Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website

hpuse

After a successful UK trails perhaps the target market of these fraudsters are now changing

FBI warns of fake government website scams

http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/cybersecurity/2015/04/08/fbi-fake-government-websites/25455733/

hpuse

Whilst some people here like to call them 'service providers'
Law enforcement folks in uncle Sam's land call them criminals.

Source: http://www.ic3.gov/media/2015/150407-2.aspx

George_Michael

hpuse wrote: »

Whilst some people here like to call them 'service providers'
Law enforcement folks in uncle Sam's land call them criminals.

They call them criminals because what is being referred to on the FBI alert is not the same thing as is being carried out by the sites in the UK.
Here, you are unknowingly paying a third party to complete a service for you (hence the reason for calling them service providers), but in the US, the people operating the websites in question are not actually providing what was paid for and are engaging in identity theft, hence them being called criminals.

Once the fees are paid the victim is notified they need to send their birth certificate, driver’s license, employee badge, or other personal items to a specified address. The victim is then told to wait a few days to several weeks for processing. By the time the victim realizes it is a scam, they may have had extra charges billed to their credit/debit card, had a third-party designee added to their EIN card, and never received the service(s) or documents requested. Additionally, all of their PII data has been compromised by the criminals running the websites and can be used for any number of illicit purposes. The potential harm gets worse for those who send their birth certificate or other government-issued identification to the perpetrator.

Exile_geordie

hpuse wrote: »

Statistically, there were around 20 to 30 post a day precisely between March and May 2014, saying OP is full of ill-advises.

All OP was trying to do is, enable this:




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2984140/NOTHING-DECLARE-s-happy-charge-huge-fees-send-emails-threatening-customers-court-MoS-tracks-Passport-Profiteer-dingy-industrial-unit-unusually-silent.html

That's because when you first made this thread you were ill advising people - and that is why you have changed your OP so many times with the correct information that other posters have mentioned.

hpuse wrote: »

Not just government, copycatism i.e cheap online imitations are spreading to the private sector as well..
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/16/travel/qantas-fake-free-first-class-tickets/


And...the support for this is obviously diminishing here, for all the good reasons I suppose?

There was never any support for these companies but posters were poiting out the facts to you which you didn't like.


You are now as guilty for telling lies as much as these websites are for taking money.


You should be proud of yourself.

hpuse

George_Michael wrote: »

They call them criminals because what is being referred to on the FBI alert is not the same thing as is being carried out by the sites in the UK.

Then what exactly is different in US with UK, when it comes to copycating government services and raising an alert by law enforcement?

If you are experienced in the above from a law enforcement point of view - care to explain, George Michael?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

Then what exactly is different in US with UK, when it comes to copycating government services and raising an alert by law enforcement?

If you are experienced in the above from a law enforcement point of view - care to explain, George Michael?

As I'm sure you know Hp, a criminal is a person who has committed a crime.

What is a crime in the US of A may well not be a crime in the UK.

Thus a person may be considered a criminal under one jurisdiction, but not under another.

Hope that helps. Do please ask again if that is not clear.

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

As I'm sure you know Hp, a criminal is a person who has committed a crime.

What is a crime in the US of A may well not be a crime in the UK.

Thus a person may be considered a criminal under one jurisdiction, but not under another.

Hope that helps. Do please ask again if that is not clear.

That was the best post you have ever poster here wealdroam. Thank you.

Hope you now see yourself the crux of the matter. How a service provider (in UK) by all legal definition was termed as a criminal for the very 'same' business carried out in two countries, i.e copycatting government services.

Interesting - different laws of two lands, but the point here is it is the very same 'business'....isn't?

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

That was the best post you have ever poster here wealdroam. Thank you.

Must be the double spacing that allowed you to read it easily. I'll keep that in mind.

I notice that my post still wasn't good enough to get you hitting the Thanks button though. Note to self: must try harder.

hpuse wrote: »

Hope you now see yourself the crux of the matter.

Is that a compliment? Should I be flattered?

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

That was the best post you have ever poster here wealdroam. Thank you.

Hope you now see yourself the crux of the matter. How a service provider (in UK) by all legal definition was termed as a criminal for the very 'same' business carried out in two countries, i.e copycatting government services.

Interesting - different laws of two lands, but the point here is it is the very same 'business'....isn't?

Is it 'the very same business' though, hpuse?

Not according to George Michael's post #2154 which gives an extract from the link provided by you.

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

Is it 'the very same business' though, hpuse?

Not according to George Michael's post #2154 which gives an extract from the link provided by you.

Hey Pollycat, long time...how are you?

FBI, i.e the world's largest intelligence and law enforcement organisation calls people who are faking government websites 'criminals'

What me, i.e an ordinary citizen of UK was doing with post#1 was an attempt to help people who has lost money to copycat operators.
At times I had to be thick on posters who come here to support the legal existence of these copycat websites... do you now see the difference or still no difference?

Re: George Micheal's post, it does not prove anything!