Dynadot โ€” .com Transfer

information VPN.com LLC has filed a multimillion lawsuit

Spacemail by SpaceshipSpacemail by Spaceship
Watch

Lox

____Top Member
Impact
13,651
VPN.com LLC has filed a multimillion lawsuit against long time domain investor George Dikian (California), Qiang Du (Hong Kong) and John Doe at the US District Court (California).

The lawsuit involves a $250,000 payment in Bitcoin and $6.625 million in owed commissions on multiple transactions involving 96 premium 2N.com and 3N.com domains.

read more
 
26
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
GoDaddyGoDaddy
Did he have memory issues or was he on drugs?

He has some royalties from airplane and many products. Very clever guy, even a profesor in US University. But assets are not a problem for him, since he has everything.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
why hasn't the Dikian guy or his legal team voiced his opinion on what happened?

I would imagine they will do so in court, where it matters, and that they may take up the issues raised by the other side's out of court statements.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
FZa6d7rXwAQlIQh.png


FZa7PYXWYAISzL6.jpg


:unsure:
 
4
•••
They got scammed?
 
0
•••
From the absurd commission they negotiated for themselves by playing both the buyer and seller broker, to what seems like getting scammed from a lack of due diligence, to the lawsuit itself...

It looks really bad for VPN.com and their credibility. IMO.

Brad
 
Last edited:
6
•••
This thread is forcing me to visit vpn.com... I have never heard about them before..
 
1
•••
I can guarantee the scammer used vpn to scam vpn.com :xf.wink:

lol @ trying to play the buyer and seller and take their cut in the middle...
 
Last edited:
1
•••
As I noted on Twitter last night, it appears that VPN.com is trying to convince the court to allow them to serve the complaint by email, see:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/45083370/VPNcom_LLC_v_George_Dikian_et_al

in particular, the August 26, 2022 docket entry.

EX PARTE APPLICATION to Serve process by e-mail (non-urgent) filed by Plaintiff VPN.com LLC. (Cilento, Michael)

That's potentially very problematic, given the complaint puts into question the reliability of email as a mechanism for reaching the "true" people involved (e.g. paragraph 56 of the complaint). Folks should not lose such valuable assets via a "default judgment" without having the opportunity to be heard by a court, especially if they've not actually received the complaint.

This demonstrates one of the benefits of having fully public WHOIS information (instead of WHOIS privacy/proxy), if you want to be easily reached in the event of a legal dispute, and not face the risk of a default judgment.
 
6
•••
Pro-tip:

In the affidavit supporting your "Memornadum", try not to say that you don't know where your "well-known" friend is...

Screen Shot 2022-08-29 at 9.38.19 AM.png

Screen Shot 2022-08-29 at 9.41.55 AM.png

Screen Shot 2022-08-29 at 9.39.32 AM.png



Screen Shot 2022-08-29 at 9.36.13 AM.png


A minute or two with Google Maps would have made this obvious...


 
2
•••
Attorney Mike Rodenbaugh has appeared on behalf of George Dikian.

This case is about to get interesting.

Screen Shot 2022-12-01 at 10.30.55 AM.png
 
6
•••
0
•••
Do you have early thoughts on who might win John?

Most lawsuits settle.

There are some facts which are yet to be determined.

Thus far, one side has filed their complaint. We have not heard what the other side has to say, but I doubt they will be arguing their case on domain blogs.

I have personally seen multiple situations in which a hacker compromised someoneโ€™s email address and used it to impersonate the account owner. This is done sometimes without changing anything, but by using automated alerts to monitor the account in order to conduct conversations and delete them from the account, so that the owner is not even aware.

In one case, a domain negotiation lasted for a couple of months, the domain was sold, transferred, and then the owner noticed the domain missing. I represented the purchaser and when the other side said they were hacked, I did not believe it. Eventually, the evidence showed I was wrong, and the account had really been hacked.

It is one thing to have an opinion, a hunch, or a guess. But it is important to be able to recognize when reality fails to live up to expectations. There is nothing as annoying to me as when the facts donโ€™t cooperate with my argument.

My guess is that Dikian was being impersonated by someone with an interesting level of sophistication. My guess is that both sides of the transaction were being run by the same person(s) who were running a con with Gargiulo as the victim.

And, to be clear, Gargiulo is the victim here, regardless of oneโ€™s opinion of his โ€œcommission structureโ€. Mike was robbed by people using his energetic pursuit of deals against him. He ignored some red flags and was robbed.

Thatโ€™s how cons work. Whoever did this seems to have targeted Mike and laid a trap that seems to have been designed for him. My hunch is that the thief knows him.

Compounding the problem is that Mike is understandably furious. People who have been conned often are too embarrassed to do anything. So, kudos to him for coming forward, but his public attacks against Dikian may be misplaced.

It is also worth observing that Gargiulo had no idea where Dikian was or where he could be found. Hence the court authorized service of process by email. If Dikian had committed the crimes of which he is accused, then Dikian would be unlikely to come forward and defend the case. This matter has been reported to at least one police department who also does not know where to find Dikian. But now, by his own choice, he is easy to find. Now, there are a number of things possible, but if I were advising Dikian and he was actually guilty of what Gargiulo has alleged, I would certainly tell him that his risk of arrest and prosecution would increase if he came forward to appear in this civil case.

Could that hunch be rip-roaringly wrong? Absolutely. And it will be interesting to see what develops and how the parties sort this out.

Incidentally, one thing that would be good to understand is that intelligent people are not always right, and people who think they are always right are usually not intelligent.

Both sides have great lawyers. I have had the privilege to work with (and against) Brett Lewis and Mike Rodenbaugh, and I consider both of them to be good friends and able colleagues. So, the most likely outcome in my opinion is that there will come a point at which there are no facts in dispute based on discovery materials obtained from third parties. At that point, Mr. Rodenbaugh and Mr. Lewis, both being exceptionally intelligent men, will advice their clients on the best way to conclude the matter.
 
Last edited:
13
•••
Most lawsuits settle.

There are some facts which are yet to be determined.

Thus far, one side has filed their complaint. We have not heard what the other side has to say, but I doubt they will be arguing their case on domain blogs.

I have personally seen multiple situations in which a hacker compromised someoneโ€™s email address and used it to impersonate the account owner. This is done sometimes without changing anything, but by using automated alerts to monitor the account in order to conduct conversations and delete them from the account, so that the owner is not even aware.

In one case, a domain negotiation lasted for a couple of months, the domain was sold, transferred, and then the owner noticed the domain missing. I represented the purchaser and when the other side said they were hacked, I did not believe it. Eventually, the evidence showed I was wrong, and the account had really been hacked.

It is one thing to have an opinion, a hunch, or a guess. But it is important to be able to recognize when reality fails to live up to expectations. There is nothing as annoying to me as when the facts donโ€™t cooperate with my argument.

My guess is that Dikian was being impersonated by someone with an interesting level of sophistication. My guess is that both sides of the transaction were being run by the same person(s) who were running a con with Gargiulo as the victim.

And, to be clear, Gargiulo is the victim here, regardless of oneโ€™s opinion of his โ€œcommission structureโ€. Mike was robbed by people using his energetic pursuit of deals against him. He ignored some red flags and was robbed.

Thatโ€™s how cons work. Whoever did this seems to have targeted Mike and laid a trap that seems to have been designed for him. My hunch is that the thief knows him.

Compounding the problem is that Mike is understandably furious. People who have been conned often are too embarrassed to do anything. So, kudos to him for coming forward, but his public attacks against Dikian may be misplaced.

It is also worth observing that Gargiulo had no idea where Dikian was or where he could be found. Hence the court authorized service of process by email. If Dikian had committed the crimes of which he is accused, then Dikian would be unlikely to come forward and defend the case. This matter has been reported to at least one police department who also does not know where to find Dikian. But now, by his own choice, he is easy to find. Now, there are a number of things possible, but if I were advising Dikian and he was actually guilty of what Gargiulo has alleged, I would certainly tell him that his risk of arrest and prosecution would increase if he came forward to appear in this civil case.

Could that hunch be rip-roaringly wrong? Absolutely. And it will be interesting to see what develops and how the parties sort this out.

Incidentally, one thing that would be good to understand is that intelligent people are not always right, and people who think they are always right are usually not intelligent.

Both sides have great lawyers. I have had the privilege to work with (and against) Brett Lewis and Mike Rodenbaugh, and I consider both of them to be good friends and able colleagues. So, the most likely outcome in my opinion is that there will come a point at which there are no facts in dispute based on discovery materials obtained from third parties. At that point, Mr. Rodenbaugh and Mr. Lewis, both being exceptionally intelligent men, will advice their clients on the best way to conclude the matter.
In cases like this, can the court decide that the person being hacked is partly to blame because they have been negligent with regards to security? Like when an insurance company won't pay out because the insured person had left a window slightly open when the burglary happened.
 
0
•••
In cases like this, can the court decide that the person being hacked is partly to blame because they have been negligent with regards to security? Like when an insurance company won't pay out because the insured person had left a window slightly open when the burglary happened.
My credit card was stolen and someone used it to buy 900 dollars worth of electronics from a merchant. The merchant lose that money. It turns out I wasn't careful where I used my card online, I entered it on a site that had no ssl. Should I be held responsible for the merchants loss?

What about companies that are hacked and the card is used and merchants lose money. We know companies that got hacked get sued, but are they held responsable for the losses caued to merchants?
 
6
•••
My credit card was stolen and someone used it to buy 900 dollars worth of electronics from a merchant. The merchant lose that money. It turns out I wasn't careful where I used my card online, I entered it on a site that had no ssl. Should I be held responsible for the merchants loss?

What about companies that are hacked and the card is used and merchants lose money. We know companies that got hacked get sued, but are they held responsable for the losses caued to merchants?
I don't think the victims should be held responsible. But it would be interesting to hear how it is viewed from a legal point of view.
 
0
•••
I have personally seen multiple situations in which a hacker compromised someoneโ€™s email address and used it to impersonate the account owner. This is done sometimes without changing anything, but by using automated alerts to monitor the account in order to conduct conversations and delete them from the account, so that the owner is not even aware.

This is similar to what happened in the Booth purchase of CQD.com when the CQD.com domain owner had her Yahoo email compromised. Going further than automated alerts the hacker added 20+ filters to send certain emails directly to trash. Similar to this VPN scenario, the real CQD.com owner also used a Yahoo email address. Here's a detailed post regarding the 2018 CQD.com theft, and how the CQD.com's domain owners Yahoo email was manipulated.

Not being oblivious to how previous domain thefts ("CQD.com") have occurred, Michael Gargiulo's comment outright accusing George Dikian seemed obscenely wreckless. Hopefully, Michael has some proof beyond what was shared to support that accusation, otherwise it just looks like Michael is doubling down on his poor diligence (and is severely misguiding his efforts/resources all to the alleged hackers delight).

What surprises me the most in this case, is the due dilligence, or lack there of on the part of @VPN.com.

I agree with this comment from @GeorgeK

Beyond the obvious lack of due diligence (e.g. they donโ€™t mention ever authenticating the parties by phone โ€“ everything appears to be via emails; use of a sketchy escrow; unclear if there were separate written legal contracts, etc.), thereโ€™s the hilarious โ€œcommissionโ€ that they negotiated for themselves (see paragraphs 23-25 on page 6 of the PDF).

Obviously,this comment has the hindsight advantage, but that "sketchy escrow" company should have been a huge red flag. This is a small industry, not oblivious to appraisal scams, so why a broker would trust an unknown escrow company like Intermediar is beyond me. Maybe the thought of a multi million dollar commission clouded judgement. But c'mon man!

Has it been determined how the intermediar.com domain was acquired? As typically the appraisal scam type websites have a new WHOIS, intermediar carried a 2003 WHOIS year. IDK if the was acquired at a registrar auction, or if the domain was purchased on a secondary market. According to a January 2021 Archive.org entry, Intermediar.com was listed on Undeveloped/Dan, with a $4,995 BIN with a lease to own option.

If Intermediar.com was purchased on @DAN.COM, then Dan may have helpful metadata or payment information. Intermediar trust pilot page was verified via google contact details in Januar 2022. My assumption is if @VPN.com seeks restitution/justice, then their efforts might be best spent tracking down the Intermediar operator, opposed to attacking somebody who looks to have been impersonated. Maybe that's what the lawsuit is attempting to uncover, but some of the accusations (unless they have additional proof) seem wreckless and misguided.
 
Last edited:
5
•••
It is interesting that VPN.com is very sure that emails those are used in the coresponding between the parties are not spoofed. I don't know how they can be so sure.

But how if it will be proofed that the emails are spoofed, and they realize that they had sued the wrong person? It will be a double loose for their reputation...
 
Last edited:
0
•••
But how if it will be proofed that the emails are spoofed, and they realize that they had sued the wrong person? It will be a double loose for their reputation...

Based on the information provided, it appears the emails weren't spoofed; it appears to be emails sent from the legit domain owners WHOIS listed yahoo email, but it hasn't been definitively proven if the email address was compromised or not. The CQD.com case referenced in my last post wasn't from spoofed emails, but rather from an alleged hacker allegedly compromising the yahoo email address belonging to the CQD.com domain owner. That cqd hacker left filters to send all emails mentioning "cqd.com" and other filters, attempting to ensure any cqd.com correspondence went directly to trash, so not to trigger the email/domain owner of the compromise.
 
Last edited:
4
•••
Very confused, so many questions
I can see VPN The victim at all.
 
0
•••
In cases like this, can the court decide that the person being hacked is partly to blame because they have been negligent with regards to security? Like when an insurance company won't pay out because the insured person had left a window slightly open when the burglary happened.

In some areas of law, for example personal injury law, there are principles of "contributory negligence", "comparative negligence", or "assumption of the risk", which apply. The first two concepts apply in situations where, for example, I was wearing the wrong sized shoes, and I tripped on your broken sidewalk and broke my arm. My injury was due in part to your broken sidewalk, but also because I was wearing the wrong sized shoes. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, that may eliminate my chance of recovery against you. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, my claim against you will be reduced by the proportion by which I am responsible.

"Assumption of the risk" applies to situations where I agree to a boxing match with you and you break my jaw. That is one of the risks I accepted when I agreed to the boxing match.

Insurance contracts are another story entirely. The insurer may require all sorts of things as a condition of my coverage.

None of these principles apply to the alleged theft here. The idea that the "victim is responsible" for an intentional crime committed against them just does not apply. If I walk out into the middle of a highway, I might get hit by a car, but you are still not allowed to decide to swerve into me in order to run me over. This also gets into the various forms of "asking for it" or victim blaming which is unfortunately applied in the court of public opinion in relation to certain crimes.

In fact, the moral justification of some financial criminals, such as 419 scammers, is that they are merely taking advantage of the greed of others in order to obtain a benefit for someone more morally deserving - i.e. themselves. Some Nigerian scammers, for example, justify themselves as avengers of Africa against imperialism, etc..

But, no, walking around with money hanging out of your pocket is not a license for someone else to take it from you.

This is a small industry, not oblivious to appraisal scams, so why a broker would trust an unknown escrow company like Intermediar is beyond me. Maybe the thought of a multi million dollar commission clouded judgement. But c'mon man!

There's another possible, but low-probability, scenario in this, and it relates to the Brent Oxley problem a while back in which a broker in India claimed to have had a brokerage contract with him, and he then filed a suit locking up all of Mr. Oxley's domain names. Many readers may recall this situation:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/br...ions-of-dollars-worth-of-his-domains.1230431/

Now, it is one thing to get ripped off to the tune of $250,000 and seek to be made whole for that. It is quite another thing to claim monetary damages in the amount of an entirely speculative proposition that one would have earned commissions on the proposed sale prices of domain names.

Mr. Gargiulo is keenly aware of that scenario, and discussed it on a podcast at the time:

https://www.kickstartcommerce.com/t...s-and-brokers-face-with-michael-gargiulo.html

I bet you didnโ€™t know domain registrars have a legal right to lock your domain name or domain portfolio based on a frivolous lawsuit or baseless claim or did you?

Now that I have your attention, todayโ€™s podcast dives deep into the details and back story of how one of the most prolific domain investors of our time discovered his multi-million domain portfolio of ultra-premium domains on lockdown by a bad actor filing a lawsuit in India and reporting it to GoDaddy.

...

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Tune in as Michael Gargiulo โ€” CEO of VPN.com, long-time domain investor and entrepreneur, and previous podcast guest, and I speak about the case of GoDaddy locking Brent Oxleyโ€™s multi-million dollar portfolio of ultra-premium domains.


Life can sure take people on incredible journeys, but think about this for a minute: When Mr. Gargiulo was commenting on the danger of having a supposed broker lock up your domain portfolio on the basis of a claim of breach of an alleged brokerage contract, who would have imagined that not much more than a year later Mr. Gargiulo would be filing a lawsuit to lock up someone's domain portfolio on the basis of a claim of breach of an alleged brokerage contract?

Life is full of ironies, isn't it?
 
9
•••
Appraise.net
Spaceship
Domain Recover
CatchDoms
DomainEasy โ€” Zero Commission
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the pageโ€™s height.
Back