discuss [Resolved] Domainer Loses $26k On A Stolen Domain!

[Silentptnr]

Darn! Another scam and this time it is an experienced domainer James Booth.

James must have thought he was making a sound acquisition as he transferred approximately 26k to escrow for CQD.com. Instead, after completing the escrow, the domain was taken from his account by the registrar without notification and returned to the "true" owner.

Turns out the person that sold him the domain CQD.com, may not have been the true owner.

Apparently this incident involves several parties including the registrar and the escrow.


Thanks to Theo over at DomainGang for the tip on this.

 

[wwwweb]

Wasn't he, like, 12 years old ten years ago

Thsts his older brother

 

[BoothDomains]

Rebecca @spoiltrider my lawyers have been in touch with you directly and we have offered you a fair solution. All I want is an amicable resolution. Both of us are victims. Defamation and accusing me of things is not the answer. I am willing to work with you and be very fair in this situation. Instead of dragging my name through the mud and accusing me of theft please work with me and my lawyers to solve this.

 

[jberryhill]

Hmm, unfortunately to put it politely, you are wrong and after seeing that I was reluctant to read anything else you wrote.

Gee, that's too bad. Since you skipped over the cited California case attempting the same argument, then that's unfortunate. I hope you go and inform the N.D. Cal. that they got it wrong in the Express Media case too!

A treatise on the common law of sales from 1910? Are you serious?

Modern sales in the US run on the Uniform Commercial Code, which is a statutory framework that embodies quite a few previous common law principles.

Web.com is in Florida and the claimed seller is also in Florida.

The relevant Florida section of the Uniform Commercial Code puts it this way:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0600-0699/0672/Sections/0672.403.html

672.403 Power to transfer; good faith purchase of goods; “entrusting.”—

(1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which her or his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though:
(a) The transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or
(b) The delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or
(c) It was agreed that the transaction was to be a “cash sale,” or
(d) The delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.
(2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives the merchant power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business.

One of the problems with talking about common law in some general sense is that there are often specific statutory problems.

There are two BFP situations contemplated here. One of them, Section (1), is based on certain types of transactions conducted with a person having voidable title. The other, Section (2), is where one is relying on delivery of the goods as proof of purchase.

To make this simple, you are stating the general common law precursor to UCC 403(1).

UCC 403(1) would apply if Booth could identify his seller. Booth can't identify his seller. Booth is relying on payment to Escrow.com and transfer by Network Solutions as proof of his title. Booth can't prove that he paid Burns to purchase the domain name from her, so he can't rely on 403(1) types of BFP arguments.

In order to do that, he has to try to rely on UCC 403(2) or else conjure up the person who received his payment and transferred the domain name to him.

The registrar is in Florida, and Booth believed his purchaser was in Florida. In Florida, reliance on the BFP doctrine requires a transfer from a merchant who deals in goods of that kind for BFP to apply (as does any other state which uses the standard Section 403 of the Uniform Commercial Code) where you are using the argument of "I paid and received delivery".

You are looking at a reference which discusses the general principal of UCC 403(1) transactions. The problem with trying apply that here is that Booth doesn't know who got paid or who transferred the domain name to him. (Again, we are assuming that Burns' is truthfully stating that she didn't get paid and didn't transfer the domain name)

The discussion in the Express Media case is a little tortured, but the bottom line is that Booth can’t identify his seller at all, and did not pay the owner or a merchant in the goods. He paid Escrow.com, and Network Solutions transferred the domain name.

So, what you have to do, since you can't make out an argument under Section (1), is that you have to go to Section (2), and attempt to make out an argument that since Booth paid Escrow.com and received delivery from Network Solutions, then he received possession of the goods from a merchant in goods of that kind in the ordinary course of business.

But neither Escrow.com nor Network Solutions had transferable title to the domain name, nor claims to. That's why I cited and extensively quoted the case.

Which brings me back to the crazy ways that some domainers do sales. There are people who buy and sell from people they can't identify, and they use a payment system which will actually facilitate not knowing who is paying or getting paid on the respective sides of the transaction.

Perhaps I can put this even more simply in a question:

If you are saying that Booth is a BFP, then from whom did he purchase the domain name?

Anyway, yeah, we lawyers love to argue with each other.

Indeed we do. So please continue the argument, and state the prima facie case for BFP here. Start with telling me from whom did Booth purchase the domain name?

The answer is "he doesn't know". So the fallback argument is to say that the owner had entrusted the domain name to the care of Network Solutions, and that Booth received delivery from Network Solutions, using the argument that Network Solutions is a merchant in goods of that kind. That argument fails.

 

[jberryhill]

If your report is correct, it means that we can all sell our domains then run back to the Registrar and say hey I didn't sell then like magic we get back our domain for sale again.

Well, no. Booth is in possession of the domain name, and the registrar has not "like magic" given the domain name to Burns. That is why they are both here for public entertainment.

And, no, the registrar will not transfer domain names back "like magic" either, simply because someone claims a domain name is stolen. Most registrars, in situations of claimed theft, will look at whether the transfer was technically compliant. Some registrar will look at a few other things if there are claims of unauthorized account access, such as IP addresses used to access the account, etc..

As a practical matter, the ball is in Burns court to actually take action. Booth has the domain name. If Burns takes action against Booth, then Booth should certainly counterclaim for defamation. For the purpose of negotiation at this point, the domain name has become Booth's primary bargaining chip to leverage Burns to remediate all of the defamatory crap she has slung at Booth.

Meanwhile, someone with $26k in their pocket is enjoying the show.

 

[xynames]

JBerryHill you are misapplying even the UCC. I am actually rather shocked that you spent so much time writing something so irrelevant. The UCC applies only to transactions between merchants. It has no application here in the first place unless the thief who stole the domain is a merchant which he is not and it would be preposterous to claim that he is.

You see how you’ve gone down this rabbit hole?

 

[jberryhill]

Um, no, the UCC is the default law that applies, in its various sections, to sales and leases, secured transactions, bank deposits and checks, etc.. Period.

Read, for example, UCC 403 quoted above. It is the Florida law that applies to "a purchaser" and "a person" in the recited circumstances. Neither of those persons is required to be a merchant.

If it somehow only applied to merchants, then there wouldn't even need to be a qualifier in 403(2) about how a "buyer" (of any kind) can rely on title received from a merchant being able to transfer good title.

I'm going to guess that if you are a lawyer, you were not educated in the US, or don't practice commercial law in the US. The UCC is basic to consumer transactions throughout the US, with some notable state variations.

Yes, it has some parts that are only about merchants, but it is not possible to be a practicing attorney in the United States without an understanding that the UCC is a broadly encompassing set of principles which governs commercial transactions of all kinds.

In fact, throughout the UCC provisions on sales, there are frequent distinctions between an ordinary buyer and seller and a "merchant in goods of that kind" precisely to distinguish when a distinction is being made.

Some UCC provisions only apply between or among merchants, or between a merchant and a consumer, but it is incorrect to think the "UCC applies only to merchants".

 

[xynames]

I’m sorry but the UCC doesn’t apply here and the more you argue that it does the less I’m inclined to listen to anything more you have to say. This case will proceed without the UCC and if an attorney comes in trying to apply the UCC to it the judge will stop taking him seriously. No fear of that though because no serious attorney is going to come in and argue the UCC for this case anyway.

This case does not involve sale of goods in a commercial setting. It’s the purchase of stolen property from a thief for Christ’s sake!

 

[jberryhill]

It has no application here in the first place unless the thief who stole the domain is a merchant which he is not and it would be preposterous to claim that he is.

Did you read the Express Media case or not?

I'm going to guess not.

Express Media Group involved an alleged sale of a domain name between two individual parties, Susan Tregub and Greg Ricks.

You really need to get those judges an edumaction. Note the court's decision here:

http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/Express-Media-Express-Corp-ND-Ca.pdf

An involuntary transfer results in void title, while a voluntary transfer, even if fraudulent, results in voidable title. Cal. Com. Code § 2403(1); Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 218 Cal. App. 3d 1354, 1360–61 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). Here, defendants have presented no competent evidence that plaintiffs voluntarily transferred the domain name. Susan Tregub, who was listed as the administrative contact and who Ricks believed that he dealt with in buying the domain name, declared that she never voluntarily transferred the domain name (Tregub Decl. ¶¶ 15–16). Moreover, during her deposition Tregub testified that she never transferred the domain name and that no one ever contacted her asking her to do so (Tarabichi Decl. Exh. A). Indeed, the real Susan Tregub could not have been contacted because her email address had been removed from the registration.

Perhaps you might explain to me, or the court for that matter, why the discussion revolves around California's version of the UCC chapter on sales, which is at Cal. Com. Code § 2403(1). Do you notice how the section number is 2403(1) in the California code, 672.403(1) in the Florida code, and is Chapter 2 Section 403 in the model UCC?

I gave you a court case which applies the UCC to a private party domain name transaction, as would be the case under UCC 403(1). As you note, you stopped reading before you got to that part.

So, tell me, why did a federal judge in California refer to the UCC in order to reach a decision in a private party transaction involving the claimed purchase of a stolen domain name?

You really need to tell Judge Alsop of the N.D.Cal. that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[xynames]

In dicta judges refer to all sorts of things.

The UCC is not controlling in this case here discussed in this thread.

The doctrine of bona fide purchaser does not require that the seller be a dealer.

 

[jberryhill]

XY, that is not dicta. The law applied to the case is 2403(1) of the California embodiment of the UCC. It is, in fact, the ONLY statute referenced in the court's analysis of the BFP principle as applied to the sale of a domain name.

In Florida, the relevant law is 672.403(1). They both say the same thing, with slightly different indexing in Florida and California (and most states). That is why it is called the Uniform Commercial Code. For those playing at home, the cited California section is here: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/commercial-code/com-sect-2403.html

Web.com is in Florida. The proposed seller is in Florida. The situs of the registration contract is in Florida. The relevant statute is Florida 672.403(1). It is the section of Florida sales law, identical to the model UCC, which addresses claims involving title by alleged bona fide purchasers of value.

There are two parts of 403. 403(1) and 403(2). Part (1) addresses situations involving ordinary purchasers. Part (2) addresses transfers from a merchant entrusted with title.

You are correct that the paragraph (1) does NOT require the seller to be a dealer. The issue there is, once more with feeling, "Who is Booth's seller?" Since we are taking the stated claims of the parties as (1) Booth did not steal the domain name, and (2) Burns did not sell the domain name. Then you have a real problem with applying BFP as among non-merchants, because we have an actual seller missing from the facts.

The problem here is that Booth's payment was made to Escrow.com, and delivery was made by Network Solutions.

That is why the court in Express Media, after addressing the "private party" BFP doctrine embodied in the statute cited by the court (i.e. Cal. Comm. Code. 403(1)), we move to the next paragraph of the court's analysis, which addresses the notion that, alternatively, the domain name was purchase by a merchant.

I've already quoted that next paragraph, but for completeness:

Alternatively, defendants’ argument to distinguish Kremen appears to rely on the idea that Network Solutions was acting as plaintiffs’ agent under the agreement. For instance, defendants assert that Network Solutions had standing orders to honor any changes to the registration information. Elsewhere in the agreement, however, Network Solutions explicitly disclaims any agency relationship between it and domain name owners. The agreement stated that the parties had no authority to bind one another by contract or otherwise (Townsend Decl. Exh. B). Without an agency relationship, defendants simply cannot argue that Network Solutions had the authority or ability to transfer the domain name. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants, they have not presented any evidence that the transfer of the domain name was anything but involuntary. The good-faith purchaser defense does not apply, and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendants must return the domain name express.com to plaintiffs.

The court, citing paragraph (1) of the relevant section of the UCC (as codified in California) first looked at whether Ricks was a BFP in relation to the party from whom he claimed to have bought the domain name. The court then moves on - signaled by the word "alternatively" - to the argument that Ricks bought it from a merchant to whom it was entrusted by the registrant. In other words, the court THEN looked at whether circumstances under paragraph (2) of the relevant section of the UCC would apply. The court found that, as to domain names registered through Network Solutions by the registrants, they are not entrusting title to Netsol, nor are they appointing Netsol as their agent.

You can keep saying "'tis not" all you like, but that's not how a legal argument works. You have, right in front of your face, a court citing the UCC and applying a UCC analysis to a sale of an alleged domain name.

Instead of citing authority to the effect that "the UCC does not apply", you just keep asserting it doesn't apply.

But, okay, I'm wrong, the court was wrong, and the law is wrong.

You are correct that the UCC does not require the seller to be a dealer. Congratulations on getting over the hump of "the UCC doesn't apply to private parties". The UCC section on BFP has two parts - (1) transactions generally, and (2) transactions involving a dealer.

Since Booth did not purchase the domain name from the owner, then his best hope of an argument is that he did purchase it from a dealer who delivered it to him - i.e. Network Solutions.

Perhaps you are confused because I assumed a context in which Booth would be making his most viable (but ultimately unavailing) claim under paragraph (2) - "I received delivery from a merchant with whom it was entrusted after paying Escrow.com which handles payments for domain names in the ordinary course of business." Which is why I pointed out that Burns is not a dealer, and in the context of purchases of domain names from individuals, Netsol is not their dealer either.

That is, incidentally, why the court analyzed the Express.com case in two alternative scenarios - the first under which we propose the domain registrant as the seller, and the second under which we propose Network Solutions as a dealer and thus seller's agent.

He loses even faster under paragraph (1) - the part not involving a dealer - since he doesn't have a sales agreement with Burns, and can't show that he paid Burns.

I mean, sure, if he can show he bought it from Burns, then we aren't even in the realm of claiming "I'm a bona fide purchaser for value from someone with dodgy title", because under the asserted scenario of "I bought it from Burns" we don't even get into the BFP doctrine. Which brings us back to "Booth doesn't know who sold him the name" which again means that he's not going to qualify as a BFP, because among the bona fides of a BFP is the simple point of "knowing who you are buying the domain name from".

If you have some kind of religious objection to application of the UCC section on sales of goods to domain names, then you would have a better argument along the lines of "domain names are not goods". That is a more interesting set of arguments.

The reference to Cal. Comm. Code 2403(1) in Express Media is not "dicta". It is the only controlling authority cited in the entire discussion of the BFP doctrine in the case, and it is the law under which the court rendered its decision on the topic of the BFP defense.

 

[DomainBELL]

Your right I think the name goes back to the rightful owner, hopefully the remaining two parties can come to an agreement, and save themselves legal fees which will outweigh the transaction.

She wanted to cash the name for retirement, J B is a good broker, if they work together instead of against each other, they might both come out ahead here, or even at least.

.

sad thing that will live into the future - on this particular domain name - is all this
interent talk of theft of the name etc... it will forevermore leave a tarnish on the name - no matter who will own it into the future -- it now has a tarnished history...

.

 

[xynames]

I can see now why you're going on about the UCC, perhaps because it is similar to some other statutes. But still, the UCC itself will not apply to this transaction.

Plus, I went ahead and looked up Express Media on Lexis, Express Media Group, LLC v. Express Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34800, 2007 WL 1394163 and as far as the bona fide purchaser exception, the court makes no mention of the UCC*** in its opinion, and states that "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants, they have not presented any evidence that the transfer of the domain name was anything but involuntary. The good-faith purchaser defense does not apply....Defendants must return the domain name express.com to plaintiffs." (Express Media does NOT say anything about how the bona fide purchaser exception does not apply because seller was not a merchant, or anything whatsoever like that.)

Indeed, Express Media stands for the proposition that Booth will lose his case here, unless he can present evidence that he obtained good title to the domain from an unknown buyer, but how could he?

Defendant in Express Media "presented no evidence that would indicate that they have obtained good title to the domain name from an unknown third party."

***The California Commercial Code is not the UCC. The CA Commercial Code applies:
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2007/com/1301-1310.html
1301. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when a
transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to
another state or nation, the parties may agree that the law either of
this state or of the other state or nation shall govern their rights
and duties.
(b) In the absence of an agreement effective under subdivision
(a), and except as provided in subdivision (c), this code applies to
transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this state.
(c) If one of the following provisions specifies the applicable
law, that provision governs and a contrary agreement is effective
only to the extent permitted by the law so specified:
(1) Section 2402.
(2) Section 4102.
(3) Section 5116.
(4) Section 6103.
(5) Section 8110.
(6) Sections 9301 to 9307, inclusive.
(7) Sections 10105 and 10106.
(8) Section 11507.

A big difference between the UCC and CA Comm Code is applicability. Even if they are similar, one may apply and another may not apply depending on applicability.

The UCC does not apply to this transaction here discussed in this thread.

Thanks for agreeing that the seller does not need to be a dealer in order for the bona fide purchaser policy to apply.

 

[tonyk2000]

@jberryhill , @xynames - I read the recent discussion and it is extremely interesting for myself as a domainer even though I am not a lawyer and not in U.S. I think my head will explode though

So, just to simplify: In the legal system in U.S., the doctrine of legal precedents does prevail. Is it correct? If so, does it mean that Rebecca can have the domain (almost) instantly, with the Express Media case in hand, or not? Also, does it matter that her CQD company is closed or at least "inactive" as Rebecca wrote - and if that company was listed as the registrant. Can such a company own domains or anything else?

There would be other questions still - what exactly happened, who cashed the check (or deposited?, and to what account, as the amount is not small), who did steal the domain (which would be extremely useful for buyer to show that he did not steal it), did the buyer know that he purchased stolen domain, and what - if any - consequences may occur as the result of different words publicly used by parties to characterize each other. But these questions are all secondary assuming that the domain transfer back to original account is the main one.

 

[xynames]

<<Also, does it matter that her CQD company is closed or at least "inactive" as Rebecca wrote - and if that company was listed as the registrant. Can such a company own domains or anything else?>>

Interesting point I wasn’t aware of and hadn’t considered. Assuming her LLC or Corporation owned the domain (again, ASSUMING I am just going based on what you say, and as well assuming that the entity is an LLC or Corporation), and assuming the entity is suspended by the Secretary of State of whatever state the entity was registered in - then technically an entity that is suspended - “dead” - may not file or proceed with a lawsuit (or defend against one).

However, the letter of the law is sometimes different from its application and some judges might throw out a case filed by the entity on grounds that the entity is dead, and others might not. Some judges might allow the domain owner to file the lawsuit as an individual and other judges might dismiss such a lawsuit with leave for an amended lawsuit filed in the name of the entity.

As an aside, the longer an LLC or Corporation is suspended and owes back fees taxes*** interest and penalties the more expensive and in many cases less economically viable it becomes to pay up to reinstate it.

*** For example in California an LLC or Corporation owes $800. minimum tax for every year of its existence whether it earned any income or not. This continues to accrue annually even if the entity is suspended. That eight hunny per year plus interest penalties and Secretary of State fees for filings of biannual Statements of Information add up faster than you’d imagine to quite a lot.
The only thing that “stops the clock” on the accrual of these annual minimum taxes is dissolving the entity and, get this! - you may not dissolve the entity until all back taxes penalties and interest are paid and all back tax returns are filed.

 

[tonyk2000]

ComQuest Designs is my part-time business, and it is no longer an active FL corp. it doesn’t make enough money to pay the state fees and associate bookkeeping requirements. there is no law stating i cannot keep a web site up

assuming the entity is suspended by the Secretary of State of whatever state the entity was registered in - then technically an entity that is suspended - “dead” - may not file or proceed with a lawsuit (or defend against one)

So far I found that :

- Web.archive.org copies of cqd.com are saying "ComQuest Designs, LLC (CQD), is a full-service creative graphic design, advertising agency, marketing and web design company located in Gainesville, Florida and St. Augustine, Florida."

- Historical whois records in aspects of "Registrant" - ??? (I do not have domaintools acct. )

Also it may be important what ownership has her netsol account itself, currently that account should have 0 domains in it, but still has some contact/ownership details...

I remember an UDRP where something similar was discussed, the panel stated that they are not pros in company liquidation matters in <some country name> and were not selected for this purpose, so they issued a decision considering the company in question as a legitimate party in UDRP.

 

[equity78]

Unbelievable thread, after reading every word it is quite the story.

I am not sure why some mentioned $150,000 for this domain or @spoiltrider made this like a retirement plan. How much were you looking to receive?

Plenty of LLL.com have gone for this price over the last year, it would be the perfect end user for $150,000 plus. I mean Can.com sold for $155,000 and CQD.com is nowhere in the same stratosphere as that name in my opinion. Sure some will say well HPX.com sold for $130,000 and that was to a Chinese end user that deals in Crypto. Cuh.com went for $14,133 four months ago. DZT.com $28,900 that would be a similar Chinese centric 3L.com. BJN.com went for only $29,000 and BJ for Beijing is very popular to the Chinese buyer.

So where I hope this lady gets her name back if it was wrongfully stolen, the line about James running up a bill on her for $75,000 and still getting a $150,000 for $100,000 is just absolute nonsense. Again IMO.

kul.com 43,143 USD 2018-03-09 Sedo
osl.com 72,000 USD 2018-03-04 Starfire Holdings
bey.com 31,000 USD 2018-02-28 NameJet
wsb.com 40,000 USD 2018-02-22 Sedo
kug.com 60,000 USD 2018-02-19 Flippa
zwz.com 32,200 USD 2018-02-18 NameJet
ocx.com 50,000 USD 2018-02-12 Sedo
cpx.com 44,700 USD 2018-02-08 NameJet
iyb.com 22,000 USD 2018-02-04 BQDN
hpx.com 130,000 USD 2018-01-30 Sedo
boj.com 35,000 USD 2018-01-30 NamesCon
bjn.com 29,000 USD 2018-01-30 NamesCon
mvc.com 28,000 USD 2018-01-30 NamesCon
imk.com 23,000 USD 2018-01-30 NamesCon
yon.com 31,000 USD 2018-01-28 NameJet
can.com 155,000 USD 2018-01-22 Sedo
dxb.com 220,000 USD 2018-01-17 Sharjil Saleem / Ali Rajpoot
zsv.com 11,100 USD 2018-01-15 NameJet
wmn.com 200,000 USD 2017-12-31 Pvt Sale
ngo.com 35,000 USD 2017-12-21 NameJet
evm.com 100,000 USD 2017-12-17 Uniregistry
exg.com 29,445 USD 2017-12-14 Sedo
xiq.com 27,700 USD 2017-12-14 NameJet
cuz.com 18,000 USD 2017-12-14 Sedo
acr.com 38,511 USD 2017-12-12 NameJet
uuz.com 20,500 USD 2017-12-11 NameJet
cif.com 100,000 USD 2017-12-10 MediaOptions
knb.com 25,900 USD 2017-12-07 NameJet
rmh.com 29,101 USD 2017-12-05 NameJet
hvy.com 30,000 USD 2017-11-30 Flippa
cuh.com 14,133 USD 2017-11-30 NameJet
jbo.com 16,630 USD 2017-11-28 NameJet
uxv.com 12,200 USD 2017-11-24 NameJet
qrc.com 25,200 USD 2017-11-21 NameJet
npb.com 31,355 USD 2017-11-16 NameJet
tiq.com 17,977 USD 2017-11-14 NameJet
vqd.com 12,600 USD 2017-11-13 NameJet
rtk.com 24,101 USD 2017-11-09 NameJet
ivm.com 18,375 USD 2017-11-07 NameJet
fhl.com 35,000 USD 2017-11-05 GritBrokerage
ntu.com 17,500 USD 2017-10-31 NameJet
ani.com 49,000 USD 2017-10-26 Sedo
owi.com 28,084 USD 2017-10-26 Sedo
kov.com 15,327 USD 2017-10-26 NameJet
qrf.com 21,211 USD 2017-10-24 NameJet
vqb.com 15,000 USD 2017-10-24 NameJet
eth.com 2,000,000 USD 2017-10-22 Sharjil Saleem
lwr.com 23,522 USD 2017-10-19 NameJet
tlx.com 25,000 USD 2017-10-17 NameJet
vdg.com 19,500 USD 2017-10-17 Sedo
ezy.com 59,224 USD 2017-10-14 Sedo
hpu.com 25,000 USD 2017-10-13 NameJet
qvm.com 12,800 USD 2017-10-12 NameJet
xlc.com 49,100 USD 2017-10-10 NameJet
jju.com 25,000 USD 2017-10-09 NameJet
dzt.com 28,911 USD 2017-10-05 NameJet

 

[equity78]

Escrow.com KYC failure? Enormous story. @equity78

Thanks Addison had to wait to get to this but mentioned it here https://www.thedomains.com/2018/03/12/the-forum-post-you-must-read-to-believe/

 

[winst]

Just went back to red the thread, so the scammer was able to sell, receive payment, AND transfer the domain name, with the Network Solution account compromised.

Which bank account received the payment? What IP address was used to access the accounts?

I wonder if Network Solution itself was compromised, maybe someone with admin access?

 

[tech4]

@winst the sale was done through a third party escrow service. The transfer was done by Network Solution NS. According to Rebecca her account was "hacked", it was stolen.

The payment information, only the third party escrow service would know (and Rebecca said that they told her some information). Which is the problem, making it a bigger problem, since there is no sale contract, no verification, no information exchanged, only between a third party escrow, the thief, the buyer, but NOT the seller! As told which I don't know if it is 100% true or false, just from reading, he said, she said.

 

[Finlead]

I don't understand why the US doesn't step up and stops being a third world country when it comes to banking. A cash check in 2018, really? An Escrow company, proud of having a "sophisticated" KYC system in place and then it just sends out a cash check? Have the money wired to a traceable and verified bank account and you have a large paper trail that investigators can follow up on. But don't even pretend to comply with KYC when you offer "checks" as one of your forms of payment. In Switzerland they would charge you with complicity in money laundering.

 

[spoiltrider]

Rebecca @spoiltrider my lawyers have been in touch with you directly and we have offered you a fair solution. All I want is an amicable resolution. Both of us are victims. Defamation and accusing me of things is not the answer. I am willing to work with you and be very fair in this situation. Instead of dragging my name through the mud and accusing me of theft please work with me and my lawyers to solve this.

you are in possession of a stolen domain. PERIOD.
take up your loss with your transaction desk escrow.com; surely they have insurance to cover their FUBAR.
FAIR? you're asking me to buy back my domain for how much? 25k? i have a screenshot of a 19K receipt you paid sent to me from escrow platform that they supplied me when i first called this out as fraud!

so what is it james, 19k or 25k or 26k?

how old are you anyway? by the pic on your web site i'd guess probably not much older than MY domain. you come in and turn my world upside down because of the monetary gain you plan to make on MY domain. where are your ethicals and morals? i'd say not in the right place.
also, re defamation. i am not lying. it's all truth and in america we have freedom of speech.

 

[spoiltrider]

Just went back to red the thread, so the scammer was able to sell, receive payment, AND transfer the domain name, with the Network Solution account compromised.

Which bank account received the payment? What IP address was used to access the accounts?

I wonder if Network Solution itself was compromised, maybe someone with admin access?

yes, FISHY goings on!!!!! it STINKS! AND NOT MY ACCOUNT. i had no idea the sale was occurring. but the more information i am gathering the more convoluted this is getting. there are more entities involved with this now. the list just keeps getting longer and longer. UG! my real estate business is now suffering due to all this. my 22 years of continuous web presence with CQD is down the tubes and who is now able to receive emails in my name of the 22 years of correspondence there? my accounts are at RISK! this is a huge PIMA!
i am FURIOUS!

 

[Brandon Abbey]

Interesting week to take vacation. In the end, if the name was stolen, the owner will get her rights back and James may or may not get his money back. If the name was stolen escrow.com is the only one who knows who received the funds. escrow.com may or may not have close ties with IC3.gov (they used to), if they do they could share with the parties. A report should be filed at IC3.gov If escrow.com realizes this domain was stolen and they have sent funds to a crook I think they have a responsibility to report this through a Suspicious Activity Report with their bank. escrow.com does have E&O insurance but there is most likely a deductible that is more than $25,000 and it probably wouldn't apply since there wasn't an error per their TOS. Good luck.

 

[spoiltrider]

So far I found that :

- Web.archive.org copies of cqd.com are saying "ComQuest Designs, LLC (CQD), is a full-service creative graphic design, advertising agency, marketing and web design company located in Gainesville, Florida and St. Augustine, Florida."

- Historical whois records in aspects of "Registrant" - ??? (I do not have domaintools acct. )

Also it may be important what ownership has her netsol account itself, currently that account should have 0 domains in it, but still has some contact/ownership details...

I remember an UDRP where something similar was discussed, the panel stated that they are not pros in company liquidation matters in <some country name> and were not selected for this purpose, so they issued a decision considering the company in question as a legitimate party in UDRP.

it is my understanding that you don't have to be "incorporated business" to have web site presence. mom and pop shops are allowed to put a web site up. no matter, CQD.com is MY DOMAIN and it was STOLEN and the buyer KNOWS IT'S STOLEN.

 

[alcy]

Interesting week to take vacation. In the end, if the name was stolen, the owner will get her rights back and James may or may not get his money back. If the name was stolen escrow.com is the only one who knows who received the funds. escrow.com may or may not have close ties with IC3.gov (they used to), if they do they could share with the parties. A report should be filed at IC3.gov If escrow.com realizes this domain was stolen and they have sent funds to a crook I think they have a responsibility to report this through a Suspicious Activity Report with their bank. escrow.com does have E&O insurance but there is most likely a deductible that is more than $25,000 and it probably wouldn't apply since there wasn't an error per their TOS. Good luck.

since you are here, and because some others may wonder too (for their future dealings)... may I briefly ask you to comment if such a deal made using your escrow company could ever result in this kind of situation? and if so, would there be more you'd be doing to resolve it? if so what? thanks!