scammed on ebay by vinney2787

peter_the_piper

Only the "this is a photo" would be in his favour, all the others just dig the hole deeper. Clever ploy, intended to deceive.

confused90

Cherry2blost wrote: »

Hi I feel really bad for the buyer, but you have to hand it to the scammer they covered everything quite well, I have highlighted the parts that could be problematic for a Not as described claim, Very clever, naughty but very clever. Makes you wonder how successful our country would be if these guys all had legitimate businesses, some of them are Just genius.

He's not a genius and the scams not clever it's an old lame scam that has landed many people both here and abroad in jail....oops not so clever now is he?

just in case the scammer should ever stumble upon this thread maybe he'd like to read some of these articles detailing how scammers like him have been jailed for between 18 months and 3 years......

http://www.ukcomparebroadband.com/an-ebay-scammer-is-jailed-for-fraud-that-totalled-385001-11114

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/05/19/236091/Jailed-eBay-scammer-ordered-to-pay-163100000-compensation.htm

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/58967/teenage-ebay-scammer-jailed-for-three-years

bet the jail time never entered his "genuis" little mind when he was thinking up his greedy plan.....get a job scammer (when you get out of jail that is :rotfl:)

pitkin2020

Those cases you have highlighted are slightly different, 2 of them never delivered any goods, the 3rd sold faulty goods. The seller in this case has definetly set out to defraud but he could easily argue that it was advertised as a photo only and he did actually deliver a photo. I doubt he will get a jail term but if it went to court its highly likely he will be forced to pay all monies back to the buyers. It's deceit still and it amzes me the length some people will go to, to make a buck

confused90

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Those cases you have highlighted are slightly different, 2 of them never delivered any goods, the 3rd sold faulty goods. The seller in this case has definetly set out to defraud but he could easily argue that it was advertised as a photo only and he did actually deliver a photo. I doubt he will get a jail term but if it went to court its highly likely he will be forced to pay all monies back to the buyers. It's deceit still and it amzes me the length some people will go to, to make a buck

it's definately still fraud and can carry a jail term, if he's caught i wouldn't bet my house on him staying out of jail.

He's trying to exploit a technicality because he did "technically" supply what he said he would because he did state "this is a photo only" but i have no boubt that the scammers pulling the faulty electrical scam who got jailed thought they would be protected by the distance selling regs which state that auctions including online auctions are exempt from the provisions of the D.S.R's and therefore sellers don't need to accept returns or refund if an item is faulty, i.e. "technically" if i list a kettle for auction, list it as a kettle, list it's brand features etc but make no referance to it's functionability then as long as i provide that kettle i have fullfilled my obligation whether it works or not because i never said it did work and with auctions that is perfectly in line with the law "technically".

I'm sure that those scammers thought that would protect them from prosecution but it didn't i doubt this scammers "technicality" would protect him either.