Help Pool.com (Fraudulent)

[DNBro]

Recently I brought a domain BFZU.COM from a NP member (widedesigns) for $65.00. He pushed the domains in my Namescount.com account.

Two days back I’m trying to access Namescount.com account, I got a warning message that, your account is own hold and contact customer service.

When I wrote a mail regarding this matter, I got below replay:

Thank you for contacting Customer Service. The domain bfzu.com was acquired through our sister company, Pool.com. Pool.com has contacted us stating that this domain purchase was fraudulent. This is why your account is on hold. You will need to resolve this issue with Pool.com. Once resolved, Pool.com will contact us on your behalf to have the account taken off hold.

Then contacted Pool.com to resolve this issue, I got below mail:

It is our regret to inform you that BFZU.COM was purchased by a fraudulent user of Pool.com. We have not actually received payment for the domain and until we receive payment the domain will remain under our control. If you still want the domain BFZU.COM then we will consider selling it to you for $60 US, which is the amount that was owing for this specific domain. If you still want the domain and are willing to provide us with payment in the amount of $60 US then please let me know and I will help make the appropriate arrangements.

I had contacted widedesigns regarding this matter, but he brought this domain from a NP member (jrush), he created NP ID just to sell those domains only. He is clearly a smart fraud without doubt. As per his transaction, he sold nearly 20 domains here, I think those are holding will face same situation. Please check your accounts.

http://www.namepros.com/domains-for-sale-fixed-price/435299-cheapest-llll-com-possible-you-must.html

First thing, I don’t know why Pool.com can’t protect their properties, now claiming it more than 14 days after transaction. Whatever mishap happened is only due their lack of efficiency, someone getting access to their system and doing things or getting domain with out making payment. What is the guarantee even if one brought domain from Pool.com for auction then later they will claim or not

There is any how I can get this domain back or recover amount I had paid? Where I need to contact, how proceed

Thanks

 

[PowerUp]

Your generosity is truly appreciated, considering you've lost money to person
A due to his chargeback for the product he bought from you, later sold to me,
and I haven't even paid you a dime. I won't accept your cross sells, but I will
hold you to the free after-sales support included in your product's guarantee.

If I don't get an reply to my email within 10 minutes after I click Send, or call
your phone number but no one's answering, then I somehow find your home #
and call you to answer my gazillion questions, which could take up to an hour
or so, but you're not there or you refuse to help me out, then I'll post in many
online forum or so how scammy you are for not fulfilling the free sales support
promised. I'll also say how scammy you are for trying to sell me stuff which I
don't want.

Now, this is just a pretend scenario, of course. But I'm sure you can imagine the nightmares
of that specific one with its specific circumstances, and I've dealt with those kinds of people.

LOL. You'd end up in jail in no time. Your action is consistent with a stalker.

Moderator, I propose we move this thread to the legal room. So we could all debate the ultimate question which is, "In the event of a chargeback, does Pool have the legal right to retrieve a domain name from a 3rd party not related to the original transaction that was chargedback?"

 

[accent]

The issue is not if they have a legal right to property that was stolen from them, at least in my mind. The issues are if it makes good business sense to force the issue in a case where it damages an innocent party, and if it is ethical to do so. (Ever hear of "business ethics"? A few rare people believe in them, more so in obscure mountain countries.)

If someone else gets wind of their accomodating you, it's a good bet they will try to hold Pool to that. Imagine if a critical mass of people demand Pool to do that as well to them, to the point of causing them to incur losses rather than
net profit.

OMG - do you think they would start investigating their buyers before transfering domains then? Sounds good to me. It is certainly possible to allow development or DNS changes on a domain that is being held for a waiting period while payment clears.

 

[diddie]

########################################################
I work in Video production industry, and i am in the process of making a video how i was scammed, and this video will show (without purpose but it's a part of what happened to me so i can do nothing but tell) how easily scammers can act, earn money and remain unpunished and don't have to worry about any legal pursuits (since Pool doesn't loose money, so don't go after the scammer).
This video will be uploaded to Youtube, Dailymotion and all major tube sites, i will create articles on few blogs to tell MY story, and social bookmark them, to be sure it will well spread on the internet to prevent people being scammed.
I repeat this video will only show how i was scammed for $300, how easily the scammer gets out of it with his money with no harm, and how Namescout/Pool is trying to get money from a scammed person to still make a profit.
If some bad people see a scheme or a process to repeat seeing this video, it won't be my fault, i'm gonna only explain what happened to me and how bad was Namescout/Pool reply to that situation.
If Namescout/Pool wants to offer me a good deal to sort out that situation please.. my email is: digito6 [at] gmail.com

#################################################

 

[accent]

^^^ What happens when "it is my property" trumps "respect for others".

Stupid Stupid Stupid Pool.

Diddie: Be VERY careful to stick to the facts. These Pool idiots could start a libel lawsuit if you exagerate.

Note to business owners. Please review this case as an example of how to turn a $60 loss (or $300, I am not clear on that), that indeed actually was much less at the margin, into a major public relations sinkhole.

Stupid Stupid Stupid Pool.

 

[Dave_Z]

So we could all debate the ultimate question which is, "In the event of a chargeback, does Pool have the legal right to retrieve a domain name from a 3rd party not related to the original transaction that was chargedback?"

Recall that the domain name was pushed to the OP's Namescount account. In
essense, the OP agreed to the terms of Namescout's agreement.

Feel free to read it if you're up to it:

http://www.namescout.com/TermsAndConditions.asp

There's a term there regarding right of refusal and holding Namescout and its
contractors (which includes Pool) harmless. But the only way to find out the
surefire answer to that is to probably force the issue in court.

The issues are if it makes good business sense to force the issue in a case where it damages an innocent party, and if it is ethical to do so. (Ever hear of "business ethics"? A few rare people believe in them, more so in obscure mountain countries.)

While one can freely opine what Namescout and/or Pool did here is unethical
and goes against business sense and ethics, they're subjective things that do
vary among people. Not meaning to maybe put a strawman here, but I've seen
people argue, for example, that parking pages are unethical while others think
they serve a purpose. (and I kid you not on both views...)

I said this before, but my point is Namescout and/or Pool will be the ones who
can decide on their own whether what happened is a good business move and
is arguably ethical, even if others believe otherwise. But of course, none of us
can force our views on them nor they on us.

Whether a video splashed all over the 'Net depicting what happened here will,
say, affect Namescout's and/or Pool's business remains to be seen. However,
I do hope that video will at least give their side of their story fully, without all
and/or any detail missed out.

Otherwise, some people might not get the full picture before making informed
decisions or so. I think people aren't being done any honest favors when some
issue is discussed but is "intentionally" leaving out a possible and relevant bit
or so, although others think otherwise anyway.

That's just me, though.

 

[accent]

While one can freely opine what Namescout and/or Pool did here is unethical
and goes against business sense and ethics, they're subjective things that do
vary among people. Not meaning to maybe put a strawman here, but I've seen people argue, for example, that parking pages are unethical while others think they serve a purpose. (and I kid you not on both views...)

Agreed, ahhh, I think we have differing opinions here on a subjective matter. And subjective issues are particularly subjective where one's own money is involved, so there is value is asking the opinion of other people.

I said this before, but my point is Namescout and/or Pool will be the ones who
can decide on their own whether what happened is a good business move and
is arguably ethical, even if others believe otherwise. But of course, none of us
can force our views on them nor they on us.

Whether a video splashed all over the 'Net depicting what happened here will,
say, affect Namescout's and/or Pool's business remains to be seen. However,
I do hope that video will at least give their side of their story fully, without all and/or any detail missed out.

Leaving out this particular case, in general irate customers are not interested in presenting the point of view of the company they are irate about. One can hope they do not exagerate to the point of falsehood, but they often do. The internet has given customers a lot more power to fight back. Companies cannot follow a hard line anymore and see no negative effects.

I would guess that by simply consuming a bit of the company president's time to respond to this thread that Pool is already deeply in the hole on this deal.

Otherwise, some people might not get the full picture before making informed
decisions or so. I think people aren't being done any honest favors when some
issue is discussed but is "intentionally" leaving out a possible and relevant bit
or so, ....

Haven't seen any of that in politics, eh?

 

[Dave_Z]

Haven't seen any of that in politics, eh?

Sus, I've seen a lot of that happen in my country it sometimes boils my blood.
That's why I sometimes stay away from the news. :D

 

[PowerUp]

Recall that the domain name was pushed to the OP's Namescount account. In
essense, the OP agreed to the terms of Namescout's agreement.

Feel free to read it if you're up to it:

http://www.namescout.com/TermsAndConditions.asp

There's a term there regarding right of refusal and holding Namescout and its
contractors (which includes Pool) harmless. But the only way to find out the
surefire answer to that is to probably force the issue in court.


While one can freely opine what Namescout and/or Pool did here is unethical
and goes against business sense and ethics, they're subjective things that do
vary among people. Not meaning to maybe put a strawman here, but I've seen
people argue, for example, that parking pages are unethical while others think
they serve a purpose. (and I kid you not on both views...)

I said this before, but my point is Namescout and/or Pool will be the ones who
can decide on their own whether what happened is a good business move and
is arguably ethical, even if others believe otherwise. But of course, none of us
can force our views on them nor they on us.

Whether a video splashed all over the 'Net depicting what happened here will,
say, affect Namescout's and/or Pool's business remains to be seen. However,
I do hope that video will at least give their side of their story fully, without all
and/or any detail missed out.

Otherwise, some people might not get the full picture before making informed
decisions or so. I think people aren't being done any honest favors when some
issue is discussed but is "intentionally" leaving out a possible and relevant bit
or so, although others think otherwise anyway.

That's just me, though.

It's common knowledge that generally Terms or Agreement favor the service provider or seller. And some of these terms are outrageous. I remember there was a reader complaining in the newspaper that he used a jockey service to park his car. The jockey's supposed to look after the car. But at the back of the receipt there's a fine print that says "We are not responsible if your car is stolen.". Therefore Terms or Agreement sometimes are sometimes thrown out in lawsuits.

I agree that nobody can force their views on Pool, and it is certainly their right to decide if it's a good business decision or not.

Diddie, I hope you don't make any videos that can get you into trouble. Dave's suggestion of giving Pool a chance for their explanation in the video, or a letter explanation, is good so that both sides of the story is presented to the readers.

In the end, we as consumers also have our own rights as to choose which dropcatchers to use.

Just out of curiosity, I remember when I sign up for Pool and tried to attach a credit card, I had to fill up a form, and fax over the front and back of the card. I don't remember faxing the front and back to Namejet or Snapnames (I could be wrong here. I only remembers doing this for Pool bcos it's a pain everytime I switch credit cards my account would get suspended.) How did Pool get scammed when it has more requirements while the other 2 doesn't?

 

[rasman]

A few summary notes

I have commented previously in this thread (as a reminder I am the CEO at Pool) and thought it worthwhile to perhaps offer a few summary comments:

1. Pool does have a very extensive fraud detection system. It is not fool-proof and occasionaly, VERY occasionally, a fraudster does slip through and manages to purchase a domain, usually with someone else's credit card. But make no mistake, we do have a series of tests to make sure a transaction is valid and we are committed to investigating illegal activity of any kind. The least of this validation is making sure all of the data on the card is porvided accurately including the CVV number which is on the back and usually means the buyer has the card in their posession. Fraudsters are getting better at obtaining this data so we use other mechanisms to identify them as well.

2. Credit card holders can issue charge backs well after a transaction is complete. I believe as long as 6 months later. In fraud cases, we usually hear about a mis-used credit card within one billing cycle, sometimes sooner when a card holder regularly reviews their account online.

3. When a transaction is complete, we lock the domain for 60 days (this is actually an ICANN rule I believe) which provides some protection against fraudsters. They can't transfer the domain away to another registrar during this time. I would hope that by the same token, potential buyers would consider why someone would sell a domain still in this 60 day window.

4. Pool.com will not tolerate fraudulant behaviour and we'll take all steps necessary to combat such action. And at times, we have seen extremely complex fraud schemes where the buyer and seller were in fact one and the same people using different identities. The seller sells the domain through our marketplace, gets their money and then the real credit card holder of the card used by the buyer (same person different identity) charges back the transaction. And in one case the amounts were in the 10,000 of dollars.

I appreciate the notion that perhaps it would be better "business" for Pool to simply absorb the minimal registration fee. But in many transactions, it's not just the registration fee, it is a seller price for which Pool.com takes only a small margin of profit. Moreso, the principal at stake here is making sure that fraudsters do not get away with it. Perhaps we are the only company that cares about fraudulent behaviour.

If more companies stood up to the fraudsters perhaps we could reduce their activity. Our experience is that fruadsters are generally lazy. The domain industry, as young as it is, presents easy pickings which is why it gets targetted. Ultimately, a fraudsters success is directly affected by how willing you are to execute a transaction without proper verification.

I think Pool.com is in fact doing our part, perhaps even to our discredit. My previous posting suggested ways to protect your self during the buying process, especially if you are buying from someone you don't know. You can also protect yourself after the fact by simply charging back whatever you paid to the seller! Assuming of course you entered into the transaction with a way to protect your payment? So, if you paid by credit card, issue a charge back. If you paid by wire, contact their bank and demand to be placed in contact with the account holder and if they refuse, ask your local law enforcement to make the request. If you paid by PayPal, contact them and seek their help in reversing the transaction.

If unfortunately you paid cash in some dark alley with no real recourse to the seller, well, buyer beware. And if they got to you once and were successful at getting your money, you can bet they will appear in your life again at some point in the future with a different identity but the same story. And you will be victimized again if you don't take the necessary precautions.

If a deal looks too good to be true it probably is. Someone that deals a domain with in days of acquiring it themselves possibly even at a discounted price is doing itfor a reason. My point all along is you owe it to yourself to know why!

 

[Andrei P.]

In this particular situation there is one more person who perhaps unintentionally supported scammer - NP member (widedesigns). He bought names for cheap from new member of NP without checking properly background of this name. Perhaps even he did it intentionally (to make one more quick flip without risk) because when I saw this thread it looked to me as 100% sale from scammer. I never buy these names even if they damn cheap! But widedesigns did it. And after that he passed his risk to DNBro. DNBro already bought a name from a reputable NP member with trading history and thought it's secure transaction. I think that DNBro should claim his loss from widedesigns and widedesigns should claim his loss from jrush.

I must be widedesigns loss if he can't get his money back from jrush!
http://www.namepros.com/domains-for-sale-fixed-price/435299-cheapest-llll-com-possible-you-must.html

got domain vkiy.com

fast and trusty seller!!!!thanks

It was obvious that this name was purchased at Pool for minumum 60$ and then after 10 days is being resold for just 55$ by a member registered 2 day ago with zero trading history. I think all buyers in that thread knew that it can be fraud and still they were purchasing these names.

Pool.com just took its property back.

There is another side of problem with Pool.com and scammers, that I'm worried much more than buying a name from scammer. When you are bidding for the name with scammer you can go high in price in the bidding war and you pay for example 2 or 3 times higher than you would have to pay if there was no scammer engaged in the bidding war. So sometimes Pool sells names for 120$ instead of 60$ just because there are scammers in the system. And you have to pay 120$ instead of 60$. Scammer doesn't risk his own money and your risk And even if they find that certain bidder was a scammer would they compensate you money that you overpaid for the name? I'm afraid not. For example I bought in Feb a name for 90$. I was bidding with a person who is obviously scammer - I found out it 10 days later when another name won by this person was sold for 50% of the amount he paid for it on Pool. So this scammer brought 30$ of additional profit to Pool and I suffered from scammer even taking into consideration the fact that I own my name.

 

[rasman]

We all have to fight these scammers together

There have been some really good points made in this thread about "behaviour" and the fact that buyers need to be more aware of a sellers circumstances. There are many factors in these situations and I can tell you all that sometimes... the ONLY people involved are the scammers. I can tell you of a specific case that has been proven in court where a scammer bought a domain at Pool.com with one identity and then sold it to himself with another identity after the 60 day period. This helped cover their trail a little bit. Then, the first transaction is "charged back" but now the domain is in the hands of the "third party" and has been transferred away. Using this second identity, the sammer can now sell the domain with relative impunity unless "someone" goes after them in a serious way.

And yes, some of you may suggest this is bad PR for our customers. I'll go to bat for a real customer that is willing to work with us and provide full disclosure. But interestingly enough usually what happens is we start to investigate and the participants start to refuse to provide any information. Or the problem simply goes away. I have yet to see an investigation complete where the "real customer" has been harmed.

Pool.com is trying to stop these scams. It's intersting to see how a transaction goes very quiet when we step in to investigate. We have even had phone call conversations with a scammer where we have revealed the results of our investigation and the person on the other end of the line says... "Oh well, busted!" and hangs up. And because they are using assumed identies, we can't tace them and often the phones they use are temporary mobile phones.

Thats one of many reasons why we go to great lengths to ensure the proper registration of payment vehicles. Maybe other companies have more discrete methods or perhaps they are targetted less by fraudsters.

We all need to be diligent in conducting these transactions in a prudent business fashion. Only then will scammers realize they can't make money off domainers and move on to some other venue. Remember, if a deal looks too good to be true, it probably isn't.