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.

 

[Silentptnr]

I can’t believe how much you have defended Booth in this thread. You are on a mission. I am going to assume he is a friend of yours.

Booth and controversy seem to go hand in hand. My sympathies are with the person who got her name stolen. Period.

Not at all. You'd have to read the entire thread. I don't have time to quote all my posts in this thread. I can tell you I have several likes from Rebecca.

I'm neutral.

Oh, and I've never met Booth. Or for that matter, only a few people in the entire forum.

 

[Silentptnr]

@karmaco

If anything, I want everyone to carefully understand the effects on this type of scenario on the industry.

I want people to take the security of their domains seriously. Even big businesses some times lose control of their domains because of lack of proper controls.

I don't want people to shy away from investing because even using a professional escrow and well known registrar, they could easily lose their money if anyone comes up claiming rights to the domain they purchased.

I don't want to see undue burdens of due diligence placed on domain investors.

I am not siding with Booth. But I am not siding with Rebecca either. I side with legal process when an agreement cannot be reached.

That's all.

 

[Kate]

... and I will take the next step saying that he would sell the domain if a buyer came a long and pass this problem to someone else.

And he would open himself to prosecution.
I am not a lawyer, but 'laundering' an asset that you know is stolen or likely to be stolen makes you complicit to the crime. I also think there is a proper legal term for misrepresentation of merchandise, in this case dumping the hot potato onto somebody else and evading justice.
Booth has a lawyer who already retrieved the domain from Netsol on his behalf. Obviously he's doing all he can to protect himself and I don't think he would try something as stupid as that.
The name cannot be sold without full disclosure, and nobody in their right mind would buy it at this point.

 

[xynames]

offthehandle asked about in rem. In constitutional law there are different ways that a court may exercise jurisdiction over another party or thing. In rem. In personam. You don’t really need a constitutional law lecture at this point to understand the basics of this issue here.

In rem is rarely applicable these days and more used in Admiralty law, although it could apply to jurisdiction a state exercises over property.

There are basically two types of lawyers. The best get to the heart of the matter in clear terms that avoid legalese. The others, mostly because they don’t really understand at an intuitive level the real issue, or in a desperate or calculated attempt to make a case, throw all sorts of arguments out there that end up being less than applicable.

 

[golan]

The name simply cannot be sold right now, even with full disclosure of its disputed status.

Why? Is the domain arrested somehow or something like that? You sound like "it cannot be sold technically".

But if we just assume JB and his lawyers have some papers on their hands that prove he's a legit buyer and didn't know the property is stolen, who can prevent him from selling the domain to say some Asian investor who doesn't care, providing full disclosure on the ungoing issue and the said docs.

Just saying

 

[Chris Hydrick]

But if we just assume JB and his lawyers have some papers on their hands that prove he's a legit buyer

What papers could he possibly have that would prove he is a legit / rightful owner?

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how a escrow.com transaction between allegedly Jack K / (possibly James) and the alleged thief / hacker using the rightful domain owners alleged compromised email would constitute as proof for James Booth being the legitimate / rightful owner.

However, if he had a signed contract, as mentioned by @EJS , then he might have something to lean on when / if this goes to court.

<<< @BoothDomains -- Was the above comment on DomainInvesting.com written by you? And if it was, do you stand by your statements?

So you emailed Mike Han? Or by you emailed, do you mean Jack / Jake emailed...?

You spoke to them? Who's them? Isn't there an email from Jack saying he spoke on the phone? So both you and Jack spoke to ...? >>>>

I doubt James will answer those questions here, but I imagine Rebecca's legal team will ask similar questions when / if James is deposed.

Should this go to court, my assumption is Rebecca and her legal team will wipe the floor with James and his legal team.

And should that be the case, I imagine this case will stand as a reminder as to why one shouldn't try to solicit money to a third party in exchange for an alleged stolen domain to be returned to the alleged rightful owner who allegedly did not authorize the sale of her domain.

Option 1: You pay me the amount I paid for the domain name through my lawyer and I return the domain name to you.

Option 2: If you cannot afford the domain name upfront, we can work out a payment plan for the full amount through my lawyer.

@BoothDomains -- Do you not see how the below line, can be perceived as intimidation to one's freedom of speech?

If any more posts are made publicly all of these options are off the table.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/do...-a-stolen-domain.1068888/page-26#post-6641658

I'm not sure if anyone remembers what happened last year when @Crysis bought a stolen domain. He returned it to the rightful owner once he was informed. Then, he petitioned the sales platform it was purchased on (@namesilo), and @namesilo refunded his purchase.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/arunas-zygis-stole-900-usd-from-me.1009388/page-8#post-6255072

@Jackson Elsegood -- Escrow.com claims to be insured, what does that mean? Some people who use your platform might be lead to believe their purchases are insured. Perhaps Escrow.com should look into changing the wording to stop people from misinterpreting it as their transactions are insured. OR look into implementing some sort of signature authorization for the domain buyer to be able to lean on. OR verify IP location.

 

[PAVAN]

Some people forget that @BoothDomains is also the victim here.
Its unfair to blame him.

Anybody can sell and buy a domain.
Do we know each one personally?
Do we know beforehand, whether the person who we are dealing with is a thief, a doctor, a terrorist ,a celebrity, a criminal ???
Will you feel guilty if you sell a domain to a person and then he runs "illegal" activities using that domain?

Due diligence can only be done in a limited amount here. Its not a real estate transaction.

Sorry but IMHO, No need for a namespro trial

 

[Kate]

Why? Is the domain arrested somehow or something like that? You sound like "it cannot be sold technically".

Ethically. And probably legally.
Technically it can be sold.
But even somebody with low ethics is not going to pay a significant sum for a domain name that could at some point be repossessed through different mechanisms.

I would not sell you a car that I know has defective brakes. Even disclosing the fact does not relieve me of moral or legal responsibility.

Since you mention it, a domain can effectively be 'arrested'. For example when a UDRP is initiated, the registrar must lock the name to prevent transfer out. A lock can also be applied at registry level.
A court can also order the registry (in Virginia) to reassign the domain name to another person without the registrar being involved (the in rem action mentioned above). A number of stolen domains have been recovered this way. Usually the thief doesn't appear in court to challenge the charges, so a ruling in absentia is easily achieved (lawyers are welcome to correct). Of course a case has to be properly documented and well presented.

 

[DNWon]

Sorry but IMHO, No need for a namespro trial

Sure there is, why not? It's called. "the court of public opinion"!

 

[PAVAN]

A court can also order the registry (in Virginia) to reassign the domain name to another person without the registrar being involved (the in rem action mentioned above)

Verisign? is it?

 

[PAVAN]

Sure there is, why not? It's called. "the court of public opinion"!

Is it helping them, or the situation?
Or is it troubling them?

 

[DNWon]

Is it helping them, or the situation?
Or is it troubling them?

Only the parties can answer that, but as inexperienced as Rebecca is in this realm of domain names and their transactions I have to think it's been somewhat helpful to her as she gains knowledge of this industry, identification theft, domain theft and what she needs to do going forward to get her domain back. As far as James goes, I'm sure he's wishing he never commented here! But almost every domain investor can learn a ton of valuable lessons just by reading this thread alone, so it's well worth the bytes it's written on!

 

[PAVAN]

@DNWon Good to know you have a positive perspective on this case .
I commented because some people were biased, forgetting there are 2 victims here.

 

[tonyk2000]

But almost every domain investor can learn a ton of valuable lessons just by reading this thread alone

Which is why I'd be sorry to see this thread deleted (such a possibility was mentioned yesterday) even if both parties so ask. Members here may "take sides" directly or indirectly - and it is normal - but we also have a lot of useful information posted by (in alphabetical order) @Brandon Abbey , @jberryhill , @xynames as professionals - so their valuable input is, by default, neutral.

 

[DNWon]

I commented because some people were biased, forgetting there are 2 victims here.

I truly believe there are 2 victims here:
Based on what I've seen, heard, read and deduced,
I feel bad for Rebecca because she had a very valuable asset stolen from her via complete ID theft.
I feel bad for James because I feel he was duped into acquiring that stolen asset from someone posing as Rebecca.
In my opinion, in a perfect world, if James believes he is in possession of a stolen domain, he should return the domain to Rebecca and relieve her of the expense of a drawn out legal battle. Because simply, "It's the right thing to do"! Many will disagree with me, because sadly, in today's world, there is low value in simply doing the right thing, anymore! James should seek his financial relief from Escrow.com as again, from what I can see, they sold this same stolen domain twice, even after it was returned the first time under suspicious circumstances, to someone James had contact with. They then paid someone other than the true owner, although they may believe they paid the correct person, I feel there was a complete breakdown in their internal processes regarding this payment and the verification of Rebecca's ID's and bank information.
Escrow.com should reimburse James and then go after the thief themselves, as they are the ones that paid someone other than Rebecca! It could be, that simple, but unfortunately I don't think it will be!

 

[equity78]

James stated that he..and his lawyers.. attempted to contact Rebecca to discuss a possible solution when she first surfaced. Unfortunately rather than taking advantage of an open line of communication, she labeled it harrassment. Certainly was her perogative, but I think that I might have at least kept the line open for exploring possible solutions. I think that opportunity may be gone.

Well let's be honest the only solution Rebecca wants his her name back and James can go on his way, James is looking for a solution that provides him something from Rebecca, I don't think Rebecca ever agreeing to that.

 

[equity78]

Which is why I'd be sorry to see this thread deleted (such a possibility was mentioned yesterday) even if both parties so ask. Members here may "take sides" directly or indirectly - and it is normal - but we also have a lot of useful information posted by (in alphabetical order) @Brandon Abbey , @jberryhill , @xynames as professionals - so their valuable input is, by default, neutral.

I doubt that @Eric Lyon or Namepros management will ever allow this thread deleted. This thread is bigger than Rebecca and James now.

 

[equity78]

like the shill bidding scheme on NameJet last year? Don't see anyone's reputation have been weakened and with consequences to their business...

Because to be fair those guys don't do a lot of business with Namepros members, so I would guess but do not know, just my opinion, that they don't care what people here think. If the majority of their customers, trading partners were here, than that might have been a different story.

Not everyone a part of the Domaining community is a part of the Namepros community.

 

[equity78]

Interesting. I noticed a couple of sales of 3L by bqdn.

wzm.com 27,000 USD 2018-03-18 BQDN
rqd.com 24,500 USD 2018-03-18 BQDN

I also noticed...
Show attachment 84880

I guess if a buyer comes along. They could buy it.

Wow, Rqd.com just one letter off. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Silentptnr]

Only the parties can answer that, but as inexperienced as Rebecca is in this realm of domain names and their transactions I have to think it's been somewhat helpful to her as she gains knowledge of this industry, identification theft, domain theft and what she needs to do going forward to get her domain back. As far as James goes, I'm sure he's wishing he never commented here! But almost every domain investor can learn a ton of valuable lessons just by reading this thread alone, so it's well worth the bytes it's written on!

Reading her bio, she is anything but inexperienced. She is no hacker, but she is actually far from novice. She is very comfortable with major software packages, graphics, computer networking, etc.

What is on her website describes a person with a depth of knowledge in the area of computer and internet technology.

 

[equity78]

What papers could he possibly have that would prove he is a legit / rightful owner?

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how a escrow.com transaction between allegedly Jack K / (possibly James) and the alleged thief / hacker using the rightful domain owners alleged compromised email would constitute as proof for James Booth being the legitimate / rightful owner.

However, if he had a signed contract, as mentioned by @EJS , then he might have something to lean on when / if this goes to court.

Show attachment 84910


<<< @BoothDomains -- Was the above comment on DomainInvesting.com written by you? And if it was, do you stand by your statements?

So you emailed Mike Han? Or by you emailed, do you mean Jack / Jake emailed...?

You spoke to them? Who's them? Isn't there an email from Jack saying he spoke on the phone? So both you and Jack spoke to ...? >>>>

I doubt James will answer those questions here, but I imagine Rebecca's legal team will ask similar questions when / if James is deposed.

Should this go to court, my assumption is Rebecca and her legal team will wipe the floor with James and his legal team.

And should that be the case, I imagine this case will stand as a reminder as to why one shouldn't try to solicit money to a third party in exchange for an alleged stolen domain to be returned to the alleged rightful owner who allegedly did not authorize the sale of her domain.



@BoothDomains -- Do you not see how the below line, can be perceived as intimidation to one's freedom of speech?


https://www.namepros.com/threads/do...-a-stolen-domain.1068888/page-26#post-6641658

I'm not sure if anyone remembers what happened last year when @Crysis bought a stolen domain. He returned it to the rightful owner once he was informed. Then, he petitioned the sales platform it was purchased on (@namesilo), and @namesilo refunded his purchase.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/arunas-zygis-stole-900-usd-from-me.1009388/page-8#post-6255072

@Jackson Elsegood -- Escrow.com claims to be insured, what does that mean? Some people who use your platform might be lead to believe their purchases are insured. Perhaps Escrow.com should look into changing the wording to stop people from misinterpreting it as their transactions are insured. OR look into implementing some sort of signature authorization for the domain buyer to be able to lean on. OR verify IP location.

I agree, since this case I have had people call me or text and ask why have Escrow.com if this can happen. I think most thought ok, if I somehow get screwed, Escrow.com is insured and bonded and they will make me right.

 

[equity78]

Ethically. And probably legally.
Technically it can be sold.
But even somebody with low ethics is not going to pay a significant sum for a domain name that could at some point be repossessed through different mechanisms.

I would not sell you a car that I know has defective brakes. Even disclosing the fact does not relieve me of moral or legal responsibility.

Since you mention it, a domain can effectively be 'arrested'. For example when a UDRP is initiated, the registrar must lock the name to prevent transfer out. A lock can also be applied at registry level.
A court can also order the registry (in Virginia) to reassign the domain name to another person without the registrar being involved (the in rem action mentioned above). A number of stolen domains have been recovered this way. Usually the thief doesn't appear in court to challenge the charges, so a ruling in absentia is easily achieved (lawyers are welcome to correct). Of course a case has to be properly documented and well presented.

To be fair Kate, CQD.com sold for it's wholesale value, you see what James just saw RQD.com for, almost exactly the same price.So I don't think there will be any wholesale buyers if legally owned. An end user would be crazy til this settled.

To deal in goods you know are stolen is a crime, I am sure especially due to the fact that Web.com did an investigation that James, again James, not anyone else, thinks he owns an asset that belongs to him.

 

[equity78]

Only the parties can answer that, but as inexperienced as Rebecca is in this realm of domain names and their transactions I have to think it's been somewhat helpful to her as she gains knowledge of this industry, identification theft, domain theft and what she needs to do going forward to get her domain back. As far as James goes, I'm sure he's wishing he never commented here! But almost every domain investor can learn a ton of valuable lessons just by reading this thread alone, so it's well worth the bytes it's written on!

Excellent point, in my opinion James should not have said one word here, unless it was to say I am giving Rebecca the name.

 

[Silentptnr]

I agree, since this case I have had people call me or text and ask why have Escrow.com if this can happen. I think most thought ok, if I somehow get screwed, Escrow.com is insured and bonded and they will make me right.

I know I did. I truly thought they verified the identities of the parties to the escrows.

I never expected they could verify the domains, but the parties, I thought they did that.

Never buy or sell online without using Escrow.com
With Escrow.com you can buy and sell anything safely without the risk of chargebacks. Truly secure payments.

The benefits of Domain and Website Escrow
Since the Buyer pays Escrow.com and not the Seller, (that means that escrow sold the domain to James) Escrow.com can withhold payment until we're satisfied the domain name has been transferred by the Seller. One of the ways Escrow.com does this is by checking the WHOIS database of the appropriate Registrar to make certain it properly reflects the new Buyer's name as the domain name Registrant. Once this has been verified, Escrow.com releases payment to the Seller.

Buyer benefits

• 
  
  
  • Peace of mind, security, and convenience
  • Assured domain name transfer prior to paying Seller
  • Ability to confirm domain ownership directly with the registrar before the Seller is paid
  • Ability to pay by wire transfer and in some cases PayPal, check, money order, or credit card (Visa, MasterCard, American Express) Restrictions Apply
  • Ability to send credit card information to a financial institution, not a stranger
  • Easy access to live customer support by phone or email

 

[Silentptnr]

From Escrow.com website:

If you are looking to buy or sell online, you can rest safe in the knowledge that Escrow.com is one of the most trusted and secure escrow services across the globe. Escrow.com treats your security as a number one priority and provide a watertight guarantee that your personal and financial details will never be compromised or put in a vulnerable situation.

Escrow.com is fully licensed and endorsed by an escrow organization and is subject to regular government audits which are essential as an independently licensed escrow company. These audits aim to ensure that all funds used to buy and sell goods through Escrow.com are protected and that all financial operations are conducted within the recommended guidelines of pre-determined statutes and regulations.

The California Department of Business Oversight has the most rigorous auditing process of all government agencies and along with the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions and the Idaho Department of Finance, conducts regular audits on Escrow.com to verify your safety when buying or selling with Escrow.com