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]

I think M Cohen should dip into his home equity line, and make everyone whole on this transaction.

 

[jberryhill]

I think M Cohen should dip into his home equity line, and make everyone whole on this transaction.

Man, you were reading my mind.

I was going to say, but decided not to, that my standard fee for denying I had sex with Donald Trump is $500, but my cap is $50,000 out of my own pocket to make my clients' mistresses keep quiet.

People wonder how lawyers manage to make money doing that. The simple answer - volume. I lose $50k on every client, but make it up in volume.

But back to the case at hand, I also noticed that we have some additional claims on the table since Burns is calling Booth a thief, and Burns is calling Booth a liar. So, throw in some cross claims for defamation, and they can spin the wheel on those too.

 

[alwaysforGod]

Berry, I agree with a lot of what you said, I laughed at plenty of stuff, I learned a thing or three, and I propose a possibility that is, perhaps, all too simple but the classic "too easy but maybe they dun it" is too sweet to totally overlook.
What if she (them?) IS (ARE?) just lying about it, perhaps not realizing the gravity or, more likely, assuming that by all appearances it will "go away from the standing and apparent legitimacy, never to be questioned again" while perhaps some lackey makes off with the dough. lol, i mean, i have certainly seen plenty more foolish actions over a lot less dollah dollah bills, ya'll.

 

[tonyk2000]

I wanted to point out something interesting in the WHOIS history that I don't think has been publicly mentioned... The domain moved to ename for 10 days in October 2017.

Assuming that the above statement is correct ( I did not check whois history on domaintools or anywhere else), why Rebecca - still posting extra details about herself etc. - did not comment (confirming, denying or anything) on such an important recent domain status change?

 

[jberryhill]

I'd like to make it clear, since I haven't said this in a while on Namepros, that I generally don't comment on cases in which I have been engaged. If I do, I will state that. I also generally don't accept engagement on cases on which I have made public comments. I have not been engaged by either side of this dispute, nor will I accept an engagement from either side. For the purpose of full disclosure, I did some work for Andy Booth about ten years ago which, of course, has nothing to do with this matter.

Both parties, incidentally, are providing a good opportunity to discuss how NOT to behave when you think you might have a legal claim against someone.

Booth has publicly called Burns a liar. Booth has also made a previous public statement to the effect that the domain name was stolen. So, he has thus far compromised his own claim and has incurred potential liability for defaming Burns.

Burns has publicly called Booth a thief, and has gone full-metal ripoffreport about it. She has also actually accused Namepros.com of stealing her domain name, and thus has damaged the reputation of everyone here. That would include me. So, gee, thanks from all of us.

While I certainly understand it is emotionally satisfying, I can pretty much guarantee that in the overwhelming majority of disputes you think you might end up litigating, you are not going to help yourself by mouthing off about it in public.

A corollary to this principle is a rule I've posted before - If you see your lawyer on TeeVee talking about your case, fire that lawyer. With the exception of litigation that is primarily a publicity stunt, you don't "win" anything in internet forums or other forms of media.

There are few things that annoy me or other lawyers more than having to walk back things our clients said in public or to others about their dispute.

I'd bet on Burns winning the case over the domain name if push came to shove and was fully litigated. What seems to be most probable here is that Burns did not sell the domain name to Booth. It's possible that appropriate evidence might show otherwise, but I don't believe Burns would be engaging in her various rantings and ravings just as an act to re-neg on a sale.

I do see a way forward for Booth, though. Booth earns a substantial income in the domain name business, and Burns has now indelibly etched into the non-forgetting internet an accusation that he is a crook.

That goes well past Booth's loss of $26,000 to whomever ripped him off. The real upside in this thing for Booth is that even if Burns gets the domain name back, he can take her to the cleaners on the damage she has recklessly and wrongly caused to his reputation.

 

[wwwweb]

I'd like to make it clear, since I haven't said this in a while on Namepros, that I generally don't comment on cases in which I have been engaged. If I do, I will state that. I also generally don't accept engagement on cases on which I have made public comments. I have not been engaged by either side of this dispute, nor will I accept an engagement from either side. For the purpose of full disclosure, I did some work for Andy Booth about ten years ago which, of course, has nothing to do with this matter.

Both parties, incidentally, are providing a good opportunity to discuss how NOT to behave when you think you might have a legal claim against someone.

Booth has publicly called Burns a liar. Booth has also made a previous public statement to the effect that the domain name was stolen. So, he has thus far compromised his own claim and has incurred potential liability for defaming Burns.

Burns has publicly called Booth a thief, and has gone full-metal ripoffreport about it. She has also actually accused Namepros.com of stealing her domain name, and thus has damaged the reputation of everyone here. That would include me. So, gee, thanks from all of us.

While I certainly understand it is emotionally satisfying, I can pretty much guarantee that in the overwhelming majority of disputes you think you might end up litigating, you are not going to help yourself by mouthing off about it in public.

A corollary to this principle is a rule I've posted before - If you see your lawyer on TeeVee talking about your case, fire that lawyer. With the exception of litigation that is primarily a publicity stunt, you don't "win" anything in internet forums or other forms of media.

There are few things that annoy me or other lawyers more than having to walk back things our clients said in public or to others about their dispute.

I'd bet on Burns winning the case over the domain name if push came to shove and was fully litigated. What seems to be most probable here is that Burns did not sell the domain name to Booth. It's possible that appropriate evidence might show otherwise, but I don't believe Burns would be engaging in her various rantings and ravings just as an act to re-neg on a sale.

I do see a way forward for Booth, though. Booth earns a substantial income in the domain name business, and Burns has now indelibly etched into the non-forgetting internet an accusation that he is a crook.

That goes well past Booth's loss of $26,000 to whomever ripped him off. The real upside in this thing for Booth is that even if Burns gets the domain name back, he can take her to the cleaners on the damage she has recklessly and wrongly caused to his reputation.

This kind of reminds me of art work stolen by the nazis and then eventually gets sold
down the line to legitimate users, and one day someone pieces it together, even though the current owner had no bad intent, majority of the time it gets returned to the original owners it was stolen from.

Given the contact done thru escrow is with an illegitimate party, this is really still a case of a stolen domain, and even though it is innocent hands, it is still stolen property, that has been attempted to be washed thru a phony transaction.

Hopefully J B can find the perfect end user and get a big 6 figure sale, and mediate this, otherwise it’s best he just give it back, and hopefully this person will give him exclusive brokerage on it. He, and she is just going to waste their money on legal fees, as he is overseas, she is in Florida, escrow, network solutions, just one big mess.

 

[jberryhill]

What if she (them?) IS (ARE?) just lying about it

It's possible. It's always possible. Hey, it's also possible that Booth stole the domain name. It's possible that I'm really Steve Lieberman pretending to be John Berryhill. But I believe it is most likely that she is telling the truth about not having sold it, and Booth is telling the truth about not having stolen it. But, yeah, if you prefer the types of conspiracies popular in some corners of the internet, either one of them could be engaged in an elaborate scheme. For now, I tend to believe that things are what they appear to be.

Part of my assessment is that she strikes me as too dumb to have come up with that as a strategy. She has posted elsewhere, and on a site notorious for not taking down anything, that Namepros.com stole her domain name. Aside from which, her behavior on the internet doesn't really move the needle in terms of any practical effect on getting the domain name. Assuming she ever does hire a lawyer, then the first advice she's going to get is to quit posting things that are going to cause her problems. I mean, seriously, she tweeted this:

ComQuest Designs‏ @CQD_ComQuest 17h17 hours ago


http://CQD.com is known STOLEN property. Heads will roll! Spearheading a Senate Bill to protect victims like me world wide! PROVE I sold my domain! I want it back NOW!​

Because, yeah, the US Congress can't get a solid majority to name a local post office, but they'll get right on the job to get her domain name back. "World wide!" no less. Not the sharpest marble in the deck, so to speak.

She can rant and rave all she wants, but it isn't going to persuade Network Solutions to transfer the name to her.

And, on that last point, on being notified that there was a dispute brewing, the Network Solutions investigation she's upset about was, as these things always are, primarily for the purpose of making sure that Network Solutions didn't do anything exposing themselves to liability. I would guess they made sure that everything was technically compliant.

Oh, and on the point about Steve LIeberman pretending to be me. That's only partly true. Every now and then Steve hi-jacks my Namepros account for laughs and posts under my name. You can tell which ones are his, though. Anything posted from this account which is wrong - those are the ones that Steve Lieberman writes.

 

[tech4]

If it is stolen it needs to be return. But James need to contact escrow and ask them for the picture id thing, and chase after the thief, last effort.

But then, who can prove that it is stolen???? From he said, she said, Rebecca is not saying anything about the thief, is she knows he/she, and she what about NS about the domain being transfer back and forth with Ename? This looks very suspicious to me, like the case of the previous where, a Chinese guy bought the cheap domain from someone who claimed to own PDD and then transferred out and NS took it back.

Here we have it transferred out, and then back to NS, and then James bought it, and then it is reported stolen.

If all parties involved be honest and give out as much information as possible the world will be safer! But...if not, from reading what he said she said, definitely something is wrong. I can't figure it out.

 

[jberryhill]

Hopefully J B can find the perfect end user and get a big 6 figure sale, and mediate this

A potential win-win would be worth their time to explore, but seems unlikely at this "Internet Forum Thunderdome" stage of alternative dispute resolution.

Once they get their jiggies out, they might both become more reasonable.

 

[tech4]

I don't think this is a potential win-win, because Rebecca is not confirming nor denying anything, she does not explain why it went from NS to Ename and back to NS.

In order to be a win-win both parties must be honest and upfront. Rebecca is not providing information at all. There is also no reason to believe that she is the real "Rebecca" due to not saying or confirming anything.

So far as this goes, from a bystander point, I don't even know if this domain is actually stolen, because Rebecca is not proving it on NP, and I don't even know if this Rebecca is a real person or a fake.

In conclusion, there will not be a win-win, because there is no information that are useful, helpful, and sincere exchange being made. Again if Rebecca proves to James by proving all information that the domain is stolen, maybe James will do something. Maybe there won't be a suit, but from the looks, Rebecca is not saying anything, so it would be wrong to convince James to do anything.

First effort? I don't see it being made. If it is made, and James knows it is stolen, he'll do something I think.

 

[jberryhill]

In order to be a win-win both parties must be honest and upfront. Rebecca is not providing information at all. There is also no reason to believe that she is the real "Rebecca" due to not saying or confirming anything.

Well, golly, when we get the ability to compel production of evidence in idle online discussions, we'll have something there. Neither one of them owes us in the peanut gallery anything.

And, yep, she might not be the "real Rebecca" either. But if she's not actually Burns, then what is the play here for the person pretending to be her? To get the name transferred to the "real Rebecca"? Why?

In other words, if the person presenting as Rebecca Burns in this thread is actually the proposed thief, then what does the thief gain? They already have the money. On the other hand, it would make this a thread for the ages.

The excursion to Ename and back is kind of interesting, but doesn't strike me as all that relevant. You'll notice there seems to have been an issue with the expiration date. Early in 2017, Netsol reports the registrar expiration date as 12 August 2017:

Updated Date: 2016-08-16T20:27:57Z
Creation Date: 1996-08-13T04:00:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-08-12T04:00:00Z

Then, if you look at the record for 14 August 2017:

Updated Date: 2017-03-05T14:56:54Z
Creation Date: 1996-08-13T04:00:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-08-14T04:00:00Z

...which is kind of weird. From there it goes into what looks like the normal Netsol privacy registration before being shipped out to Namejet, goes to Ename, and then pops back over to Netsol with WHOIS restored to the previous data.

I can take a couple of guesses at what happened there, which wouldn't have anything to do with the shootout at the Burns/Booth corral. It may have been some prior activity by whomever had compromised her email (in that scenario). I agree it is a curious wrinkle.

But when someone wises up and stops running their mouth on internet forums about a dispute in which they are engaged, I tend not to read too much into that.

 

[wwwweb]

Ename is notorious for tracing the origin of the past owner. I sold a few 4L .coms to someone who transferred them to ename, even when I sent the purchase I invoices for the domains, they were still giving the new buyer a hard time about clearing them. I had to basically show them renewal invoices etc... I would imagine they would be much more picky for 3L’s.

So maybe it came back to network solutions because ename didn’t clear it.

This is a 54 year old women from Florida who is not a domainer, much like many network solution owners who have one great domain, they don’t sit there and coddle them daily, the email must have been compromised, and the perp was probably deleting network solution notifications.

 

[Aladesignals]

Hi All, Just to let you know what happened. I emailed the Whois email (the same one that is listed now) and agreed a deal. I did my due diligence and also emailed the email on the website ([email protected]) and they both confirmed all my questions. I set up the Escrow transaction and Escrow confirmed the seller was KYC verified. So after speaking to both emails and Escrow confirming the seller was verified I believed the domain to be safe.

I made payment for $26k and had the domain in my Network Solutions account for around 4 weeks. One day I logged in to find the domain had just vanished. I called Netsol / Web.com and they said ''Oh we have returned the domain to the seller'' Obviously I was not happy. They did not email me, call me or mention in any way anything about it. They simply just took the domain with NO questions and handed it back to the seller.

I am currently proceeding with legal action.

You will surely get your domain back

 

[spoiltrider]

@BoothDomains you said you called her, did you actually called and talk to her?
How do you know what she told NS?

If she knew that her domain was stolen, by an employee, it should be easy to report to the police, stolen property and the money that was stolen. Are you sure about this @BoothDomains?

Rebecca if you know that your domain is stolen, isn't it up to you to report to the authority? And you know who stole it? It should be pretty easy. Rebecca how do you know about the cash being checked? And there is an ID associated with it? If so it should be traceable. Are you following up on that? Because if there is an ID (driver's license) then it should be pretty easy (unless that ID is fake).

It looks like Escrow has a lot of information to solve the case. However as mentioned you probably need to sue them for the full amount you plan to sell $150,000 USD and grievances and lawyer fees to get them to talk. In this case working with Escrow to buy and sell domains, is a bad idea since they do not offer a who sells to who contract, instead an escrow contract.

i have 0 - ZERO employees. not since 1998. it was not me. i work alone. NO EMPLOYEES!

 

[spoiltrider]

i have 0 - ZERO employees. not since 1998. it was not me. i work alone. NO EMPLOYEES!

Rebecca how do you know about the cash being checked?
ESCROW PLATFORM called me when they realized the FU. they are the procuring cause of this mess.

 

[spoiltrider]

You will surely get your domain back

IT WAS NOT ME. IT WAS FRAUD AND MY DOMAIN IS STOLEN. please give it back. why do you want it so badly? it's mine and has been for 22 years!

 

[spoiltrider]

i have 0 - ZERO employees. not since 1998. it was not me. i work alone. NO EMPLOYEES!

and yes, i have begun the reporting progress.

 

[Aladesignals]

IT WAS NOT ME. IT WAS FRAUD AND MY DOMAIN IS STOLEN. please give it back. why do you want it so badly? it's mine and has been for 22 years!

Anybody who stole your domain from you would surely face karma. When will people understand stealing is bad. Something good will come your way. Don't be depressed.

 

[Addison]

IT WAS NOT ME. IT WAS FRAUD AND MY DOMAIN IS STOLEN. please give it back. why do you want it so badly? it's mine and has been for 22 years!

@jberryhill posted the most superb information you are going to find.

Read it prudently:

• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6610945/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6611007/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6611031/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6611055/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6611058/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6611110/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6611130/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6611135/
• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6611164/

I'd heed his thoughts if I were you. If your domain was stolen, then we're rooting for you.

 

[Addison]

Again, this is pretty easy to clear up. If you claim "I bought this widget from Bob" and Bob disagrees with you, then simply produce the sale agreement with Bob and the proof that you paid Bob.

If you can't do those two things, then you are not going to be able to demonstrate you bought that widget from Bob.

4. Booth will lose.

First and foremost, Mr. Booth needs to return the domain name.

And, yep, she might not be the "real Rebecca" either. But if she's not actually Burns, then what is the play here for the person pretending to be her? To get the name transferred to the "real Rebecca"? Why?

And, semantically speaking, her writing here matches her Twitter account.

Notice that Burns says that Escrow.com won't communicate with her.

Escrow.com, of course, would not communicate with anyone who was not a party to the transaction. So, depending on the basis on which Burns claims that Escrow.com won't communicate with her, then that would be a pretty reliable indication that Burns wasn't the person to whom payment was sent.

Obviously, if Burns was the other party in the Escrow transaction, and Burns is claiming that she wasn't paid, then Escrow.com would certainly provide her with proof that she was paid.

Superbly brilliant point. (Emphasis is my own.)

 

[wwwweb]

First and foremost, Mr. Booth needs to return the domain name.


And, semantically speaking, her writing here matches her Twitter account.


Superbly brilliant point. (Emphasis is my own.)

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.

 

[tech4]

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.

@wwwweb I do agree that the domain needs to go back to the rightful owner. However there is 2 points I disagree with. Who is the rightful owner? Can you be 100% sure? That is hard in a case of he said she said.

I do not agree with:

1. You can't prove she is who is is, by her writing on the web. Rebecca needs to have a face to face webcam chat with James (even if you or I believe Rebecca, James needs to believe so because they will work it out as oppose to a lawsuit)
2. I do agree that if it is stolen James does need to return it, however, there needs to be some effort on the owner to reach out to James about who she is, and that it is stolen. It is up to them to discuss this out.

However, what if it is not stolen? You can't just put the blame on the buyer, unless he purposely knows that it is stolen. And it does not make further sense to tell James to give the domain back to be @Domain.com whatever it is. Can you be 100% sure that it is stolen? Basically the case of PDD, if it goes back to @pdd or @whatever, who the heck knows if that is even the owner ?

To work something out, I think Rebecca need to reach James out and convince him on those 2 issues. I am sure James will listen, because he is a real person and does business online and offline.

 

[xynames]

The doctrine of "bona fide purchaser for value" applies to purchase of goods from a dealer of goods of that kind, not a private party transaction.

Hmm, unfortunately to put it politely, you are wrong and after seeing that I was reluctant to read anything else you wrote. I apologize if I missed out on something else you wrote that was correct, which perhaps other things you wrote were correct, but that fundamental statement was so off that I was blinded by it. Indeed, I think you are the only person on the entire internet to claim this. Try googling the words "bona fide purchaser for value" and "private party transaction" and your incorrect post is the only one that will appear out of the billions of other possibilities on the 'net.

The doctrine protects one who purchases in good faith, for value, without notice [of the tainted nature of the goods]. Period. Those are the elements of the doctrine.

I think what confused you here is that the fact that the seller is a dealer in goods of that kind may be used to establish that the sale was bona fide, but this does not exclude private party transactions. Consider what it MEANS to be a dealer in goods of that kind - the assumption is that such a dealer would sell his goods at fair market, "for value."
Example of mention, in context:
https://books.google.com/books?id=7...rine of bona fide purchaser" "dealer"&f=false

In any case, ONLY these elements are required for this doctrine to apply:
1. purchased in good faith
2. for value [meaning, for fair value]
3. without notice

---again, that the seller might be a dealer in these types of goods merely goes to the second element, "value," and is not definitive, nor is it exclusionary.

Moving along, even if the doctrine of purchaser in good faith applies, does not mean the courts will enforce it. You make your prima facie case for bona fide purchaser, and then other circumstances are considered by the court in its determination of whether to enforce it.

Anyway, yeah, we lawyers love to argue with each other. Don't take it personally, please.

 

[Embrand]

For the purpose of full disclosure, I did some work for Andy Booth about ten years ago which, of course, has nothing to do with this matter.

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

 

[Thanksjo]

I didn't pick Netsol. The name was already there. I just did a push to my account and was about to transfer to my GoDaddy account, and yes I lost all the money.

Sorry about the issue. These things happen because of the imperfect world we leave in .
I don't think you lost $26k . Keep your focus on having your domain returned to you. You had it for 4 weeks and you didn't push so there is no reason why it still shouldn't be in your account.
This is insane. 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. This is the height of SCAM.
Please keep us posted with development on your legal action.