Having seen a number of instances of this sort of thing since you left, Brandon, I would suggest that practices have changed markedly.
Twice in the last year, I have seen instances in which Escrow.com falsely confirmed receipt of funds and then, to cover up their error, started flinging bizarre accusations at others.
Here's a real beauty, and I apologize for the digression, but people should know what kind of outfit Escrow.com has become.
The scenario is that the parties set up a payment transaction with Escrow.com. Escrow.com then confirmed receipt of payment In reliance on Escrow.com's confirmation, the domain name is transferred.
Then, a month later Escrow.com realizes they screwed up, so they actually send this to the registrar (and see my comments after):
----------------------------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: STOLEN DOMAIN NAME - XXX
We refer to the domain name XXX which Mr XXX has had in his possession since XXX, 2017 and understand that you are the registrar for that domain name.
Mr XXX still has an outstanding amount of $1,594.50 owed by him to our company, Escrow.com <http://Escrow.com> (“Escrow”).
We have tried to contact Mr XXX multiple times by way of several email addresses and a telephone number. All attempts have been unsuccessful.
Mr XXX is in possession of this domain name, not having paid for it. Mr XXX must pay this amount immediately or we will be forced to commence legal proceedings and/or contact the relevant governing authorities to recover the outstanding amount of $1,594.50.
We ask that you please lock XXX until Mr XXX pays Escrow the outstanding amount.
We look forward to hearing from you.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours Faithfully,
Syan Olsen.
--
Syan Olsen
In-house Legal Counsel
Level 20,
680 George Street
Sydney, NSW 2000
Australia
-------------------------------------
The operative question here is if Mr. XXX didn't pay escrow.com, then how does he have the domain name?
This was Escrow.com transaction ID
#2960125 should Ms Olsen ever decide to respond to my reply to her ridiculous email (which was sent to a party that was neither the registrar, buyer or seller in the actual transaction).
What Ms. Olsen neglected to mention in any of this was that on Mar-17-2017 in that transaction, Escrow.com confirmed receipt of the buyer's payment. A month later they go claiming that the domain name was stolen because they didn't receive payment.
From the "you have one job" department, you might think, and I'm pretty sure the
California Financial Code Section 17414 assumes, that the business of a licensed escrow company is to accurately confirm whether they have been paid or not, before they issue a confirmation of payment.
No, Ms. Olsen, as an escrow provider, you do not "confirm receipt of payment" to the parties to a transaction, then a month later realize you didn't get it, or else you lost it among your other interesting accounting oddities, and claim that the name was "stolen" as a consequence of the parties' reliance on you to do
the only job you had.
I mean, just take a look at Olsen's email, and construct in your mind a set of facts under which (a) someone would have taken possession of a domain name before Escrow.com got paid, and (b) anyone in their right mind, let alone Godaddy (to whom the email was directed) would give two sh*ts about an email from an Australian lawyer making unverified claims over threatened "legal action" for an amount of $1,594.50.
I suppose the reaction by GoDaddy was supposed to be "Oh, gollly, an escrow company screwed up their job. We'll get on this one right away!"
But Escrow.com has a curious definition of "stolen":
1. Parties agree on terms at Escrow.com.
2. Escrow.com confirms receipt of payment.
3. Parties transfer name.
4. A month later Escrow.com changes its mind, decides they weren't paid at step 2.
No, that's not "stolen", that's monumental incompetence and a violation of California law by Escrow.com.
What's truly amazing to me from the "your job, do you know how to do it" department, is that Escrow.com screwed up in the amount of $1500 and some change. Instead of eating their mistake, they decide to advertise their incompetence to others, on the assumption that losing $1500 is somehow worse than sending an email saying "We don't know what we're doing." (and on top of that, copying the email to someone who wasn't even involved with registration or transfer of the domain name)