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.

 

[offthehandle]

Interpol works worldwide in stolen asset recovery.

https://www.interpol.int/content/download/28277/377655/version/14/file/20_ACO-01_02_2017_EN_web.pdf

https://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2017/N2017-023

https://www.interpol.int/Member-countries/World

 

[tonecas]

Kudos to Mike. Not only did Mike assist Rebecca but realizing the name was questionable he immediately returned the domain at a loss, he also provided Escrow documentation to prove it which ethically was excellent and above and beyond what was necessary in order to protect his customer and reputation as a broker.

for sure. taking the facts as we know them today, Mike Han had a super professional action on this. Hope the costumer knows how much headaches Mike Han saved him. How many guys would suggest their client to back off a done deal and lose a commission?

 

[tonyk2000]

Interpol works worldwide in stolen asset recovery.

Singapore law appears to be very strict:

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ValidDate=20171001&ProvIds=pr411-#pr411-

Dishonestly receiving stolen property
411.—(1) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the property to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both.

(quote end)

The question is: does the current Singapore-based registrant of cqd.com have any formal reasons to beleive that cqd.com is indeed stolen property? And should the above quote be understood as
(dishonestly receives) OR (retains)
vs.
dishonestly (receives OR retains)
?
I do not think we have any Singapore-based lawyers here, so the above quote may or may not be applicable. In any case, it appears that it would be much more safe to return the domain. And possibly buy it again from rightful owner, it may well be that Rebecca @spoiltrider would be willing to provide some discount to this particular buyer, lets say sell it for $60K instead of $80K which was offered by somebody at some point if time (and which offer is expired anyway)

 

[offthehandle]

Singapore law appears to be very strict:

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ValidDate=20171001&ProvIds=pr411-#pr411-

Dishonestly receiving stolen property
411.—(1) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the property to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with)

This is the jurisdiction that drug dealers get the death penalty too right? Throwing Chewing gum on the sidewalk and you get fined.

I find this to be a strange situation based on what all has been posted that in a 3 month “investigation” if it actually was incompetent or bungled? Didn’t anyone look at the previous transaction and the nameserver changes, the existing 20+ year website with a very visible phone number to call Rebecca, also that Mike returned it from another account at the same Registrar and refunded with Escrow and at that time determined it wasn’t flagged as an “at risk” domain. That if 100% true, and there was no attempted contact with Rebecca then the “Investigation” wasn’t really accurately completed? Or was it truly investigated and there are other details not revealed on this thread here? Then the March event of transferring it out to another 3rd party after an “investigation”? There must be more details. It really is sad for both parties to be at this impasse.

 

[tonecas]

yes, there is a lack of cooperation, and to me, as a cynical guy, that means someone is hiding things.

the more I dig in and see other's findings the more this smells rotten.

 

[Silentptnr]

So, 30,000 views later, 750 comments, we seem to know the following:

1. The domain WAS a stolen domain from Rebecca (spoiltrider) by an unknown thief
2. There was at least one failed attempt by the thief to sell the domain to Mr. Han
2. The domain was subsequently purchased by James Booth
3. The domain is currently under the control of James Booth
4. The victim of theft is aware and making efforts to regain the domain

Questions that still remain:
1. Who was the thief?
2. Will James Booth provide any/all information and documentation in his possession?
3. What steps Rebecca is taking to regain control of the domain?

Singapore law appears to be very strict:

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ValidDate=20171001&ProvIds=pr411-#pr411-

Dishonestly receiving stolen property
411.—(1) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the property to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both.

(quote end)

The question is: does the current Singapore-based registrant of cqd.com have any formal reasons to beleive that cqd.com is indeed stolen property? And should the above quote be understood as
(dishonestly receives) OR (retains)
vs.
dishonestly (receives OR retains)
?
I do not think we have any Singapore-based lawyers here, so the above quote may or may not be applicable. In any case, it appears that it would be much more safe to return the domain. And possibly buy it again from rightful owner, it may well be that Rebecca @spoiltrider would be willing to provide some discount to this particular buyer, lets say sell it for $60K instead of $80K which was offered by somebody at some point if time (and which offer is expired anyway)

But James is in Dubai...not japan.

 

[tonecas]

James is in Singapore, according WHOIS information...

But Jack is in Dubai. And it seems to be the same Jack of odapo.com. And now I found out that it seems to be the same Jack (Kalfayan), CEO - Apex Moon LLC - Dubai, UAE.

every day a new discovery...

and there are other important questions:

1) How do we have two snapshots of the Escrow transaction of Mike Han where the information does not match? a) we have document forging; b) the hacker was still able to exploit the bug on Escrow.com (@Jackson Elsegood)

2) James Booth (@BoothDomains ) claims to have made all due diligence and that Network Solutions fraud investigated for 3 months and gave him the domain/reason, but both missed the fishy WHOIS changes that would raised red flags even to the most novice domainer and Network Solutions was unable to detect all that was going on with the domain for the last 5 months. And Rebbeca claims not having been reached and has given some proofs that this might be true. So, who is lying?

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Via the comment section from: https://domaininvesting.com/pdd-com-story-eye-opening/

January 9th, 2018: Somebody claiming to be James Booth states he used Domain IQ and emailed previous emails who also confirmed everything.

Hence why I asked...

What did Mike Han say when you contacted him via the email that was listed during the time of the cancelled transaction?

If, James Booth did indeed use domainIQ to email previous emails, then I don't see how he could have missed Mike Hans email address.

Fast forward to the bottom of the comment section.

March 27th: Rebecca yet again informs James Booth that he purchased a stolen domain.

March 28th: (a few hours later) somebody alleging to be James Booth disregards professionalism, and informs the original owner is not getting her domain back.

March 28th: (a few hour later) James shares intentions of willingness to sell the original owner back her alleged stolen property. I can't imagine James' attorney (I think it's Zak Muscovitch of DNAttorney.com) would advise his client to take a loss and sell stolen property back to the alleged victim. As previously mentioned, this is a felony in Florida.

I would even take a loss on what I paid to sell it back to her to end this stress.

@BoothDomains -- Will you help us find the alleged thief / hacker by being forthcoming with the communications you had with him/her? I really don't understand why you don't want to be open, and honest about this transaction. Being open would either prove your theory that Rebecca is a scammer OR it would reveal that you did indeed transact with somebody other than Rebecca -- what is assumed to be a hacker / thief that made both you, and Rebecca victims. Alternatively, remaining silent, and not reveailing anything would inadvertently protect the hacker / thief, which could result in another victim, should the alleged hacker/thief repeat the scam.

2. There was at least one failed attempt by the thief to sell the domain to Mr. Han

I have trace evidence of other communication the alleged hacker/thief had, which may reveal other failed negotiotions; possibly other notable domainers declining to purchase a domain that had red flags. I will be reaching out to others the alleged thief may have corresponded with, and hopefully they will be more forthcoming than James has been, and will provide the transcripts / digital footprints of whomever was actively selling CQD.com, allegedly without Rebecca's permission. I believe James / Jake / Jack had the most communication with the hacker, thus I am hoping James will help, rather than protect / shield the alleged hacker / thief.

@Grilled , good work

Thank you @TheLegendaryJP -- I admire your work, and respect your experience. Because I know people like you are watching, I am trying to keep my composure and approach the situation with an open mind. But I don't like bullies, and I can only watch so much, before I get heated.

 

[Silentptnr]

Via the comment section from: https://domaininvesting.com/pdd-com-story-eye-opening/

January 9th, 2018: Somebody claiming to be James Booth states he used Domain IQ and emailed previous emails who also confirmed everything.
Show attachment 84626

Hence why I asked...



If, James Booth did indeed use domainIQ to email previous emails, then I don't see how he could have missed Mike Hans email address.

Show attachment 84625

Fast forward to the bottom of the comment section.

March 27th: Rebecca yet again informs James Booth that he purchased a stolen domain.
Show attachment 84622

March 28th: (a few hours later) somebody alleging to be James Booth disregards professionalism, and informs the original owner is not getting her domain back.

Show attachment 84627

March 28th: (a few hour later) James shares intentions of willingness to sell the original owner back her alleged stolen property. I can't imagine James' attorney (I think it's Zak Muscovitch of DNAttorney.com) would advise his client to take a loss and sell stolen property back to the alleged victim. As previously mentioned, this is a felony in Florida.



@BoothDomains -- Will you help us find the alleged thief / hacker by being forthcoming with the communications you had with him/her? I really don't understand why you don't want to be open, and honest about this transaction. Being open would either prove your theory that Rebecca is a scammer OR it would reveal that you did indeed transact with somebody other than Rebecca -- what is assumed to be a hacker / thief that made both you, and Rebecca victims. Alternatively, remaining silent, and not reveailing anything would inadvertently protect the hacker / thief, which could result in another victim, should the alleged hacker/thief repeat the scam.



I have trace evidence of other communication the alleged hacker/thief had, which may reveal other failed negotiotions; possibly other notable domainers declining to purchase a domain that had red flags. I will be reaching out to others the alleged thief may have corresponded with, and hopefully they will be more forthcoming than James has been, and will provide the transcripts / digital footprints of whomever was actively selling CQD.com, allegedly without Rebecca's permission. I believe James / Jake / Jack had the most communication with the hacker, thus I am hoping James will help, rather than protect / shield the alleged hacker / thief.



Thank you @TheLegendaryJP -- I admire your work, and respect your experience. Because I know people like you are watching, I am trying to keep my composure and approach the situation with an open mind. But I don't like bullies, and I can only watch so much, before I get heated.

James should not be afraid to disclose all details of how he came to know about the domain and all persons involved in his transaction.

Anyone hacked and robbed would want any and all information.

I dont see any reason to not disclose openly unless something was not right.

 

[Silentptnr]

I dont see why Netsol and Escrow cant help.

 

[tonecas]

"Jake" from "odapo.com" reached Rebecca's email between June and November 2017, the month where her account was hacked.

odapo.com shows:

So we have "Jake" and "Jack". Same person? Brothers? Friends?

"Jack" reached Rebbeca's email on November 8, 2017, and signed "Jake" but used an email "Jack K <[email protected]>":
https://www.namepros.com/a/2018/03/100736_b36abef4a692039ded3f68f7697c2409.png

"Jack" appears using "[email protected]" in communications regarding the escrow transaction that sold CQD.com to James Booth.

Now there is a "Jack K(alfayan)", CEO - Apex Moon LLC - Dubai, UAE, and using a gmail account "[email protected]". Not too professional, but it's a great coincidence in all these emails.

 

[tonecas]

I dont see why Netsol and Escrow cant help.

Escrow (@Jackson Elsegood ) will allege that this is confidential information pertaining only to all parties involved. But they can at least refer to the bug affecting Escrow described above, that ultimately has impact on their KYC/AML procedures.

Network Solutions/Web.com will not disclose anything because they do not know sh*t. They will be only doing damage contention, and back on James Booth (@BoothDomains) because he has more skin in the game with them than Rebecca.

 

[equity78]

@BoothDomains James I am not telling you anything what to do, I would just like to know if you can tell us if you are paying attention here and plan on doing something or you are planning not to talk and will only deal with this in court.

That way people can know whether to keep asking you questions here, I certainly think you can post I will not answer anyone on Namepros.

Thank you

 

[offthehandle]

@spoiltrider have you made any law enforcement progress? (like a case number being assigned by law enforcement, don’t post it anything though) any responses from law enforcement authorities after reporting this? Who exactly emailed you the first screenshot you posted of the escrow 19k transaction? Any idea why the second screenshot posted had a different email address on it?

 

[offthehandle]

I dont see why Netsol and Escrow cant help.

That is the big question. They might have reopened the investigation and simply cannot comment. Especially if the FBI is involved now.

 

[Silentptnr]

@BoothDomains James I am not telling you anything what to do, I would just like to know if you can tell us if you are paying attention here and plan on doing something or you are planning not to talk and will only deal with this in court.

That way people can know whether to keep asking you questions here, I certainly think you can post I will not answer anyone on Namepros.

Thank you

James has reached out to me and explained that he is frustrated because he truly believes he completed a legitimate purchase.

I do believe James did what he felt was full due diligence.

For all we know, Rebecca could have a family member or someone close that stole her credentials.

This incident was a big scam. Bank fraud, id theft, id fraud, hacking, and multiple people (men and women) involved in the scam.

Quite complex.

 

[offthehandle]

James has reached out to me and explained that he is frustrated because he truly believes he completed a legitimate purchase.

I do believe James did what he felt was full due diligence.

For all we know, Rebecca could have a family member or someone close that stole her credentials.

This incident was a big scam. Bank fraud, id theft, id fraud, hacking, and multiple people (men and women) involved in the scam.

Quite complex.

Then who really is Jack Jake ? How does he fit in this picture?

https://dsad.com/emergence-quad-premium-llll-coms-oliver-hoger-jack-kalfayan/

https://www.namepros.com/threads/do...-a-stolen-domain.1068888/page-31#post-6651086

 

[Silentptnr]

I did. The whole thing is really fishy. I called, emailed and did all the checks. It seems she told Web.com one of her employees sold the name without her authorization which is a lie.

I have all the emails from her.

I believe this.

 

[tonecas]

I did. The whole thing is really fishy. I called, emailed and did all the checks. It seems she told Web.com one of her employees sold the name without her authorization which is a lie.

I have all the emails from her.

I believe this.

Rebecca (@spoiltrider ) can you comment on this?

 

[Silentptnr]

i am extremely ANGRY about this and i am looking for retribution from my former hosting company, the thief in CA, and even james booth if he doesn't STOP harassing me! Slander is what i am thinking of.

How was James harrassing you?

 

[Silentptnr]

"someone" cashed a check and showed and ID to do it...in California. a guy.

How did you learn this?

It is my understanding that Escrow paid a business. Who told you a check was cashed by a man in LA?

 

[tonecas]

James has reached out to me and explained that he is frustrated because he truly believes he completed a legitimate purchase.

I do believe James did what he felt was full due diligence.

For all we know, Rebecca could have a family member or someone close that stole her credentials.

This incident was a big scam. Bank fraud, id theft, id fraud, hacking, and multiple people (men and women) involved in the scam.

Quite complex.

I believe that James Booth (@BoothDomains) truly believes that he has done due diligence but he hasn't. It was a newbie's mistake, lured by a potential lucrative deal.

Also, it seems that he really didn't do due diligence, Jack/Jake did. All written communications shows Jack/Jake as the interlocutor, not James.

 

[tonyk2000]

March 28th: (a few hours later) somebody alleging to be James Booth disregards professionalism, and informs the original owner is not getting her domain back.

The above comment is no more on domaininvesting blog:

"Elliot Silver
In reply to James Booth | April 3rd, 2018 at 12:42 pm
James Booth emailed me and said he did not post a comment that was here before so I deleted it."

Interesting, so it appears that an unknown visitor of domaininvesting blog actively doesn't like James Booth, to such an extend that even copied his writing style from the pdd discussion (such as typing the domain in question as CQD.com (not cqd.COM or CQD.COM) and posted the statement about Rebecca not getting the domain name back

 

[tonecas]

that is why is important to get the facts, and I think this thread has been reaching some established facts.

 

[spoiltrider]

i just want my domain back. i am the rightful and honest owner.