Resolved

[Keith]

@Jackson Elsegood
Regarding transaction 4532982 for CBDcity.com for $11,500...

The buyer took possession via push at godaddy and immediately requested that escrow cancel the deal. I’ve provided loads of email verification to escrow to show my position. Meanwhile they are asking me to work with the buyer to get the domain back.

I’ll need to be paid or I will take legal action. My suggestion is that escrow do a little homework to verify the account push. I’ve done too much business with you guys for you to put this back on me. The buyer is a scam artist and I won’t play games!

 

[Keith]

I read that. But then OP said buyer clicked to accept domain. Why would buyer do both of those things. The facts don’t compute.

The buyer took possession of the domain and immediately tried to cancel at escrow. That is not good faith!

3 different agents at escrow asked me to work with the buyer to get the domain returned. That is not my job. I followed escrow instructions and pushed when prompted. The next step is to receive funds and nothing more.

The buyer also claimed that I hacked his account after pushing which is absurd. It wasn’t until this thread was created that escrow started to move quickly. I sent upwards of 10 emails to the buyer and support that showed the successful domain push.

Yes, the buyer accepted. It took numerous threats and lots of follow up communication from me/escrow to make that happen. Honest people don’t operate that way in business, or life for that matter!

Also, they took the scammers side by asking me to get the domain back. That’s not my job. It’s escrows job to do their homework and disburse funds at this stage of a deal.

 

[Jackson Elsegood]

@Keith Thanks for the tag, it looks like the transaction support team is already working on validating the transfer with the registrar using the docs you provided. I'll keep an eye on this as it gets sorted out.

Jackson Elsegood

 

[Keith]

I spoke to Jackson via phone and I’m certain we’ll get it resolved. Should know more tomorrow!

 

[Keith]

@Keith Thanks for the tag, it looks like the transaction support team is already working on validating the transfer with the registrar using the docs you provided. I'll keep an eye on this as it gets sorted out.

Jackson Elsegood

Thanks and I would appreciate any help. I’ve done my part and am not interested in anything but getting funds disbursed.

It’s not right for escrow to ask me to try to get the domain back at this stage.

 

[Keith]

I understand Keiths position, and may have done the same thing if I didn't have a direct contact that could solve the issue.

The problem with creating threads like this is that it harms our ability to use Escrow.com in the future.

I'm currently closing a mid 5 figure deal that was very tough to get done because of all the bad PR and reviews that Escrow.com have.

Escrow gets a bad name because of their own actions. You don’t ask a seller to retrieve a domain from a buyer after you instructed them to transfer.

At that stage the sellers responsibility is done. It’s on escrow to research the transaction and get the deal closed.

 

[Jv1999]

This is ridiculous. This is why ppl should use undeveloped... people say that Escrow.com charges a lower %, but now we know why! It's because their NORMAL service isn't even an escrow service!!

Th eyre supposed to take the money and the domain, then release money to seller and the domain to the buyer.

What is this weird half-escrow service where they take money and then have this huge area of risk where seller transfers the domain and buyer has the ultimate power to validate whether the transfer happened or not!??!?

You use an escrow service because you don't trust who youre doing business with. Why should that person dictate whether the transaction is successful or not!? I don't understand at all.

And the only people who are saying there was no attempted theft (even though there clearly was) are the same people who are blindly backing escrow,com usage and demonizing undeveloped,com in other threads,..

 

[TERADOMAIN]

Because most people are honest. I’ll use concierge from now on!

I would use Escrow Concierge for any transaction in Five Figure+. Undeveloped Escrow is good too. Yes I do understand we need to trust people. But we need to be very careful to avoid unfortunate situation you been through. I hope it sort out the things properly by Escrow.

We need to use following things when we do the transaction if names with Godaddy.

If using Escrow concierge service then we need to use option "Do Not change" registrant info.

If using Escrow only service then we need to select option "Use details from specified customer"

I would chose Escrow concierge even for anything $5K+ just to be on safe side.

@Keith You may already know most of details. I am just sharing for other friends who may avoid this situation in future.

Thanks

 

[Keith]

OP answer the Q. Did buyer click to accept or not?

The buyer clicked accept a day after, (and pay close attention), after the following:

1. Immediately trying to get a refund minutes after taking control of the domain.

2. After accusing me of hacking his godaddy account.

3. After I sent tons of emails with proof of transfer and threats.

4. After I made it clear that I’d take legal action and would not accept the domain back.

You simply do not take ownership of a domain and minutes later request a refund. That is an attempt at theft. The right thing to do is to immediately accept the domain to close the deal. Accepting a day later, after basically being forced, is alarming and unacceptable.

 

[Recons.Com]

Why are you guys complicating things?

here are the facts, as offered by OP and not disputed by escrow.com:

- when instructed by escrow.com, he pushed the name to buyer and marked the transaction accordingly

- seller accepted the name at registrar (names just don't move without it), but then went on to cancel transaction first denying the receipt of the name and then basically claiming that his account has been hacked

- buyer tries to work with escrow, provides all proof needed, but escrow tells him that they will not help and he has to sort it out with the buyer.

- seller opens the thread and rightfully titles it "escrow.com protecting a thief...".

- After the involvement of CEO of escrow.com, the issue gets resolved

- Seller gracefully requests NP to change the title or remove the thread, as the issue resolved. This doesn't mean that seller is wrong, or had judgement rush or anything. He is just not holding the grudge and appreciating the help, albeit late and forced.

Claiming by some members that "buyer accepted the deal and that means they were not stealing" is completely wrong. Buyer was forced to accept the deal, as their money was locked anyway and all the facts were against them.

 

[Rob Monster]

So far, what we have learned is that both Epik and escrow.com have TOS that allow the buyer or seller to cancel the transaction including after buyer has made payment. In the case of escrow.com including even after domain has been transferred to the buyer.

On this topic, the way Epik typically does escrow is as follows:

- Buyer funds their Epik account.

- Seller holds the domain they are selling in their Epik account.

- We then do a simultaneous close where Epik is buying the domain from the seller, and also selling the domain to the buyer. The identity of the buyer and seller are known only to Epik and the transaction is legally enforceable upon both buyer and seller as they are both direct clients of Epik in this transaction.

Until the transaction actually closes, everyone has sovereign control over their respective assets. And yes, there is no escrow fee so long as the domain is at Epik, and so long as the buyer is paying via bank transfer or crypto. With crypto, transactions can be closed in a few hours, 7 days a week.

I believe cases like this one are illustrative of why it is important to be the registrar in the transaction. There are several reasons:

- The ability to validate ownership.
- The ability to expedite change of control.
- The ability to waive the 60-day transfer lock.

Last but not least, once the transaction is done, the buyer of the domain is dealing with the entity that they paid, i.e. for customer service purposes, the buyer does not need to be introduced to a 4th party, a registrar.

 

[karmaco]

Why aren’t you using Undeveloped or the concierge service at Escrow? Sorry to hear about this Keith. Hopefully resolved soon. I avoid Escrow unless I have to.

 

[Shimmy]

I always use normal escrow for 5 figure sales. The whole point of it is to protect from this type of fraud. They are holding the money and doing the research. Should get resolved. They do need to fix the issue of bad seller support. They need to teach their employees to do their job instead of asking the seller to do it for them.

 

[alcy]

Why aren’t you using Undeveloped or the concierge service at Escrow? Sorry to hear about this Keith. Hopefully resolved soon. I avoid Escrow unless I have to.

...... or sedo escrow... or epik.. or a good few others.. of which escrow.com should be last choice on anyone's list... I mean how many people need to get scammed before people learn this.

gl

 

[Keith]

Verifying the delivery of a domain is part of every transaction, through the buyer's acceptance or with the receiving registrar.

That should be the protocol.

In this case your team asked me to work with the buyer to get the domain back. That isn’t an option on my end.

 

[Internet.Domains]

@Jackson Elsegood
The buyer is a scam artist and I won’t play games!

Escrow has history for working with and protecting scammers. Let's not forget the CQD scandal.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/resolved-domainer-loses-26k-on-a-stolen-domain.1068888/

 

[Keith]

Does this mean escrow hadn't received money from buyer before you made the transfer of the domain name to buyer?

Escrow already had funds and prompted me to transfer. The buyer just accepted the merchandise so it’s a done deal.

Luckily this outlet was here for me to vent. Otherwise I may have been forced to undo the domain transfer. This transaction opened my eyes though and concierge service will be used on all my deals now.

Thanks @Jackson Elsegood - things escalated in a hurry after I tagged you here!

@Eric Lyon is there a way to update the thread title to “resolved” and close the discussion? Thanks!

 

[Recons.Com]

The title here wasn’t warranted. This thread shouldn’t have even been created. We see these sorts of threads all the time.

There was apparently nothing wrong just took a bit for escrow.com to verify the transfer, which turns out they didn’t even need to verify because buyer clicked to accept the domain. In fact, OP mentions that buyer clicked to accept the domain. Did buyer ever claim that he did not receive the domain (after receiving it) or was he simply slow in clicking acceptance?

From the facts given here buyer was not a thief in the first place. Nor was escrow.com protecting a thief.

If there are facts to support this “thief” allegation let’s have them. I see none.

You did not play attention.

OP claims that the buyer received the name and then proceeded to cancel the transaction at escrow to get his money back. That is theft attempt.

 

[Keith]

Why aren’t you using Undeveloped or the concierge service at Escrow? Sorry to hear about this Keith. Hopefully resolved soon. I avoid Escrow unless I have to.

Because most people are honest. I’ll use concierge from now on!

 

[Shimmy]

Only 1 person doesn't think it is attempted theft, everyone else does.. Escrow needs the bad press or they will never fix their issues @Jackson Elsegood are you going to ask your employees to stop asking sellers to do their jobs?

 

[EbookLover]

This thread and including a top person from the escrow organization is exactly why the buyer clicked accept.

In other words, buyer did not yet click accept via Escrow UI before OP started this thread.
Buyer merely "accepted the merchandise" then proceeded to cancel the escrow deal.

Crystal clear from the start.

Theft.

Thread and title warranted because the fraud attempt was made clear to Escrow.com (assuming all that OP said was true about providing proof of merchandise acceptance by buyer) yet escrow put the burden on the seller to get domain name back, which is usually an impossible task, let alone an absurd request.

Although I do admit, given the industry of the domain and the price, concierge service was warranted and the best avenue.

This does not excuse Escrow.com's handling of the matter, though. Their lack of judgement and lack of action is what caused such a thread with such a title in the first place.

 

[Keith]

Exactly. Buyer would have been within his rights to cancel escrow. Only wwwweb and I seem to comprehend this. Buyer would have had to return the domain is all.

At no point during any of this was escrow going to refund money to the buyer while buyer was holding the domain. Indeed at no point in any of this was escrow going to return money to buyer while seller was even merely claiming that he had already transferred domain. Escrow.com was not acting like a “thief promoter” that is absurdly wrong to characterize it like that.

When escrow.com asked seller to contact buyer to ask for return of the domain this was pursuant to buyer’s request to cancel escrow which - as I’ve been trying to say from the beginning - is not a theft attempt it is merely a fact of the way escrow functions - buyer always has an inspection period and right to cancel.

The liquidated damages (what you gotta cough up if you fail to perform) for cancelling are basically “escrow fees” - buyer remains on the hook for these if he cancels.

As a seller I would have been upset in this situation described here for sure too. But here in this instance doesn’t mean that buyer was trying to get the domain for free. At worst buyer was trying to get out of the deal. Plus as noted he would’ve still had to pay escrow costs.

Calling buyer a thief. Calling escrow.com a thief promoter - unwarranted.

Step back and think a little about the Contract that you enter into with buyer seller and escrow before pointing fingers. It’s all there in black and white including right to cancel.

When buyer (1) invoked right to cancel and (2) seller claimed that domain was already with buyer, it was a reasonable request from escrow to facilitate return of the domain to buyer.

Just about everything you just posted is wrong. For one, the inspection period is really in place for tangible goods. With domains there is nothing to inspect. You either take possession or you don’t.

In this case the buyer took possession and knew ahead of time exactly what they were agreeing to take...

 

[xynames]

Also, speaking to what happened here...IF the buyer were in fact dishonest (and clever), a seller who knew the escrow.com TOS and remained calm would have a leg up over a seller who got hysterical and stated categorically that he would not accept the return of the domain.

Let's say this happened:

1. Buyer makes payment.
2. Seller transfers (or pushes, makes no difference really) domain to Buyer.
3. Buyer refuses to acknowledge acceptance of the domain and states that he wants to cancel the escrow.

Buyer at this point is obligated by the TOS to return the domain to seller, in order to get his payment refunded. And according to the TOS he must do so within ten business days.

The hysterical Seller raises a fuss, says that he will not take this sh*t, and states on the record to escrow that he will not accept the domain back, that he won't be pushed around.

So...now that it's on the record that return of domain is impossible, that seller will not cooperate with return of domain, escrow has no choice but to freeze funds pending resolution of the stand off. Things could get really bad for the seller if he keeps refusing to accept the domain back; the buyer could sue to get his deposit back, and the domain could end up in a sort of escrow / trust, pending resolution, for who knows how long. Seller, by violating TOS, could end up liable for buyer's attorney fees, leaving him holding the bag with a judgment against him.

In meantime, a clever but dishonest Buyer has use of the domain, and his money is held up, but he knows he'll get the money back eventually and in the meantime has free use of the domain. He might even end up with a judgment against the stubborn seller that will get him his money back, and the domain (the dollar amount of the judgment might end up payable by a writ of execution against the domain).

A smarter, calmer seller whose goal was to get paid for the domain, would never state something as obstructive and violative of the TOS as that he will never accept the domain back. He would just pretend to go along with the process, and then after the ten days have passed, escrow would have to release funds to him, per its TOS. I'm not condoning this sort of seller behavior, but I am saying that calm minds that follow the law or at least appear to follow the law usually prevail.

When the law (the TOS) are on the buyer's side (allowing buyer to cancel), then the seller should be smarter about giving escrow an excuse to freeze funds, or for buyer to sue him for violating their contract.

Cooler heads usually prevail.

 

[Domains - Wanted]

Okay, let's summarize...

If you want to read the TOS,
https://www.escrow.com/escrow-101/general-escrow-instructions...
...During the Buyer Inspection Period, Buyer may reject for any reason by selecting the "Reject" button on the Escrow.com site and following all other instructions to properly reject the merchandise...

and

...Buyer agrees to promptly ship goods to Seller within ten (10) calendar days...

and

...Buyer is aware that regardless of the reason for rejection, Escrowed Property must be returned to the Seller in order for funds to be returned to the Buyer...

and

...In Transactions where the Escrowed Property is a domain name, if a Buyer rejects a domain name (...) within the Inspection Period, return of the domain name from Buyer to Seller must be initiated within ten (10) days of Buyer's rejection...

and

Failure of Buyer to reject or initiate return of the domain name within the specified time periods will cause the Escrow Holder to automatically pay the Seller the purchase price...

I think the above excerpts summarize things well. I was not aware of all this. Many thanks to @Keith and @xynames both for this valuable thread

@xynames: all the more reason to keep the thread!

@Keith: knowing the above now, I think you will agree that you had overreacted. This said, nothing in Escrow.com's TOS says that it is your (the Seller's) responsibility to initiate communication with the Buyer and push him/her to return the domain, as instructed by Escrow.com's incompetent support staff (according to your OP). On the contrary, Escrow.com's TOS clearly stipulates that is the Buyer's responsibility. It's in the Seller's best interest to shut up, sit tight and wait 10 days after receiving notification from Escrow.com. Then it's a done deal and Escrow.com is duty bound to release the money to the Seller.

@Rob Monster: Escrow.com's TOS and this case study pretty much explains @Jackson Elsegood's panic and actions undertaken to discredit and disrupt Epik's business in this area. Your not charging a fee for your concierge level service, disrupting Escrow.com's decades long near-monopoly must drive Jackson to tears, or worse... I'd hire some bodyguards if I were you, Rob

@Jackson Elsegood: why you insist on being the only dinosaur on the block is beyond me! Why not use your superior position and fight Epik and others tooth and nail, but using a carrot, that's to say make your concierge service standard? As things stand, you're looking more and more like the brainless school bully, instead of the escrow service in a class of it's own that Escrow.com used to be

 

[Internet.Domains]

Also, speaking to what happened here...IF the buyer were in fact dishonest (and clever), a seller who knew the escrow.com TOS and remained calm would have a leg up over a seller who got hysterical and stated categorically that he would not accept the return of the domain.

Let's say this happened:

1. Buyer makes payment.
2. Seller transfers (or pushes, makes no difference really) domain to Buyer.
3. Buyer refuses to acknowledge acceptance of the domain and states that he wants to cancel the escrow.

Buyer at this point is obligated by the TOS to return the domain to seller, in order to get his payment refunded. And according to the TOS he must do so within ten business days.

The hysterical Seller raises a fuss, says that he will not take this sh*t, and states on the record to escrow that he will not accept the domain back, that he won't be pushed around.

So...now that it's on the record that return of domain is impossible, that seller will not cooperate with return of domain, escrow has no choice but to freeze funds pending resolution of the stand off. Things could get really bad for the seller if he keeps refusing to accept the domain back; the buyer could sue to get his deposit back, and the domain could end up in a sort of escrow / trust, pending resolution, for who knows how long. Seller, by violating TOS, could end up liable for buyer's attorney fees, leaving him holding the bag with a judgment against him.

In meantime, a clever but dishonest Buyer has use of the domain, and his money is held up, but he knows he'll get the money back eventually and in the meantime has free use of the domain. He might even end up with a judgment against the stubborn seller that will get him his money back, and the domain (the dollar amount of the judgment might end up payable by a writ of execution against the domain).

A smarter, calmer seller whose goal was to get paid for the domain, would never state something as obstructive and violative of the TOS as that he will never accept the domain back. He would just pretend to go along with the process, and then after the ten days have passed, escrow would have to release funds to him, per its TOS. I'm not condoning this sort of seller behavior, but I am saying that calm minds that follow the law or at least appear to follow the law usually prevail.

When the law (the TOS) are on the buyer's side (allowing buyer to cancel), then the seller should be smarter about giving escrow an excuse to freeze funds, or for buyer to sue him for violating their contract.

Cooler heads usually prevail.

You bring up lots good points to not use Escrow.com. By using Epik, none of your scenarios would pertain.....