steal a right to life, the law itself is wrong.

      Remember back when you didn't hear the phrase "killed by home invaders" every week? It's the criminalization of self-defense that has changed all that.

    7. Re:In due time... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      If the law gives the scum who steal a right to life, the law itself is wrong.

      So you believe that possessions are more valuable than a human life? Really? Wow, that's some scary morality you have there. I sure hope you're not Christian, because that doesn't fit in with Christian morality.

      Remember back when you didn't hear the phrase "killed by home invaders" every week?

      Yes. I've never heard that phrase every week... not when I was young, not when I was fresh out of college, and not in the ensuing 15 years.

      It's the criminalization of self-defense that has changed all that.

      I don't disagree that self-defense is legitimate; what I do disagree with is that (1) lethal force is a valid response to theft and that (2) self-defense should be construed to include any situation where there is a trespasser.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:In due time... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      The situation we have now is a victory for the criminals, and no-one else. If the law gives the scum who steal a right to life, the law itself is wrong.

      Maybe people who didn't steal anything, were getting shot. "I shot him and then took my wallet back off his corpse." The guy who got shot can't present his side of the story. How is anyone to know who the victim was and who the criminal was?

      If it's ok to kill criminals, then it makes a lot of sense for you (who doesn't intend to be a criminal) to wonder when you'll be labeled a criminal. Selfishly, the best thing for innocent people to do, is band together and try to outlaw tactical killing (or anything else which reduced the number of potential witnesses).

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    9. Re:In due time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe that possessions are more valuable than a human life?

      Since human lives are not identical, I do not assign a fixed value. The value of the parasitic humans, who take away from rather than contribute to society, is negative, so of course a possession is worth more.

      And no, I'm not a Christian, but I would point out that even the Christian god is by no means always averse to killing. Remember the Egyptian firstborns in Exodus? Even I wouldn't have done that.

    10. Re:In due time... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And no, I'm not a Christian, but I would point out that even the Christian god is by no means always averse to killing. Remember the Egyptian firstborns in Exodus? Even I wouldn't have done that.

      Exodus is Old Testament. The New Testament supercedes OT for Christians (I'm not one either) :)

      Since human lives are not identical, I do not assign a fixed value. The value of the parasitic humans, who take away from rather than contribute to society, is negative, so of course a possession is worth more.

      Well, now you have a whole bunch of assumptions. How can you know that someone who steals takes more from society than he gives? And is it a far stretch to say that someone who cheats on their taxes is also a thief, and thus should also be put down? How about someone who causes a car accident? Or someone who catches the flu and spreads it by not staying home while contagious?

      And what about the possibility of someone who learns better ways and becomes a contributor to society? Is that impossible?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:In due time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And is it a far stretch to say that someone who cheats on their taxes is also a thief, and thus should also be put down? How about someone who causes a car accident? Or someone who catches the flu and spreads it by not staying home while contagious?

      None of those are things that people make a living out of. (You can't cheat on your taxes unless you have income to tax already.) These are things that, as a general rule, would go alongside a legitimate occupation, rather than replacing it. That's not the case for the people who go around breaking into homes for the purpose of stealing.

      And what about the possibility of someone who learns better ways and becomes a contributor to society? Is that impossible?

      Yes. One's personality is solidified by early childhood. Source: http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/08/09/1529251

    12. Re:In due time... by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      If the law gives the scum who steal a right to life, the law itself is wrong.

      So you believe that possessions are more valuable than a human life? Really? Wow, that's some scary morality you have there. I sure hope you're not Christian, because that doesn't fit in with Christian morality.

      My life is more important than someone elses possessions, that's why I don't steal.

      My possessions are more important than someone elses life, that's why I wouldn't feel bad about shooting them.

      I wonder how much of every dollar spent in society is wasted on securing things needlessly. If I buy a $200 bike, I need to buy a $20 lock and a quick release seat and front wheel. Plus home owners insurance to secure it.

    13. Re:In due time... by sjames · · Score: 1

      More like a thorough drubbing for discretion and judgment. Zero tolerance is another symptom.

    14. Re:In due time... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking that the reason we're living in such an impolite society is because the penalty for cold-cocking someone for being rude is so huge.

      It's that way in Hawaii. and many Polynesian islands: if you're rude to someone they might knock you out and no one will think anything of it. People are a lot more polite to each other, too, and a lot more obviously friendly. A lot of times when people talk about the 'aloha spirit' I think what they're really seeing is the, "don't hit me brah" spirit.

      On the other hand it is nice to walk to the street and not have to worry if someone's going to hit you in the face or not. You take your trade-offs: either worry about getting punched in the face or deal with rude people. Personally I prefer rude people, although I do tend to respond with my eyes when people are rude to me. Usually that's enough.

      --
      Qxe4
    15. Re:In due time... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was in Enschede when the fireworks storage exploded in 2000.

      Aside from the really bad devastation to the surrounding area, the blast also broke pretty much every window in the inner city. Within less than 5 minutes people were looting from the stores that had thus been exposed.

      The layer of veneer between our civilization and the return to good old "my club is bigger than yours so hand over everything you have" barbarism is very, very thin indeed.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    16. Re:In due time... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Our era of bounty and consequence-free living is nearly over, though, so you can rest easy, it won't be long before we will be living in an era where these guys will get what they have coming to them.

      If history is any guide, when going gets tough, robber barons live like nobility and the rest of us live like serfs. So no, these guys won't get what they have coming to them, because the less wealth Joe Average has, the more guards, lawyers, judges, policemen and political influence Joe Robbers ill-gotten loot can buy.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    17. Re:In due time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How about someone who causes a car accident?"
      Well, if you're texting, or otherwise not paying attention, I like what Utah does - it's treated the same as driving while intoxicated.

    18. Re:In due time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I trolled the back issue database

      TRAWLED.

    19. Re:In due time... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      My possessions are more important than someone elses life,

      Let me guess: You're a Libertarian?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  13. Wrong business by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's see if I get this right: the guys make a little over 4M dollars, get fined 10K dollars and can "keep" the rest because they have already spent it? If this is true, I'm in the wrong business!

    1. Re:Wrong business by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Funny
      If this is true, I'm in the wrong business!

      It's TRUE! You're in the wrong business!

      Send $1000 to the address at the end of this posting and I'll teach you what business you SHOULD be in if you want to MAKE MILLIONS!

  14. Discontent by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Lately the talking heads have made a lot of news about growing discontent with the U.S. federal government. To some extent I've written that off as muck-raking by Fox, CNN, Republicans, etc.

    But I've got to say, it really does seem like the government is failing at very basic issues regarding law enforcement, especially with letting white-collar criminals get away with pretty much anything.

    Are things actually getting worse in that regard, or has the problem existed to this same degree for many decades now?

    1. Re:Discontent by Toksyuryel · · Score: 1

      Amusingly, most white-collar criminals are actually republicans.

    2. Re:Discontent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people in charge of the federal government are white-collar criminals. Of course they're not going to punish their buddies.

      We really need another revolution.

    3. Re:Discontent by h00manist · · Score: 1

      problem existed to this same degree for many decades now?

      Some things have become worse, some things have become better, usually over a long period, quick changes are rather rare. I believe the mistake of the current government is that people were led to expect some kind of a massive change, although it was never promised or said in any way. But now they are wanting it. In any case, people don't really know what they want, and the politicians don't either, at least not in terms of a political and social proposal. Everyone wants money, and cares little about anyone else, and so everyone will get a rotten society.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    4. Re:Discontent by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Amusingly, most white-collar criminals are actually republicans.

      Amusingly, most white-collar criminals are actually democrats but spread the myth that such crooks are mostly republicans. B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:Discontent by Xaedalus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amusingly, most white-collar criminals are actually republicans.

      Amusingly, most white-collar criminals are actually democrats but spread the myth that such crooks are mostly republicans. B-)

      Amusingly, most white-collar criminals are actually indifferent to political party and will claim whatever political affiliation they think will get them the maximum amount of leverage/sympathy/etc. possible. :-P

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    6. Re:Discontent by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      The FBI is mostly in charge of putting white collar criminals behind bars, but since 9/11 upper management wants more focus on national security and terrorism, so FBI agents have less and less time for going after real criminals. Every once in a while there is a news article about the FBI foiling some terrorist plot, so their efforts may be successful, but I still think the FBI may have gone overboard pulling people off of white collar and corruption cases.

  15. Well nuts by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    I initially read that as "The Federal Trade Commission said today it had permanently killed the operators of a group ..."

  16. Further proof that if you want to commit crimes... by Biljrat · · Score: 1

    in the U.S. that you must first incorporate and go after the peoples money. Never commit a crime against the government or against a corporation unless you want the full weight of the law brought down on your head.

  17. Crime Pays. by h00manist · · Score: 1

    Crime pays, very well. -- Is that the conclusion?

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:Crime Pays. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Only when you break the laws big time. Petty thieves are often fined more than these guys are paying. Small minded vandals pay more. Tax cheats pay more. If you want a good deal when you go to court, you have to steal millions, or billions. A few thousands make you a nobody.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  18. Motivate them with jail time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The threat of jail time has an uncanny ability to motivate white collar criminals. Having to only pay back $10,000 out of $4.2M is absurd. I guess you can get away with stealing if you blow it all and can't pay it back. They should be thrown in jail, for a long time.

  19. Barbaric and unnecesarry by pavon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with debtor's prison is that people can fall into debt for all sorts of reasons ranging from maliciousness to recklessness to just plain bad luck. Do you really think that someone who can't pay their bills because a hurricane destroyed their house and their place of employment should be put in prison?

    What you are looking for is thieves' prison and last time I checked we already have those. However, AFAIK, the FTC doesn't have the authority to prosecute criminal cases, just levy civil fines. Instead they pass on information to the appropriate authorities (the FBI or state governments may have jurisdiction depending on the offense). In this case, either the FBI would need to extradite them to face charges here, or the Canadian government would need to press criminal charges.

  20. It is better than nothing. by Seor+Jojoba · · Score: 1

    Note that the operation was shut down and the people involved are likely going to have problems starting up a new scam now that they've got this record. And now that one group of people has been successfully stopped, it should at least push other thieves to think of a slightly different way to screw people over. I wrote a complaint to the FTC about these dicks a year ago when I got my first letter from ILS. I got angry every time I saw a letter from them. They didn't get what they deserved, but this FTC action represents progress.

    1. Re:It is better than nothing. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You call this progress? I call it a big fat advertisement for would-be fraudsters. "Make millions! Pay $10k and do no jail time years later!"

  21. Re:Further proof that if you want to commit crimes by h00manist · · Score: 1

    in the U.S. that you must first incorporate and go after the peoples money. Never commit a crime against the government or against a corporation unless you want the full weight of the law brought down on your head.

    Yeah, that's usually the case. These guys did most likely send domain invoices to rich people too though.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  22. Just post their full address and contact info by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    It should be mandatory that the names and addresses of all guilty-found parties be published publicly. A little vigilante justice goes a long way.

  23. A Good Lawyer by ISoldat53 · · Score: 2, Funny

    A good lawyer is one who can get a charge of sodomy reduce to one of following too close.

  24. No, it *IS* nothing. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Note that the operation was shut down and the people involved are likely going to have problems starting up a new scam now that they've got this record.

    Bullshit.

    These clowns *ALREADY* have a record of scamming, and it hasn't stopped them yet. There is no realistic reason to assume that a 10k fine means anything at all to them.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  25. My boss got suckered. by AsmordeanX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our domain was up for renewal in September. In July we get a letter from Domain Registry of Canada (Domain Registry of America is their US version). Looking like a normal and official bill, the boss paid it by VISA despite it being nearly 10x what a domain registrar should be charging. The next day I'm going through the paperwork and find the DROC invoice. I'm baffled because they are not our domain registrar. First thing I do is call our real company and confirm that the domain is still locked. I also renewed at the time just to make sure. I then called DROC and after a few minutes on hold I was assured that the charge was cancelled. I contacted VISA the next day and was informed that the charge had been cancelled. They seemed to be pretty routine and mechanical about cancelling people though I imagine a few people never realized they had been suckered.

    1. Re:My boss got suckered. by JKConsult · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if they're not out to run blatant fraud and ensure that they will end up very sought-after criminals, they're going to calmly and professionally refund money when a complaint reaches them.

  26. Hurray For Crime! by b4upoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apparently the courts and the FTC actually seek to encourage crime. How is it with the overwhelming number of useless laws on the books that we do not have a single law that states that the wrong doer must always pay back more than was taken?

  27. Possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this even possible, the FTC and US courts have no jurisdiction in Canada. Neither article mentions the CRTC or Canadian courts. So, I ask again, how is this even possible?

  28. Oh them. by Shadyman · · Score: 1

    I got an "Official Notice" from them once for my domain. They wanted me to renew my registration for something insane, like $100-200, or as the summary states, "I'd lose my domain". I called BS, especially since they were far from my regular registrar, and shredded it.

    Good to hear they got what was coming.

    1. Re:Oh them. by Aeternax · · Score: 1

      Except... they didn't.

      --
      Failing is okay, as long as you have backups.
  29. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been getting these letters in Brazil for years. It's an old scam applied to domain names, really. While it's nasty I can't feel too sorry for people who just pay any invoices they receive.

  30. You don't say by kuei12 · · Score: 1

    "As with so many of these cases however, the defendants get off paying back very little compared to what they took." Not happy? Then why not have the RIAA prosecute them?

  31. You've got to be joking by sirwired · · Score: 1

    WHAT record? WHAT problems? The only record there was ever a problem is this FTC press release, and attached orders. All the scammers have to do is pay their 10k, and then set up shop again using different names.

    And do you know what happens when they get caught again? (The FTC has a lot of repeat offenders.) They'll get another, virtually identical court order. The second one will not only "enjoin" them from violating the law, but will also order them out of the business entirely. If the FTC is feeling really frisky and if they are on the ball, they might even seize their assets (if they haven't already been shipped overseas.)

    Do you know what happens if they get caught a THIRD time for the exact same scam? (Yep, there is enough instances of this to see a pattern...) THEN they'll be referred to the Justice Dept. for the life-ruining charge of... Contempt of Court. Yeah, the threat of 30 days at Club Fed will surely deter criminals everywhere from scamming millions out of unwary consumers. Nobody's life could possibly continue with that kind of conviction hanging over their head.

    As I mentioned earlier, Kevin Trudeau is a frequent subject of FTC orders, and he simply changes his next scam to be slightly different from the last, laughing all the way to the bank.