Another shill bidder - do all sellers do this?!

RFW

George_Michael wrote: »

So someone is breaking the law and attempting to defraud anpther ebay member (and that is exactly what they are trying to do), you think that simply because their attempt failed, they should be ignored?

I don't agree with shill bidding and think it is a blight on Ebay, however in the majority of cases the seller is not trying to defraud anyone, on the fraud scale this is minimal.

George_Michael wrote: »

How about someone who plans to break into another persons house, but through their own stupidity, the attempt fails.
Should the police also ignore them?

It would depend how far that plan went and what their intent was. So, if all crimes are equal you want an attempted theft of a bag of crisps from a corner shop investigated in the same way as a murder?

George_Michael wrote: »

What is so hard to understand.
Shill bidding is an attempt to defraud and is illegal in the UK. Why should it be ignored simply because the fraudulent activity failed to make money for the fraudster?

As I said it may be illegal, there appears to have been one successful prosecution in 7 years (I may be off with when the law changed), so probably not considered as fraud and certainly not considered a major crime.

The majority of shill bidding goes something like this. Seller lists an item worth £20 at 99p, they get a mate to bid it up to a fiver. Buyer is happy buys a £20 item for £5. Who's going to prosecute that and do you consider that as the same level fraud as someone who sells a brick in a laptop box as a new laptop?

CKhalvashi

RFW wrote: »

I don't agree with shill bidding and think it is a blight on Ebay, however in the majority of cases the seller is not trying to defraud anyone, on the fraud scale this is minimal.


It would depend how far that plan went and what their intent was. So, if all crimes are equal you want an attempted theft of a bag of crisps from a corner shop investigated in the same way as a murder?


As I said it may be illegal, there appears to have been one successful prosecution in 7 years (I may be off with when the law changed), so probably not considered as fraud and certainly not considered a major crime.

The majority of shill bidding goes something like this. Seller lists an item worth £20 at 99p, they get a mate to bid it up to a fiver. Buyer is happy buys a £20 item for £5. Who's going to prosecute that and do you consider that as the same level fraud as someone who sells a brick in a laptop box as a new laptop?

I'm with this opinion.

I don't use shills, but as long as it keeps the item at a price that both buyer/seller are happy with, there seems to be little that anyone will do unfortunately.

CK

soolin

Shill bidding is illegal and it amuses me how bad some sellers are at it!

However, this is not an ideal world and frankly if resources are limited I would rather funds be spent hunting out the real scum bags like the paypal scammers and those that prey on the more vulnerable ebay users.

porto_bello

RFW wrote: »

You seem to be saying that because it is illegal it is as bad as other fraud perpetrated on Ebay, it isn't. Often shill bidding has no victim at all.
If the seller bids on their own items and never sells anything because they keep buying them themselves on another id, do you want to throw them in jail or have them fined thousands? Does that type of shill bidder really need prosecuting? Do Ebay, Trading Standards and even the Police need to waste their time on an idiot who is wasting their own money?

The whole point of shill bidding is to create and exploit a victim. If the genuine bidder wins the auction then there is a victim.

When the shill bidder wins, they simply implement a mutual cancellation (easy enough since they operate both the seller's and auction winner's account) and then make a second chance offer to the victim. Again there is a victim.

Even if the genuine bidder doesn't bite the second chance offer, the shill bidder has illegally raised the market price for the item by insider bidding, which results in a victim next time the item is auctioned. Again there is a victim.

RFW wrote: »

The majority of shill bidding goes something like this. Seller lists an item worth £20 at 99p, they get a mate to bid it up to a fiver. Buyer is happy buys a £20 item for £5. Who's going to prosecute that and do you consider that as the same level fraud as someone who sells a brick in a laptop box as a new laptop?

Sorry, but this just isn't true. Shill bidding is widespread and thoughtfully operated. It is fixing prices many times the market price. There are sellers in the art and antique categories whose profits are routinely coming from shill bidding: items which should have sold for £20 are being incrementally pushed to £100. It is organised crime.

When the shill bidder wins the auction, they make a second chance to the under bidder, which is clear from the resulting feedback, showing the under-bidder bought the item. [Sometimes this appears a few days after the auction winning shill bid ID somehow received the same unique item and left the seller positive feedback].

Some shill bidders are regularly make hundreds of pounds every month from shill bidding a few items. Clearly millions of pounds are being made across eBay.

Yes, in my opinion, these people do need prosecuting and it is in the public interest to do so. However, in order to make it pay, clearly the way to achieve this way would be by instigating massive fines to ensure the public purse benefits financially.

RFW

[QUOTE=porto_bello;62680161]Shill bidding is widespread and thoughtfully operated. It is fixing prices many times the market price. There are sellers in the art and antique categories whose profits are routinely coming from shill bidding: items which should have sold for £20 are being incrementally pushed to £100. It is organised crime.

Some shill bidders are regularly make hundreds of pounds every month from shill bidding a few items. Clearly millions of pounds are being made across eBay.
[/QUOTE]
OK. Some astounding inferences there based on little, if any, fact.
I'm sure there will be some markets that have groups artificially increasing prices. No one is being forced to pay any extra though. Antiques are a pretty bad example, no one needs a 16th century vase so that's why no one really cares if they pay £1000 or £1200 for one. Find somewhere that is increasing prices on products people have to buy and you may get someone listening.

The definitions for 'victim' and 'fraud' that are being used here are amongst the strangest that will be seen. Most 'victims' of shilling don't even know about it, ever. That's not saying it's right, just that there are victims of crimes that do know about it and who warrant investigations on their behalf as a priority.

If I buy a watch worth £200 for £100 and I'm happy with it and the price, I don't care if I could have paid £50 or £1 for it. If I was shilled I wouldn't consider myself a victim of fraud and certainly wouldn't want the seller prosecuted. I may if I'd been sold a watch that was a copy or damaged but had been led to believe otherwise.

I know I've been a 'victim' of shill bidding at many auctions over the years, it's never bothered me. I either pay at or below the price I wanted to or I don't buy.

porto_bello

RFW wrote: »

OK. Some astounding inferences there based on little, if any, fact.

I don't find it hard to stumble on shill bidding - we often see it reported on MSE, which in itself suggests it is commonly practiced...

At the request of Trading Standards, I once tracked the sales of a shill bidder for several of months. Essentially, he was shill bidding on the most expensive third of his items, across numerous product categories, usually substantially increasing the final price, sometimes by a factor of 3 or 4.

Over that 3-month period, using the same shill bid eBay ID, he increased the total selling prices by well over £1,000 every month. I was able to calculate this from an itemised list of shill bidding selling prices against the actual price at which the genuine bidding ceased.

Trading Standards were grateful and could see there was conclusive and convincing evidence of routine shill bidding being undertaken. Some months later, suddenly this lucrative practice suddenly stopped, with both the selling ID and the shill bid ID were deactivated. [This suggests someone's hand was forced and my research did some good].

Some may say this scammer did no real harm: In response, I would point out that the above example was an unsophisticated scam, undertaken by a single individual using a shill bid ID. Feedback showed they had been shill bidding for 6+ years, which at £1,000 shill bidding per month works out at a scam of £72,000+ ...No doubt more sophisticated shill bidders can make a lot more

Obviously I feel rather strongly about this issue because I have seen some clear examples where many honest buyers are being blatantly scammed. It clearly isn't a few quid and clearly, by the fact that it's an eBay transaction, it's rarely somebody bidding who can afford to lose a lot of money.

I hope my posts at least make others aware of this common scam, which to return to the original point, is completely and unquestionably illegal. If they still wish to stick their heads in the sand, then it is their own choice, as opposed to the choice that another, reassuring eBayer has made for them.

RFW

I've said I agree it is a problem, just not so much a criminal one as you think.

You mention helping Trading Standards, quite insightful. You also mention the seller was later removed from Ebay, presumably there was no prosecution?

There is another point regarding shill bidding, that it actually has a detrimental effect on price. There is no way of knowing if an item sold by someone increasing his own price would have had other bids from genuine bidders to reach the same price.

So your argument that the shill bidder made over £1000 per month doesn't hold water.

When I was an auctioneer, there was a competitor who was known for taking bids 'off the wall', I was not. On occasions when we had the same vendors I was told I achieved better prices. As we see on here people who suspect shill bidding look elsewhere, so the seller loses out on a bidder. If it was legal I would suggest that it is poor business practice and counter productive.

I think we can both agree that the best practice for suspicion of shill bidding is to report and find another seller.

George_Michael

Well, my message to the seller seems to have had some effect as they have decided to stop every single auction they had running, giving the reason as ""This listing was ended by the seller because the item is no longer available."

If, as some people seem to believe, ebay are so against shilling, why is it that this seller still hasn't been de-registered despite it being one of the most blatant cases of shill bidding I've seen in a long time?

porto_bello

George, thank you for your efforts - it's a shame shill bidders on eBay are like holes in Swiss cheese!

At some point, consumer groups will undoubtedly seize upon this issue as they have on fake goods sold on eBay. I suspect eBay will attempt to similarly wash it's hands of any responsibility...

It'll be interesting to see what happens then...

spacey2012

Shill bidders raise the price, E-bay receive a percentage of that price as commission.
It is not in their own interests to end it.