I am no expert far from it actually but surely for a 20K international order you should be thinking about cash up front i.e. Telegraphic Transfer? What I sometimes see listed as Irrevocable TT
credit card has got to be out of the question as chargebacks come and bight you just when you need the money most. :-(
In my business (specialised industrial products) we have been getting a lot of emails from people in Nigeria wanting to buy our goods, pay by a credit card, and have them delivered to Nigeria.
Given it is Nigeria, it is probably a scam using stolen credit card details, but...
These people have been to our website and carefully chose the products. However these are products which would be useless to anybody in Nigeria, or most places for that matter. What benefit can these people get by getting the goods?
Like everybody else, we would do an online CC authorisation and presumably this would be OK. The amounts are up to £20k. But the bank would want to do a chargeback eventually.
What would be our position if we fulfilled such an order innocently? If the country was not Nigeria, and was e.g. Sweden, then we certainly would, given the same circumstances.
Yes, I ask for a bank transfer and never hear a thing...
I still wonder why they are doing it. How does this scam work?
They onward ship to somewhere where there is a market for the stuff, perhaps?
Sorry, I am longing to know what you sell that is unsaleable in most parts of the World, but not others... :)
In message , snipped-for-privacy@nowhere445566.com writes
My company has had a few like that also. It's fairly common.
That sounds a bit racist .
Perhaps they've found a use for your otherwise "useless" products. Maybe they have a buyer somewhere.
I've heard of a scam where the buyer overpays and then demands an immediate refund of the overpayment. For example, they pay 200k instead of 20k (an easy mistake to make) and then ask for the 180k overpayment to be repaid by cheque.
Are you sure you're not a racist?
Snow shoes ?
"Alan Walker" wrote
For 20,000 ? Either they're *very* good, or the order was *huge* !!!
international order
I was under the impression that the goods will be rejected by Nigerian customs or whatever, and so when you get them back you'll be asked to refund their payment, by cheque or TT. By the time you find out they've rejected the credit card payment, and VISA has chrged it back to you, the cheque has cleared and you're x k out of pocket.
Aw, LOL. I was thinking of "The Penguin Book of Honest Politics" - but where /would/ you be able to sell it?
One of the tricks runs as follows:
1) They offer to buy a lot of stuff from you; 2) They overpay; 3) They ask you for a repayment of the excess (somewhere other than to the original account); 4) Later, the bank finds out that the original card or account was stolen or hacked, claws back the full amount, and you're down to the tune of: a) The clawback charges; b) The amount you'd paid back to the scamsters; c) The goods you'd shipped.A variant involves no clawback, but keeping the goods. It relies upon the bank not clawing back until some time after the goods have shipped.
Dunno how that leaves you legally if they've used TT to wire the money/overpayment to you from a stolen account, though.
Jon
MY!
Is this how far things have gone recently following in my case Sir Robert Megarry and then "only" Mr Justice Peter Gibson defending "utter" disregard of law? In defence of "CORRUPT BRITISH" government Ministers.
Below is an outline of my case:
3 Jan 03Roger J. P. Jones
12 Windmill Street, Deddington Banbury, OXON. OX15 OQW Tel: 01869 338845 Fax: 08700568457GOVERNMENT MINISTERS LAWYERS AND COURT OFFICERS BLATANT CORRUPTION
Below I set out my case which has considerable implications. Of which Misconduct in Public Office, carries up to seven years imprisonment, is the most serious.
MY CASE BACKGROUND
WHAT IS A RECEIVING ORDER
A Receiving Order (R.O.) is a protective device. It does NOT divest a debtor of his property, or make the debtor a bankrupt, but secures the debtor and his property, against action by individual creditors. It also allows the debtor to sue for the recovery of what belongs to him without giving security for costs.
Following a R.O. the Official Receiver (O.R.) must investigate the reason why a R.O. was petitioned for, and ensure that debtors make out a statement of their affairs, as well as take note of any proposals by debtors regarding the settlement of their debts with their creditors.
The O.R. must then notify creditors of these matters before the First Creditors Meeting (F.C.M).
The principal purpose of a R.O. is to allow creditors at the F.C.M. to consider:
(a) The debtors proposal for "composition" (the term for a financial arrangement with creditors).
(b) If it is expedient that the debtor be adjudged bankrupt.
(c) The mode of dealing with the property of the debtor.
A further aspect to those below. Halsbury`s Laws England on Bankruptcy at Paragraph 368 reads -- "Effect on debtors estate. The making of the Receiving Order vests no estate or interest in the Official Receiver; it gives him no power to bring or defend actions." "Before adjudication it is not proper for the Official Receiver to realise the debtors estate, or deal with it, except for the purpose of protecting and preserving it; although he may sell perishable goods."
THE HAPPENINGS IN MY CASE
Section 22 of the 1914 bankruptcy Act reading:
"(1) Every debtor against whom a receiving order if made shall unless prevented by sickness or other sufficient cause, attend the first meeting of his creditors, and shall submit to such examination and give such information as the meeting may require."
Also at the heart of my case are the Vice Chancellors words in his Judgement at my appeal:
"Just how the added words [and that I may be adjudged bankrupt] came to be inserted is a matter that cannot very well be resolved today upon the information that is now before us."
When the case referred to as a precedent in the white book ORD. 13/9/11.
THE KING'S BENEATH DIVISION, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND, THE COURT OF APPEAL. 1909. NIXON v LOUNDERS (1).
States:
"... but where the evidence before the Court on the hearing of the motion is such as reasonably to suggest fraud, though not to establish it, the Court will direct as an issue to try the question of fraud."
Other significant words in the Vice Chancellors Judgement were:
"Throughout the hearing before us the debtor has made many complaints, has voiced many suspicions and has made many accusations about many matters in respect of many people. Some grave allegations have been made against court officials. we have listened, I hope patiently, to all that he has had to say, and he must not think, and nobody else must think, that because he has not been questioned on these many accusations they have been accepted as being firmly based"
The Barrister for the Treasury Solicitor, backed by a large team, for the two days of the hearing, failed to challenge me on any substantial matter. Because I feel certain to do so would only have enforced the disgraceful wrongdoing of Court Officers and those responsible for their control. As well the blatant lies told by Government Ministers responsible for overall control.
At a further hearing the Vice Chancellor refused me leave to appeal from the High Court to the House of Lords.
Another fundamental at the heart of my case, and related to the above:
I contacted my MP Douglas Hurd, to ask him to intervene on my behalf. He did so. However, the Department of Trade lied to him in a letter (October 1979) when Reginald Eyre MP (Con), was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the D. of T. with responsibility for the Insolvency Services writing to Hurd:
"As Stanley Clinton Davis mentioned [(Lab) subsequently a European Commissioner, and later made a Lord (Eyre`s predecessor in office)] in his letter to you, both the Official Receiver and the Trustee are officers of the court the Official Receiver being responsible for the investigation of Mr Jones` affairs and the Trustee for the realisation and distribution of the assets in Mr Jones` estate. The Department cannot intervene"
This "The Department cannot intervene" when Halsbury`s Laws of England on bankruptcy, at paragraph 221 reads:
FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY"
"The Department of Trade and Industry is vested with statutory powers and duties relating to the supervision of the administration of bankrupts` estates. The Department certifies the appointments of trustees in bankruptcy other than the official receiver, has the power to remove them and to grant them their release, supervises and controls official receivers, and enforces the performance by official receivers and trustees of their duties in administering bankrupt's estates and in investigating the conduct of bankrupts."
Paragraph. 458 reading:
"The official receivers form part of the insolvency survives administered by the department"
Reginald Eyre went on in his letter October 1979:
"However I understand that Mr Jones has written to my Department on several occasions and whilst his complaints have been closely examined nothing has been discovered to suggest that the Official Receiver or Trustee have not been carrying out their duties in a proper manner"
FURTHER ASPECTS OF COVER UP THE LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT AND THE LAW SOCIETY
As regards the Law Society. my new Solicitor John Sprat of Shoosmiths and Harrison. grossly misled Counsel as he grossly misled the Legal Aid Board, causing my Legal Aid to be revoked, when claming £4,469 in costs including Counsel` fee of £175. Indeed, for example, I discovered when I eventually managed to get hold of Sprat`s file:
(a) He turned things inside out with a travesty of the truth:
"His business ran into financial difficulties, Messrs Spillers helped him out for a short time but then foreclosed on a charge and eventually Mr Jones was made bankrupt"
(b) The Law Society wrote to him when concerned that he had estimated the cost of getting Counsels Opinion would be as much as £2000 to inquire if the £2000 included an accountants` report. He replied that it did. Though he had already spent £3,830 at 1980 prices! He never did obtain an accountant's report, though council advised the obvious need to obtain one, and I insisted in writing that one be obtained, he had promised me he would obtain one. How could he possibly justify spending £4,469 without getting an accountants report in such circumstances?
I complained to the Law Society of Sprat`s behaviour in hiding Court Officer's and Government Ministers deceit and wrongdoing. I complained of his acting generally against my interests, together with those conducting the Law Society's complaints procedures that I had fully utilised.
The Law Society wrote to me in defence of their own non action in the matter:
"Further, it is the opinion of the society that, as a matter of law the society's handling of Legal Aid applications or of complainants againat solicitors dose not give rise to a duty of care to the applicant for Legal Aid or the complainant"
What rot! What absolute tripe! The Law Society stands no differently to any other Society, Business or Individual in Tort. The test for deciding whether their has been a breach of duty of care is laid down in the oft- cited dictum of Alderson B., in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.:
"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."
Note the use of the word "reasonable" twice. How could it be reasonable for the Law Society not to show care in investigating the behaviour of Legal Aided funded Solicitors of the Supreme Court" and in administering (at that time) government funds in the form of Legal Aid?
We now see how ranks close even more as every attempt is made to appear reasonable whilst covering up the unreasonable and the embarrassing Professionals just hate faults in their work being pointed out by laymen. When I complained to the Lay Observer (the Lord Chancellors appointed supposed independent catch net behind the Law Society) - and this is important - he wrote to me regarding Legal Aid and misrepresentations and omissions of facts by solicitors:
"I am here bound to observe that I have seen no evidence whatever to indicate that the solicitors deliberately confused and misrepresented matters or that any facts were improperly omitted, Such facts would only have been improperly omitted had they been omitted with the deliberate intention of harming your case"
I complained strongly about this utterly outrages response in terms of law and fact, to the Lord Chancellor's Office.
A previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, in Norton v Lord Ashburton (1914) stated:
"The solicitor contracts with his clients to be skilful and careful. For failure to perform his obligations he may be made liable at law in contract or even in tort, for negligence in breach of a duty imposed on him."
Further regarding Solicitors, in a Precedent case - Myers - v- Elman on appeal before the House of Lords. It is made plain beyond any question whatsoever, the grate care required by Solicitors in carrying out their work, because they are Officers of the Court.
I further complained about the response to my complaints to the Law Society. The Lord Chancellor's office in response disclaimed the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for control over the Law Society, Solicitors, Legal Aid and the Lay Observer when writing to me:
"The Lord Chancellor is not responsible for the professional conduct of solicitors since they are members of an independent, self-governing profession."
This ridiculous high-handed dismissal is despite knowing:
The Lord Chancellor's responsibility for all Court's, and so for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and for Legal Aid, is clearly shown in Vacher`s Parliamentary Companion under:
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
"...and for the administration of the Supreme Court (Court of appeal. High Court and Crown Court) and County Courts in England and Wales, and for Legal Aid schemes."
Plainly Solicitors are "OFFICERS of the COURT" so the Lord Chancellor's responsibility.
END
Notes:
A bankrupt cannot bring a case without the permission of the Trustee. I was claiming damages from the OR (effectively against the Department of Trade) and Trustee.
The Trustee was a man called Peak, an accountant. He came to my farm with Spillers App. 18 hours after my filing my petition. He was later made Trustee at my F.C.M. of which I was unlawfully kept out. The question must be asked as to why Spillers and Peak came with an O.R.`s assistant so shortly after I filled my petition? Plainly the O.R. had contacted Spillers. As I have said the Spillers boss and the O.R., were on Christian name terms when they arrived later at my insistence.
Bloody Hell
...........Leslie
Sheepskin jackets? Union Jack flags?
But if any refund is requested of money paid by CC, then surely the refund would be as a credit back to the card account?
Roger periodically posts his rant. That's no reason for you to post three lines of your own and then quote the entire 472 lines of Roger's posting all over again. We've seen it many times before, including today. Why on earth do you think we all want to see it yet again?
Please *think* what you're doing before blindly following the instincts of your Outhouse Distress news reader.
Mike.
snipped-for-privacy@nowhere445566.com goes:
I think you need to consider giving courses in marketing. I'm on the point of tracking you down and buying some of your useless products for myself, I'm so intrigued.
Would they at least make good spoof Christmas presents?
You mean Union Flags?
They ship to Bigfoot.
BB
Yep, thats the ones!
The following was posted anon in alt.discounts and tells of your Nigerian scam and more importantly what happens to the goods and how it can Involve cheques importanlty the cheques CLEAR so you think its safe to send goods . ..... its a bit of a rant but i found it an interesting read .Imust admit i take no risks internationally and only deal on a small basis ......... anything else would need to be CASH . The link to markets in UKeems a bit tenious and its seems hard to beleive that a cheque for a few bits of dodgy gear at a market for say 60 would clear for a container load of plasma TVs also seems unlikly also but if youve got a few mins spare have a read !
Beginning of Copied Story :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
There's a scam taking place at the moment that's affecting both mail-order businesses,and the general public alike, all across Europe, and probably even further afeild. Both are being targetted, and both are being conned out of collective millions every single day, and I want to make as many people aware of this as I possibly can as the people who run these scams are nothing more than parasites.
The scam takes place on an incredibly large scale. When you read about it, you'll be amazed at how far reaching it is. It's most likely run by organised crime rings. Here's how it works.
***A trader get's conned out of goods***A small business, normally mail order, or online traders will receive a request from overseas to buy an abnormally large quantity of a certain product. Usually some small but desirable electronic thing like a digital camera or mp3 player. These requests quite often originate from places like Nigeria, and the trader will be asked to forward the cost of the order, and cost of shipping. They will tell the small business that they can't pay by card, but are quite happy to pay by cheque and they request the name to make the cheque payable to. The small business at this stage is blinded by the promise of a very large and instant profit. If the small trader is smart, he'll spot this as being suspicious, and simply delete the order or request. If the trader isn't smart, he'll get suckered in, believing that he's going to make a massive profit, and will play along, sending all the required information.ventually, a cheque will arrive with the trader made out to the correct person, for the correct ammount of money.
The trader banks this cheque and waits for it to clear.
It clears, and the funds show up in the traders bank account. He's happy about this state of affairs, and ships the goods out to the overseas address. Everything ticks along happily for a week or two, then suddenly, out of the blue, the trader gets a lettr or phone call from his bank telling him that the cheque he was sent for the goods he sold was actually a forgery. He's told by the bank that he's lost the funds that had cleared into his account, and now he's several thousand pounds/dollars/euros in debt.
He tries to contact the company who sent him the cheque in the vain hope that he can recover his stocks, but they've dissapeared off the face of the earth.
***The public get conned out of money***You're probably wondering where these goods turn up. They have to go somewhere right? They have to re-emerge back onto the market somewhere for the con-men to make their scam work. Well, surprizingly enough, they get re-imported back into the UK/Europe/USA from whichever country the trader exported them to.
Have you ever walked around a market and saw one of those auction things where a guy stands in the back of an open sided lorry, shouting through a headset microphone about the incredible bargains he has for you? Of course you have. They're in every market, and people get suckered in to parting with their hard earned cash a dozen times every day.
The auctioneers will start off by showing you some wonderful things like Camcorders,Video Phones and Portable DVD Players. He'll draw a crowd around him by saying he's going to sell these items for ridiculously low prices like
10, and that the auction is just about to start. He then takes back in all the video phones and portable dvd players etc, but assures the gathered crowd that he will definitely be selling those items later, and everyone will get a chance to buy them. These items never re-appear.Then he tells everyone that they have 20 or so Bargain Vouchers. These bargain vouchers cost 5 and the first 20 or so people to hold 5 above their heads will get a bargain voucher. Of course, everyone is blinded by the great prices and the word "Bargain". There's only 20 available and no-one wants to be left out or miss out on a bargain, so naturally, the air is full of hands holding fluttering 5 notes. These are gathered in and exchanged for Bargain Vouchers. Now he's got you. You've committed some money and you don't want to lose that 5. You're determined to get something for your 5, so you stay.
This is the point when the auctioneer apologises to the crowd and tells them "Anyone not holding a bargain voucher can't take part in the sales/auction, but that they're more than welcome to come back for the next sale in an hours time" In reality, those who don't have a bargain voucher at this stage have just had a very lucky escape. The auctioneer will then start to show you something like a piece of jewelery. Something that looks impressive from a distance, but is actually just a piece of junk, not even worth the cost of the tin can that it's been cut from. He then tells everyone that he's going to exchange everyones Bargain Vouchers for one of these bracelets/necklaces that he's just shown. He does this and tells everyone "Even if you buy nothing else, you've still got a bargain there with that piece of quality jewelry". He keeps things moving quickly so that people don't have time to check the jewelry in case they miss another bargain. Of course he tells them to hold the jewelry box in the air so that he know's who's eligible for bargains. This is another way of stopping people from looking inside. Then he brings out the stuff that was originally conned from our friend, the online trader or mail order trader, paid for with a forged cheque, exported to Nigeria, and then imported back again. By this stage, any identifying serial codes have been either removed or replaced on the goods, and of course many of the items have by now sustained damage or developed faults. Now the auctioneer starts to combine these items, and drawing you in by dropping prices through the floor. He puts a DVD player up, worth around
30, and tells the baying crowd that "This machine would cost around a hundred pounds on the high street". Then he starts dropping the price. "I'm not going to sell this for 100. I'm not even going to sell this for 80" etc etc. He drops the price to around double the real value. Then he whips people into a further frenzy by adding things that look good, but are in fact crap, just like the bracelet.He'll add a digital camera. He'll add a collection of no-name dvd films that can't be sold to the general public, or are the wrong region. He'll add a tin watch that turns your wrist green when you wear it. Then when he can see the crowd are whipped to a frenzy he starts exchanging the little pile of stuff for money.
At the end of it all, you've got around 30 worth of stuff, half of which doesn't work, and you've paid 70 for it. And the worst thing about it all is, the auctioneer didn't pay a penny for any of the stuff he's selling. The only thing he paid for was the import costs to bring the stuff back into the country. All the money you've paid him is pure profit. It all goes to his bosses who run the racket, and pay him a handsome fee for his troubles. He probably pockets a fair bit himself too.
***The loop closes***Okay, so we've seen how the goods get stolen from a trader and end up getting passed on to an unsuspecting public. But there's one thing missing. Who pays the folks in Nigera, and where do the forged cheques come from. Well, obviously the guys in Nigeria are in on the whole deal, so the ringleaders of the organized crime ring are paying these guys from the massive profits reaped from the market auctions. Plus the guys in Nigeria are most likely having their pick of whatever nice gadgets pass through their warehouses before arranging to have the rest re-imported back into the UK/Europe/USA.
But what about the cheques?
Well, the guys who run these auctions have signs up everywhere saying that they're more than happy to accept payment by cheque so long as it's accompanied by a guarantee card. When someone offers to pay by cheque, they're more than happy to accept it. When that person asks who to make it payable to, they tell them "We have a stamp. Just leave that part and the date blank" Everything is happening so quickly that you don't have time to think this is suspicious. Besides, lots of shops stamp cheques. The difference is, those shops allow you to inspect the cheque before you sign it and hand it over. Most importantly, you ALWAYS put a date on a cheque. These guys explicitly ask you not to date it. But of course, it's all happening so quickly that you don't give it a second thought. The cheque is signed and whicked away, never to be seen again by yourself. Now this cheque will never be cashed by the auctioneers. It gets filed somewhere for 6 months to a year. The customer at the auction is happy because he thinks they've lost his cheque or forgotten to bank it. He thinks he's got some free stuff. However, about 6 months to a year later, the cheque will find it's way out to somewhere like Nigeria where it gets used to pay for a bulk load of goods bought from an unsuspecting mail order trader or online trader. The cheque has been signed, it has a valid guarantee card Number on it. All they need to do is write in the name of the person they're buying from, add the current date, and ammend the value of the cheque to the right amount, or just over it.
They then post this cheque off, and a week later, they receive a container full of plasma TV's. The loop has now closed. If you are a trader, please be very carefull when it comes to suspicious orders from overseas. If you are a general member of the public, please steer well clear of the *back of a lorry* auctions at the markets. Just remember, If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.
End of Copied RANT
Thought it may be of intrest to somebody !!
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.