Sharjil Saleem shill bidding again on Flippa

[ksusha64]

https://flippa.com/9353101-fav-com This is clear example of Sharjil Saleem shill bidding again.
He has been banned from namepros in the past. Stay away from his listings.
Flippa people please deal with this nonsense.

 

[offthehandle]

• Brokering is not a problem on NamePros. There is 1 report a year on average, if that, relating to brokering of domains. There are hundreds of brokers on NamePros doing transactions without any problems.

That's a really good record for brokers Eric. If this forum wasn't operated like you do, it wouldn't be only one report a year. But it's because you run a tight ship here with strict rules, out in the wild it isn't the same. Well managed, my compliments.

Leaving the threads wide open like you do that they have been certainly allow everyone to realize who they are dealing with too.

it's the exact same offense whether that deal was for $100 or $100,000. It makes no difference.

Well put. Integrity has nothing do with the value of the transaction, it is the individual's honor.

All of the issues that happened on NamePros, that we were informed about, have been resolved or expired. Deals backed out of can't typically be resolved but they expire.

That statement confuses me. Does that mean the past trade record is erased and wiped clean once a banned member rejoins with a new username at some arbitrary future date? How does @ksusha64's issue with the subject person's transaction expire? he raised a valid point of several things that occurred in the past though it had nothing to do with the title of this thread. Personally, I am glad he posted that as I would never bid or do business with someone who backs out or does not honor their word- that means forever- I don't give expiration dates to non-payers, deadbeats or dishonorable business people.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

@FlippaDomains -- your customers are starting to ask the same questions on the Flippa auction page, as we are asking in this thread. I hope the lack of response [on the auction page] and in this thread, is because staff is busy investigating? It does appear that action was taken [ie suspending Bidder 1] shortly after this thread was created.

https://flippa.com/9353101-fav-com

The optics obviously don't look good when you suspend the [reserve not met] high bidder. Does @FlippaDomains have any reason to believe the bid is illegitimate? Maybe Bidder 1 is suspended pending verification of some sort? If so, did (NEW) Bidder 2 at $15,000 undergo the same sort of verification?

 

[Eric Lyon]

All of the issues that happened on NamePros, that we were informed about, have been resolved or expired. Deals backed out of can't typically be resolved but they expire.

That statement confuses me.

Here's an example to help explain:

A seller and buyer agree to a deal of $500 for domain.com but then the seller decides to not follow through with the deal. The money and the domain were not transferred. The buyer still wants the domain and reports the deal to us. We give the seller an opportunity to honor their deal. If they disappear or decide not to, then we issue the seller a "bad business" infraction. A year later, the seller has already sold domain.com to someone else and the buyer has likely invested that $500 in something else. That past deal can't be resolved, but after a year, it will have expired here. However, even expired infractions remain on accounts for recorded purposes and to establish a history for moderators to decide future actions if future issues occur.

Hope that helps,

 

[FlippaDomains]

We suspended the $160k bidder until they confirmed their intended bid price. They contacted us and said they meant to bid $16k rather than $160k. We removed the bid and unsuspended the user.

 

[equity78]

We suspended the $160k bidder until they confirmed their intended bid price. They contacted us and said they meant to bid $16k rather than $160k. We removed the bid and unsuspended the user.

Thanks for updating things.

 

[offthehandle]

We suspended the $160k bidder until they confirmed their intended bid price. They contacted us and said they meant to bid $16k rather than $160k. We removed the bid and unsuspended the user.

Sure is confusing. Now the FAV sale is suspended and not only that the Seller is Banned.

@FlippaDomains

 

[Chris Hydrick]

We suspended the $160k bidder until they confirmed their intended bid price. They contacted us and said they meant to bid $16k rather than $160k. We removed the bid and unsuspended the user.

@FlippaDomains Thank you very much for taking quick action, and for keeping NamePros informed!

Any word on when (if) the auction will resume?

It also appears that Flippa has banned the seller Sharjil Saleem. Is this temporary pending an investigation of some sort, or has an investigation of some sort already occurred and this is the final result? https://flippa.com/users/1188198

Yesterday​

Today​

I wonder if this ban could be related to Sharjil having an apparent second Flippa account that was suspended at the time of the Fav.com listing? https://flippa.com/users/938802

Yesterday​

Today​

 

[creataweb]

Interesting developments.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

We suspended the $160k bidder until they confirmed their intended bid price. They contacted us and said they meant to bid $16k rather than $160k. We removed the bid and unsuspended the user.

Things are still confusing.

The auction (and Sharjil) appear to have been reinstated.

However, the high bid shows as $15,000 + 1 pending. I wonder if the pending bid is related to the bidder who previously bid $160,000?

Sharjils other suspected Flippa account is still marked as banned. Flippa has a seemingly transparent feature for some accounts that display the members possible links to other members.

In Sharjil's defense to the alias change, I assume he wanted something more professional than SharjilDXB, thus chose a First name Last name alias.

Still I am confused by Flippa's ban hammer. When I viewed the ban description yesterday, I believe it said, "This user has been permanently banned from Flippa for breaking terms and condition on multiple occasions." Given that Sharjil has been reinstated, the previous quote that suggests a permanent ban is contradicting.

Looking at some of Sharjil's other Flippa listing, I noticed one comment dated November 30th, 2017 that suggests Sharjil's account had a banned sticker last month...

https://flippa.com/9314578-fastfood-com

 

[Jv1999]

I am not saying he did or didn't shill bid, but just looking at the jump in price doesn't mean much to me cuz I personally have jumped a price on an auction to the max I would pay for it to see if it reaches reserve.

This example isn't as obvious as other examples from other shill bidders.

And for disclosure, I did have a domain that he was helping me to sell(which didn't sell). And I would not use his services if it was proven that he participates in the practice of shill bidding.

Yeah. On flippa, people shill bid for no reason. When I had my 4l there for the 30 day auction, almost all of the bidders ended up banned except for the poor guy who won..

I just kept allowing bids lol even though I knew one guy was shady af. I figured if someone legit outbid his bids, I wouldn't let him bid anymore, but I found out that wasn't an option. Good thing he ended up banned before my auction ended and the final buyer already put in a bid.

Sometimes people will shill bid your stuff randomly.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Auction now shows 5 bids (+2 pending) https://flippa.com/9353101-fav-com

 

[Chris Hydrick]

5 bids (+3 pending)

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Does it seem as if the previous $15,000 bid by bidder 2 was removed as well as the $160,000 bid by bidder 1? Or just the bid time change after it was reinstated? The three pending bids had processed. The previous bid $15,000 bid said 6 days ago. Both by new members.

Also, the previous bid of $160,000 (which Flippa said the bidder meant $16,000) was from a new bidder. The current $16,000 bid is from a bidder with $4,45k in sales. I thought they would have simply replaced the bidders $160,000 bid with a bid of $16,000 bid rather than what the auction log is now showing. Maybe this is just technical glitches given the abnormality of this auction? Or are they new bids?

I am still very curious as to what the reserve is/was. I understand the possible mistake of entering an extra zero resulting in a $160,000 bid when it was meant to be a $16,000 bid. Though, at the same time, the concern with questionable bids under the reserve, is that if they are near the reserve, and as bidders aren't supposed to know the exact reserve, a bid near the reserve can sometimes validate another bidder into believing the domains value. Thus, it is important (for trickle down effects) that all bids are legit.

If the reserve price was no where near the $160,000 bid (say for instance the reserve was $300,000) then the $160,000 bid would look a lot less suspicious. Even though, there are practices such as lowering the reserve so the next bid meets reserve, which would in essence leverage the $160,000 bid to their advantage. ie bid minimum bid above the next highest bidder, and you will win this domain if no more bids! The difference being the bid below reserve is a "safe bid" and as such isn't binding. Still this is speculative. One would need to determine if the seller utilizes the lowering reserve practice to suggest that route. Thus, Flippa is in an obvious advantage position to investigate this, given they have access to the reserve price, sellers history, and other facts we don't have access to.