Reply to: Known Scam?

[threaded]

if you are no paying into a lottery you CANT WIN.

Not strictly true. The odds of winning a lottery only decrease slightly in proportion if you don't enter to if you do.

[realityhack]

Forward the email including headers to NHTCU (Now part of SOCA). This is money laundering. Copy monster.co.uk's abuse inbox.

[booradley]

scam

yes it a scam similar to the nigerian 419 fraud.

its simple.

if its too good to be true then its NOT.

bit like idiot who get lottery scammed.

if you are no paying into a lottery you CANT WIN.

[maxima]

Muppets.

Muppets never hurt anyone. Nigerians do.

[Xerxes]

If the money is truly untraceable, with some difficulty. That is why I say cash is "more secure" only in as much as it is more difficult to unravel what has happened. The underlying principle is, however, exactly the same.

[jason986]

But how could the prosecution prove that the dirty cash had been recieved by Argos? If it's untraceable?

[Xerxes]

Hyperthetically speaking...... If you were in possession of 'illegal' cash unknowlingly (or knowingly I suppose) and you went into Argos and bought a TV. Later the law caught up with you and you told them that you had spent the money on a TV from Argos. Are you saying that the law could go to Argos and force them to hand the money over?

You can only be found guilty of "attempting to defraud" (that would be the charge) if the prosecution can demonstrate to the jury that you knew at the time of the transaction that the money had been dishonestly obtained. Clearly in your scenario that is not the case (although the jury may not see it that way). Either way, you wouldn't be allowed to keep the telly and Argos wouldn't be allowed to keep the money.

So the short answer is "yes".

[jason986]

Hyperthetically speaking...... If you were in possession of 'illegal' cash unknowlingly (or knowingly I suppose) and you went into Argos and bought a TV. Later the law caught up with you and you told them that you had spent the money on a TV from Argos. Are you saying that the law could go to Argos and force them to hand the money over?

The point I can't get to grips with is that surely if it was a cash deal and Argos argued the point that how could the law prove that the cash used to buy the TV was illiegal. The law would only have the word of the purchaser, how could it be proved that the purchaser used the illegal cash and not legal cash from other means. The cash is not traceable is it - unlike a cheque or other type of payment (unless of course they have the bank note serial numbers but ignore that). You would only have the word of the purchaser - and it could be argued that their character was unreliable?

This is becoming quite an interesting thread BTW!

[Xerxes]

Yes, but the essence of my point is that a cheque can be uncleared without the slightest assertion that you did wrong, or any need to give a reason. The drawer just says I'm Not Paying That. His bank says We Didn't Really Pay That. Your bank says We Didn't Really Get Paid That - so you didn't either. That's quite distinct from saying "you shouldn't have been paid that, so you owe it back".

As I said, cash or other tangibles are "more secure" only because it is more difficult to undo the transaction.

[expat]

In the respect you mean, no. Only if something of inherent value physically changes hands (cash, diamonds, cocaine) can it not be automatically undone. If the case goes to court, the transaction will be forcibly undone though and if that leaves you out of pocket, that is just tough luck.

Yes, but the essence of my point is that a cheque can be uncleared without the slightest assertion that you did wrong, or any need to give a reason. The drawer just says I'm Not Paying That. His bank says We Didn't Really Pay That. Your bank says We Didn't Really Get Paid That - so you didn't either.

That's quite distinct from saying "you shouldn't have been paid that, so you owe it back".

[Xerxes]

It is the first purchase you made after you are alleged to have acquired the stolen goods that is undone. If the stolen money is more than that, the second is undone and so on.

Yes it really does work this way and, yes, the principle really is "it wasn't your money to give so that's tough luck on the person you gave it to".

[expat]

Argos is not entitled to that cash as it was not yours to give them in the first place....
This is how the legal and pecuniary systems work.

I'm sorry, I've been resisting doing an AtW, but I'm having triuble with this one. Do you mean it really works this way? Plod comes round to Argos and says You Sold Stuff for Nicked Cash, give it over?

What if I stole £50 and then went round making £500 of purchases before being caught (i.e. with £450 of my own money in there)? Do they try to identify the very notes that I stole? Or just claw back from the first one they find? Or hunt down all the shops and pubs that sold me anything, and sting them pro-rata?

I see the moral point of what you say (if it wan't mine to give then they were mistaken in acceoting it as if it had been) but I have trouble seen it actually working that way with cash.

[Xerxes]

In the respect you mean, no. Only if something of inherent value physically changes hands (cash, diamonds, cocaine) can it not be automatically undone. If the case goes to court, the transaction will be forcibly undone though and if that leaves you out of pocket, that is just tough luck.

[expat]

In my Argos case, nobody's saying "I bought it in good faith". Argos accepted cash. Cash is always good. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that if I obtained half-a-dozen tenners by illegit means and went and bought a telly at Argos, anybody would then claim that Argos had to return the money. That I had to, yes. But Argos's sale of the TV to me is not part of the chain of fraud or whatever that got me the money, that's why it can't be undone as part of undoing the misdeed.

Actually that wasn't my point anyway, oops. It was that if you deposited a cheque, it could be uncleared later without your having done anything wrong, and without your being asked. Whereas, if you accept cash, it may later be asserted that you did wrong and shouldn't have been given it, but it cannot be retroactively unplaced in your pocket without a by-your-leave. Anyone wanting to make you return the cash is going to have to explain why to someone.

That's the difference that I was getting at. You might be made to give it back, but the giving of it to you can't simply be erased. Is there anything other than cash, which is in itself irrevocable once done? I.e. you might get sued later but can't just get un-paid.

[Xerxes]

Argos is not entitled to that cash as it was not yours to give them in the first place. The fact that Argos have made a loss on the transaction by giving away a telly (say) that could not be recovered in return for money that later turned out to be stolen is not legally relevant. It was no more Argos' money than it was yours.

This is how the legal and pecuniary systems work.