discuss [Resolved] Domainer Loses $26k On A Stolen Domain!

[DaveX]

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.

 

[DaveX]

I would probably say, "i will see you in court. I dont know you and i will sue you for everything you own. Tread very carefully."

I suggest everyone take a pledge that if they spend money they cant afford to lose to purchase a domain, and if someone comes along claiming it was not legitimate, that you would simply hand over the domain.

I would not make that pledge. Of course, if ordered by a court of law, with all appeals exhausted, i would comply.

 

[DaveX]

We even question udrp decisions. A fellow domainer recently lost a vaulable domain in udrp. Was it their fault?

Most domainers felt the decision was wrong. We didnt blame the domainer for lack of due diligence.

 

[Rich]

This thread, page 7:

Sorry, figure of speech. Unless your talking about the bona fide purchaser post?

Im not sure. But based on the sequence of events, I dont believe he was the thief.

I don't think he's the thief, I like to think he's not guilty by association, you never know with brokers.

 

[DaveX]

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...

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

 

[DaveX]

I guess we all have to eat!

 

[tonyk2000]

One of domains from the screenshot, rat.com, had issues before:

https://domainnamewire.com/2016/08/29/rats-lawsuit-stolen-rat-com-domain-name-gets-caught-trap/

For the purposes of this cqd thread, the following comment made by John Berryhill in the above domainnamewire discussion is of particular interest:

...claiming a domain name as “property” in any court in Virginia will typically get you dismissed. See, e.g. In re Alexandria Surveys Int’l, LLC, 13-CV-00891 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2013) following 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1786 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1999), rev’d sub nom., Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro Int’l, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1738 (Va. Sup. Ct. 2000)

(quote end)

 

[offthehandle]

This thread is evidence that could be admissible in court as far as statements made by either party (plaintiff and defendant), assuming the foundation is laid that the statements were in fact made by the parties.

And we all know that we can trust Namepros since in all the past investigations of auction scams, etc. does an excellent job of confirming facts.

 

[DaveX]

I was just reading an article on a chinese website. This matter has reached China!

http://www.chinaisgood.com/wn/309/xandvvmhv.html

I don't speak or read Chinese, so it translated a little funny.

 

[offthehandle]

Suing 7 different people is going to cost you high 5 - low 6 figures. Even thought I know the domain name is worth more than what I paid I am happy to resolve this by selling the name back for what I paid. The law suit will also take years to resolve.

This speaks for itself.

 

[offthehandle]

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

https://www.namepros.com/threads/bidding-on-your-own-names-at-namejet.1030874/page-48#post-6270822

https://www.namepros.com/threads/bidding-on-your-own-names-at-namejet.1030874/page-48#post-6270909

 

[offthehandle]

One of domains from the screenshot, rat.com, had issues before:

https://domainnamewire.com/2016/08/29/rats-lawsuit-stolen-rat-com-domain-name-gets-caught-trap/

For the purposes of this cqd thread, the following comment made by John Berryhill in the above domainnamewire discussion is of particular interest:

...claiming a domain name as “property” in any court in Virginia will typically get you dismissed. See, e.g. In re Alexandria Surveys Int’l, LLC, 13-CV-00891 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2013) following 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1786 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1999), rev’d sub nom., Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro Int’l, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1738 (Va. Sup. Ct. 2000)

(quote end)

In Rem. @xynames what does that “In Rem” definition or case type mean (in laymens) in reference to domain name terms? Thanks!

Interesting point. I read the DNW comments, but my brain hurts... lol. and fail to understand the legalize. These other articles indicate ongoing ambiguity as to definition or legal precedence as property. It probably is different in state versus federal versus international law. I do understand technically domains are a “right of use”, or like a lease or license that can be revoked.

So I imagine lawyers could argue it isn’t stolen property, isn’t an stolen asset, etc. Yet, the DHS on a federal level seizes them as “property”???

http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_a_domain_name_property/. 2005

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/01/are-internet-domain-names-property/ 2014

“The “domain names are not property” argument is a particularly interesting one. A ccTLD, like other top-level domains, is a very strange beast; it consists of a name, a line in the Root Zone database associating that name with a specific server which offers registration services for the TLD, and all the associated services. It’s not a thing – it’s a label we give to a series of interlocking relationships and contractual and other understandings that enable the global resolution and the proper direction of messages to and from particular named entities (XYZ.IR, ABC.SY, etc.). Nor is it located “in” the United States; it is located on the global network, in the thousands of interlocking databases that allow the domain name system to function.”

“It’s a very sensible argument, and I’ve made it myself many times. The problem, though, is that US law already – very unfortunately, in my view, but there you are – treats domain names as if they were “property”. The Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act permits aggrieved trademark owners to institute in rem actions against domain names whose owners are located abroad (and not subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts) – to seize the domain names and then to adjudicate the rights associated with them, on the fiction that the names are indeed property located in the judicial district where the particular domain name registry is located. On very much the same theory – that domain names are seizeable “property” – the Dept. of Homeland Security has issued several thousand seizure orders over the past few years against domain names allegedly involved in large-scale copyright infringement. “

 

[golan]

I would bet even Namepros might erase all of this

But not ROR. Ever. This SERP position on the 1st page of Google for "james booth domains" will be there forever, and it easily may cost Rebecca millions.

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.

Exactly.

Must have been his own initiative, as his lawyer (or any lawyer) simply could not recommend such a thing (selling stolen property back to a victim)

Well, what about a scenario when James' lawyers have all the papers on their desk, which papers show clearly this is not a stolen property? Just imagine that. And they don't feel any need to show those papers here on NP, keeping them for the (possible) court. Hence confident silence.

This could also explain that misterious "3 months investigation" by NetSol which also found Booth the legitimate buyer. Maybe they also saw all those papers. Well, they must had a solid reason to return the domain back to Booth back then, no?? Just think about it, of course NetSol reputation here is below basement level, but still they for sure are reading all this shitstorm which is happening right now around CQD and i bet they must have to re-investigate this issue again and probably they just confirm that their 3 months investigation was right.

Just saying...

 

[Kate]

As much as I don't like NS, a three month investigation (according to Booth) would yeild mucho info about ip addresses and pushes..why would they give the domain back if they didn't see something wrong?

You're right, they had their reasons and we simply don't have all the information.
At the same time, like JBH explained earlier, the duty of the registrar is to make sure that the transfer is technically compliant. They do not have to watch out for you and go the extra mile in case you have been hacked and somebody is proceeding to steal your assets.

I guess that means James Booth has no intention of working with Rebecca to find the alleged thief / hacker.

Rebecca cannot help with this really, and it's not her problem anyway. Her only concern at the moment is to prove she is the rightful owner and that she did not sell the domain.
Even if they worked together, the forensic evidence is in the hands of escrow.com, Netsol, Yahoo. I don't know exactly what it takes to obtain the data. Can you subpoena these companies without the assistance of a lawyer ?
For instance only escrow.com knows where the money has gone.

So it all depends on the data available, whether there is a trail to follow and money can be traced and recovered, and the thief can be identified and prosecuted. Otherwise someone will eat the loss, end of the story.
It just doesn't depend on the mere good will from Booth and Rebecca, but a number of third parties as well.

I also noticed...
Show attachment 84880

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

I hope this is an oversight, an old listing he forgot to remove. The name simply cannot be sold right now, even with full disclosure of its disputed status.

 

[karmaco]

I would probably say, "i will see you in court. I dont know you and i will sue you for everything you own. Tread very carefully."

I suggest everyone take a pledge that if they spend money they cant afford to lose to purchase a domain, and if someone comes along claiming it was not legitimate, that you would simply hand over the domain.

I would not make that pledge. Of course, if ordered by a court of law, with all appeals exhausted, i would comply.

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.

 

[tonecas]

I hope this is an oversight, an old listing he forgot to remove. The name simply cannot be sold right now, even with full disclosure of its disputed status.

i think in this case you are hoping too much. I mean, this is a no brainer. the domain should have been removed by now if he wanted. James clear feels like the domain is his and he has the right to sell the domain 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.

 

[DaveX]

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.

 

[DaveX]

@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