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.

 

[spoiltrider]

AFAIK, it was alleged to have been stolen AFTER he'd purchased the domain. Not before. Prove otherwise with hard evidence and not conjectures, theories and assumptions.

Your conjectured connection between Jack/Jake and @BoothDomains as well as assumption that someone with one of those two names is the buyer is at best a guess and at worse an incorrect belief. Until you can provide evidence proving this theory unequivocally, it does not hold any weight where it really matters, in a court of law and not the court of public (read namepros) opinion.

Personally, I don't like @BoothDomains especially due to their involvement in the shill bidding scandal at NJ (and a very very weak argument on that thread) and think their ethics are at a standard much below what they should be. And further still, I don't think offering to sell the domain to the previous registrant is a nice gesture (far from magnanimous as some have indicated it). I think their hands are not fully clean.

But, in this case, I don't think they should merely give the domain back without all facts available and judged by a court of law. For all I know, the person claiming to be the previous registrant either isn't or is misrepresenting facts. I don't know either and nor am I (or anyone on this thread) a judge in a court of law to pass judgement. Form opinions all you (you in the 3rd party) want but that changes nothing for either of the alleged victims. And consequently, as much as many folks here want him to return the domain, answer their insinuations/allgations/accusations/questions etc., it is either's choice to do so. And as it is "alleged" that the new buyer has retained legal counsel, pretty sure they'll listen to the counsel more than anyone else here despite calls and warnings to share evidence here.

He owes nothing to anyone here.

i am owed my 22 year old domain back. he didn't buy it from me. it is stolen. everyone knows it. and the naysayers....well there's always a batch in the crowd no matter what the discussion is.

 

[offthehandle]

i am owed my 22 year old domain back. he didn't buy it from me. it is stolen. everyone knows it. and the naysayers....well there's always a batch in the crowd no matter what the discussion is.

I hope your FBI or Police contacts have been in touch with you and opened the investigation. You might start sending news releases out to the above links I posted, this needs some tech industry or other wide media visibility.

 

[spoiltrider]

Plenty...
It's very hard to recover a name once it's been stolen. Unless it's a well-known domain and the case is publicized a lot. But if you are a Mr/Mrs Nobody you're on your own and nobody is going to be in a hurry to rectify the wrong.

The thief is usually going to flip the name fast, so by the time the victim realizes what happened the name may already be in the hands of somebody who bought it in good faith.

Sex.com was stolen many years ago and it was an ordeal to get it back - a whole book was written about the story.
Another case that veterans (and @TheLegendaryJP in particular) will remember:
Five Years in State Prison Awaits Convicted Domain Thief Daniel Goncalves - Who Wants to Be Next?
Note that one of the victims was a former US Justice Department prosecutor and yet he struggled a bit because this kind of crime is fairly unusual for the courts.

I don't have stats but my impression is that stolen domains being returned are more the exception than the norm. Earlier I quoted two recent WIPO rulings filed in order to recover stolen domains, both were denied.

Legal action is costly. Even if the domain is valuable you have to pick your battles carefully.

To put it simply, if the thief cannot be identified and prosecuted, and the money can no longer be recovered, then each of the remaining parties will likely fight to defend their own interests. It is an ugly situation where everyone is a loser.

the way i see it...
i had it for sale advertised for 150k for just over 2 years.
booth paid 25k to a thief.
if you knew you were going to get sued one way to another, who would you award it back to?
not to mention the morally and ethically right thing to do...

 

[spoiltrider]

I am almost thinking James should demand his money back from escrow and give escrow back the domain.

Then escrow could return the domain to Rebecca, and begin chasing down the criminal that peddled it through them.

Escrow would have all the authorities behind them unlike James and Rebecca.

that's what i'm saying!!!
their system is seriously flawed!

 

[Grilled]

the naysayers....well there's always a batch in the crowd no matter what the discussion is.

I don't think @anantj is necessarily a naysayer. He's thorough, and goes off the facts available.

 

[wwwweb]

the way i see it...
i had it for sale advertised for 150k for just over 2 years.
booth paid 25k to a thief.
if you knew you were going to get sued one way to another, who would you award it back to?
not to mention the morally and ethically right thing to do...

why don't you just try to file a udrp? and send all your receipts, and evidence, and at least you can lock up the domain, and put it on public record out there. It will publish your case. The lawyers will come running.

 

[spoiltrider]

I don't think @anantj is necessarily a naysayer. He's thorough, and goes off the facts available.

i didn't mean to sound like it was directed at @anantj ... there are others with their views that i was just reading.

 

[spoiltrider]

why don't you just try to file a udrp? and send all your receipts, and evidence, and at least you can lock up the domain, and put it on public record out there. It will publish your case. The lawyers will come running.

; ) i have.

 

[wwwweb]

; ) i have.

I think that is your most cost effective first step, he will go for a 3 member panel, and it all comes down to the judges, and the case Z M makes, it will be hard to defend a stolen domain in an honest way, I think Z M will find a lot of personal conflict in defending this as he is a fighter for domain owner rights.

 

[tonyk2000]

UDRP? This will not work. The Respondents attorney will respond, request 3-members panel, carefully suggesting and rating the panelists (it is an art, and the Respondents attorney will likely be able to "beat" others in this selection/rating process). In the best case, UDRP panel will decide to dismiss the case as they are not supposed to deal with stolen domains, most notably, they are not supposed to request evidence from netsol/escrow/banks/etc. In the worst case, UDRP panel will award the domain name to mr. Booth as he will be able to demonstrate that:

- he has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and registered the domain in good faith (escrow.com screenshot alone will be sufficient for the Panel). Also, in panels views, legitimate rights for short or dictionary terms can be established by simply registering it.

- he is using the domain name in good faith (offering the domain for sale is OK)

- the domain name is not (confusingly) similar to any trademark or service mark owned by Rebecca. Assuming that Rebecca does not have a registered mark for CQD, she will have to show unregistered tm rights (which may happen), but the public worldwide does not exclusively associate "CQD" abbreviation with products and services offered by Rebecca. So there is no confusion.

Above elements are the only elements UDRP panel is supposed to investigate. Who-called-whom, whois is Jack(ie), was the domain stolen by seller - it is not part of a limited UDRP process, and should not be considered in any aspect.

So, by starting UDRP in this case (where the respondent will no doubts respond), Rebecca will have ~$2000 (initial fee + extra 3members panel fee) lost. An exact amount will depend on UDRP provider.

Long story short - current registrant and his attorney will start celebrating at the same day they receive a notification of a pending UDRP from UDRP provider.

An outcome might be different in case of a "silent" Respondent and 1-members panel if the Complainant is lucky. But it will not happen in cqd.com UDRP case.

 

[golan]

he didn't buy it from me.

So what? Why are you chasing JB? Exactly, he didn't buy it from you. Ask for your domain to be returned from NetSol.

it is stolen. everyone knows it.

Sorry, no. Until the court/police/FBI say so.

 

[anantj]

i am owed my 22 year old domain back. he didn't buy it from me. it is stolen. everyone knows it. and the naysayers....well there's always a batch in the crowd no matter what the discussion is.

I do not disagree that you should get your domains back (I do not know with 100% that you are really the original registrant but believe that to be true). What I do disagree is that the current registrant should simply hand it over without a full due process.

 

[Kate]

UDRP has been used a few times to recover stolen domains.
It can work if:

1. complainant is able to demonstrate TM rights of some sort
2. respondent does not respond (most of the time a respondent who does not respond loses by default but not always)

#1 is doable maybe, if strongly documented. But I predict that #2 will fail just like @tonyk2000 explained.
This route has failed many times too, I quoted two recent examples (they were botched cases to begin with but still).
UDRP arbitrates TM disputes, but not ownership disputes like those stemming from partnerships gone sour. Of course UDRP is more expedient than a legal fight but the core of the issue here is not about TM. I hope Rebecca is being properly advised and assisted with this. I am not very optimistic.

 

[wwwweb]

Some good advice given here, and all for free, but maybe time to start a go fund me page for yourself, and get some serious legal muscle behind your case.

Nobody is taking you seriously right now, when you spend money, you make everyone else spend money at which point they will take you seriously.

 

[tonecas]

@spoiltrider do not waste time and money with UDRP... it is a dead-end, as is everything related to ICANN.

Both these emails are being checked, and are opening new emails. But what alleged scammer wouldn't open an email with the subject offering $50k for each 3 letter domain

Show attachment 85061

Does anyone think he/she/they are watching this thread?

very well done!

 

[tonecas]

Has anyone made an exact chronology of calendar dates of what happened according the emails and paper trail? Or at least was reported to have happened here? When CQD.com was first stolen, when first sold, when sold the second time by the alleged hacker, the date it was removed by NS. The recovery date I recall seeing in the first few pages.

This is up to 1026 posts. Thanks.

it is being done...

 

[tonecas]

AFAIK, it was alleged to have been stolen AFTER he'd purchased the domain. Not before. Prove otherwise with hard evidence and not conjectures, theories and assumptions.

it depends on your point of view. when did Rebecca claim that the domain was stolen? it seems after @BoothDomains bought it. when it was known that shaddy things had been happening with the domain? since September/October 2017, and during which a domainer/broker bought the domain and then return it after suspecting of fraud. then this can also go against @BoothDomains due diligence. Why Rebecca (@spoiltrider ) did not act during these several months? She has a very good reason and she probably will use it with her lawyers...

Your conjectured connection between Jack/Jake and @BoothDomains as well as assumption that someone with one of those two names is the buyer is at best a guess and at worse an incorrect belief. Until you can provide evidence proving this theory unequivocally, it does not hold any weight where it really matters, in a court of law and not the court of public (read namepros) opinion.

They are not conjectures or innuendos. it has been proved that Jack (other times Jake) is connected with @BoothDomains , that he made the contacts with the alleged Rebecca when making the deal, and he has responded do emails involving James Booth and Escrow.com (@Jackson Elsegood ). Escrow has remained silent on this probably to see if they can get pass thru this without anyone noticing that they HAD a bug on their system and that there is a possibility that this bug may have been used to change information of one of the parties and so compromising their KYC/AML system OR, if the bug had been resolved already, then someone forged an Escrow document, which is also a serious matter.

Personally, I don't like @BoothDomains especially due to their involvement in the shill bidding scandal at NJ (and a very very weak argument on that thread) and think their ethics are at a standard much below what they should be. And further still, I don't think offering to sell the domain to the previous registrant is a nice gesture (far from magnanimous as some have indicated it). I think their hands are not fully clean.

and that is a *very good point* that people insist to forget or to hide under the carpet.

But, in this case, I don't think they should merely give the domain back without all facts available and judged by a court of law. For all I know, the person claiming to be the previous registrant either isn't or is misrepresenting facts. I don't know either and nor am I (or anyone on this thread) a judge in a court of law to pass judgement. Form opinions all you (you in the 3rd party) want but that changes nothing for either of the alleged victims. And consequently, as much as many folks here want him to return the domain, answer their insinuations/allgations/accusations/questions etc., it is either's choice to do so. And as it is "alleged" that the new buyer has retained legal counsel, pretty sure they'll listen to the counsel more than anyone else here despite calls and warnings to share evidence here.
He owes nothing to anyone here.

the big question is: why did Network Solutions returned the domain to @BoothDomains when there is clear evidence of suspicious activity with the domain name prior to the sale, and without reaching Rebecca first to listen to her side of the story? Network solutions does not deserve any credit on my book so they are guilty until proved otherwise. Without this James Booth would not have any case whatsoever. And would now already be licking his wounds and learned his lesson to make a due diligence first and accept that this is part of this business, special when you market yourself as a guy moving millions in domain sales in 2 years.

 

[anantj]

it depends on your point of view. when did Rebecca claim that the domain was stolen? it seems after @BoothDomains bought it.

And hence my comment -
AFAIK, it was alleged to have been stolen AFTER he'd purchased the domain. Not before. Prove otherwise with hard evidence and not conjectures, theories and assumptions.
I still don't see any evidence proving otherwise.

They are not conjectures or innuendos. it has been proved that Jack (other times Jake) is connected with @BoothDomains , that he made the contacts with the alleged Rebecca when making the deal, and he has responded do emails involving

Are you saying with certainty that both the Jack/Jakes are the same? Also, isn't it interesting that it is being claimed that there was a jack/jake who was in contact with Rebecca when his name itself isn't known with certainty. That, to me, is conjecture.
Please provide proof of your claim above.

the big question is: why did Network Solutions returned the domain to @BoothDomains when there is clear evidence of suspicious activity with the domain name prior to the sale, and without reaching Rebecca first to listen to her side of the story? Network solutions does not deserve any credit on my book so they are guilty until proved otherwise. Without this James Booth would not have any case whatsoever. And would now already be licking his wounds and learned his lesson to make a due diligence first and accept that this is part of this business, special when you market yourself as a guy moving millions in domain sales in 2 years.

I agree fully with this. Network Solution's behavior is a massive head scratcher. Why would they simply give away the domain to the current registrant is beyond my understanding...

 

[DNWon]

I was going to upload a cheeky "beating a dead horse" Google image here, but then I realized that Rebecca is a horse owner and equestrian that recently lost one of her gracious thoroughbreds and refrained from doing so, to avoid upsetting her day! My late mom would have been proud of me, for not opting to go for the cheap laugh at someone else's expense! Yes, that is the sound of me, patting myself on the back!

 

[tonecas]

And hence my comment -
AFAIK, it was alleged to have been stolen AFTER he'd purchased the domain. Not before. Prove otherwise with hard evidence and not conjectures, theories and assumptions.
I still don't see any evidence proving otherwise.

Rebecca will disclose why she has done so if she wishes to since @BoothDomains have been advised to stay shut...

Are you saying with certainty that both the Jack/Jakes are the same? Also, isn't it interesting that it is being claimed that there was a jack/jake who was in contact with Rebecca when his name itself isn't known with certainty. That, to me, is conjecture.
Please provide proof of your claim above.

Yes, Jack and Jake are the same. see previous posts, about 4 pages behind. It was Jack/Jake that was reaching Rebecca. We are way past that point...

@spoiltrider has now at least one straight line of attack. she has the evidences of the hack of her hosted account and emails; she has the evidence from WHOIS changes; she has faked documents; she only needs now to put the heat under Network Solutions to disclose why they let the domain go, from the owner for 20 years, without due diligence. It will be funny to watch they defend against IPs tracks, account information changes, transfer of domain to other registrars, and some more juicy stuff.