SCAM - Coinabul owe me 81btc

[thebaron]

You people are being goddamned fucking silly.

[1714119957]

1714119957

[1714119957]

1714119957

[davidspitzer]

You people are being goddamned fucking silly.

I would now like to argue the meaning of the word silly

[JoelKatz]

In my opinion its not a scam, they just use some shitty business practices. Not evil, just negligent. I wouldn't use the service either way.

If your negligence causes someone harm and you don't compensate them, that's evil. Negligence is not evil, so long as you compensate people when it causes harm.

[kibblesnbits]

I fail to see the point of disputing wether a Scam requires prior intent other than to be contrary

You, not me, started this BS about scam requiring prior intent.

Holy Moses.  How can you accidentally scam someone when the whole point of a scam is a pre-planned act to defraud someone?  Geezus I give up, it's like arguing with Zero Hedge posters about what a Ponzi scheme is and that Bitcoin isn't one.  Just stop already.

[kibblesnbits]

In my opinion its not a scam, they just use some shitty business practices. Not evil, just negligent. I wouldn't use the service either way.

If your negligence causes someone harm and you don't compensate them, that's evil. Negligence is not evil, so long as you compensate people when it causes harm.

So let's get a "Negligent" tag.  If Coinabul can't put forth the documents proving adequate insurance, they're negligent and should compensate.  If they don't compensate, then let the free markets take over.  There's plenty of places to trade BTC for coins. 

[Bitinvestor]

Scam, in my mind, infers intent to defraud from the inception.

You're wrong. Scam is a slang word and it doesn't have a precise legal definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scam

It's a slang word, just like "offing" or "whacking" someone means to murder.  If I accuse you of whacking someone it's the same as an accusation of murder.  If you're accusing someone of scamming, you're accusing them of the intent to commit fraud.  What's your definition of a scammer?

Scam = A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scam

Coinabul swindled him out of his money by not giving him his refund or re-sending his silver. Therefore Coinabul is my definition of a scammer.

[davidspitzer]

Scam, in my mind, infers intent to defraud from the inception.

You're wrong. Scam is a slang word and it doesn't have a precise legal definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scam

It's a slang word, just like "offing" or "whacking" someone means to murder.  If I accuse you of whacking someone it's the same as an accusation of murder.  If you're accusing someone of scamming, you're accusing them of the intent to commit fraud.  What's your definition of a scammer?

Scam = A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scam

Coinabul swindled him out of his money by not giving him his refund or re-sending his silver. Therefore Coinabul is my definition of a scammer.

I still assert that a "swindle" or a "scam" requires prior intent. Both parties agreed to the exchange and coinabul legally obtained the money pursuant to a sales contract. The later refusal by coinabul to return the money or fulfill the contract may be tantamount to conversion or some other tort, but your argument for scam still infers an intent to defraud at the time the transaction was consummated. I could argue all day with you and I wish you could understand the logic of this but I somehow think that will not occur; after all if one does not value evidence what evidence can I present to convince you otherwise. I will say no more on the matter as your insistence on being obtuse does not warrant further entertaining.

[JoelKatz]

Holy Moses.  How can you accidentally scam someone when the whole point of a scam is a pre-planned act to defraud someone?  Geezus I give up, it's like arguing with Zero Hedge posters about what a Ponzi scheme is and that Bitcoin isn't one.  Just stop already.

So if Pirate had been investing people's Bitcoins in another Ponzi scheme that he himself believed was legitimate, he wouldn't have been scamming?

I still assert that a "swindle" or a "scam" requires prior intent.

If you fail to make good on an obligation, that can be a scam even if you never previously considered how you would handle the particular situation you wound up in. For example, say I irrationally believe that I can't possibly lose at blackjack. If I borrow $400 from you to play blackjack, then lose and choose not to pay you back, you can reasonably describe me as scamming you. This is true even if I was positive I'd win and fully intended to pay you back from my winnings. So long as I represented that repayment was unconditional and I never intended to pay you back if I lost, it's a scam.

That is what is alleged to have happened here. The claim is that Coinabul conveyed the representation that opting to buy insurance ensured that the buyer was covered against the package being lost or stolen in shipment when Coinabul never intended to make good on that representation if the insurance carrier failed to make good. This can be a scam even if Coinabul never considered the possibility that their insurance carrier might fail to make good.

You can never prove prior intent. Any accused scammer can always claim he decided to keep someone else's money at the last moment.

[davidspitzer]

Holy Moses.  How can you accidentally scam someone when the whole point of a scam is a pre-planned act to defraud someone?  Geezus I give up, it's like arguing with Zero Hedge posters about what a Ponzi scheme is and that Bitcoin isn't one.  Just stop already.

So if Pirate had been investing people's Bitcoins in another Ponzi scheme that he himself believed was legitimate, he wouldn't have been scamming?

I still assert that a "swindle" or a "scam" requires prior intent.

A scam doesn't have to be pre-planned. If you fail to make good on an obligation, that can be a scam even if you never previously considered how you would handle the particular situation you wound up in. For example, say I irrationally believe that I can't possibly lose at blackjack. If I borrow $400 from you to play blackjack, then lose and choose not to pay you back, you can reasonably describe me as scamming you. This is true even if I was positive I'd win and fully intended to pay you back from my winnings. So long as I represented that repayment was unconditional and I never intended to pay you back if I lost, it's a scam.

That is what is alleged to have happened here. Coinabul conveyed the representation that opting to buy insurance ensured that the buyer was covered against the package being lost or stolen in shipment when Coinabul never intended to make good on that representation if the insurance carrier failed to make good. This can be a scam even if Coinabul never considered the possibility that their insurance carrier might fail to make good and leave them to make good on their promise from their own pocket because of the false representation to the customer that they were in fact insured against the package being lost or stolen.

I disagree with your analysis. If a fail to pay you back that is conversion. The very essence of a scam is the intent to deceive. 

[JoelKatz]

I disagree with your analysis. If a fail to pay you back that is conversion. The very essence of a scam is the intent to deceive.  

The deception is that the repayment (in one example) or coverage (in the other) was unconditional when it was not.

In any event, on this forum, we use the 'scammer' tag for people who could easily, but choose not to, make good on their promises, whether there was deception initially or not. We don't have 800 different tags for fine legal distinctions in how one person can rip off another.

[davidspitzer]

I disagree with your analysis. If a fail to pay you back that is conversion. The very essence of a scam is the intent to deceive. 

The deception is that the repayment (in one example) or insurance (in the other) was unconditional when it was not.

You would have to prove that coinabul actually knew at the time that if the parcel was lost that no insurance coverage was to be had. If they only should have known your back to negligence and conversion. Fraud is a specific intent crime

[Bitinvestor]

davidspitzer, you seem to have some legal training and your arguments might make some sense in a court of law. This is an internet discussion forum were anybody can come and give his opinion, yourself included. Joel Katz said it better than I ever could:

on this forum, we use the 'scammer' tag for people who could easily, but choose not to, make good on their promises, whether there was deception initially or not. We don't have 800 different tags for fine legal distinctions in how one person can rip off another.

[shiftybugger]

I disagree with your analysis. If a fail to pay you back that is conversion. The very essence of a scam is the intent to deceive. 

The deception is that the repayment (in one example) or insurance (in the other) was unconditional when it was not.

You would have to prove that coinabul actually knew at the time that if the parcel was lost that no insurance coverage was to be had. If they only should have known your back to negligence and conversion. Fraud is a specific intent crime

Whether or not they knew is difficult to know, but they reasonably should have known. According to Jay, the insurer said:

the shipment exceeded your per parcel limit for USPS First Class International packages.

Had Coinabul done their due diligence the would have known their insurer's per parcel limit and not exceeded it.

Whether or not they underinsured with the intent to pocket the savings or it was just negligence, who's to know? And does it matter?

[davidspitzer]

I disagree with your analysis. If a fail to pay you back that is conversion. The very essence of a scam is the intent to deceive. 

The deception is that the repayment (in one example) or insurance (in the other) was unconditional when it was not.

You would have to prove that coinabul actually knew at the time that if the parcel was lost that no insurance coverage was to be had. If they only should have known your back to negligence and conversion. Fraud is a specific intent crime

Whether or not they knew is difficult to know, but they reasonably should have known. According to Jay, the insurer said:

the shipment exceeded your per parcel limit for USPS First Class International packages.

Had Coinabul done their due diligence the would have known their insurer's per parcel limit and not exceeded it.

Whether or not they underinsured with the intent to pocket the savings or it was just negligence, who's to know? And does it matter?

Not really  - either way Coinabul should pay back the consumer (no matter how you describe it) Fraud is only really pertinent if you plan to pursue criminal action. I don't think Coinabul is guilty of a crime, just really poor business decisions, which probably exposes them to a Tort action in which the consumer has a compelling argument

[Bitinvestor]

Not really  - either way Coinabul should pay back the consumer (no matter how you describe it) Fraud is only really pertinent if you plan to pursue criminal action. I don't think Coinabul is guilty of a crime, just really poor business decisions, which probably exposes them to a Tort action in which the consumer has a compelling argument

Translation for the rest of us: Coinabul is probably a scammer.

[davidspitzer]

davidspitzer, you seem to have some legal training and your arguments might make some sense in a court of law. This is an internet discussion forum were anybody can come and give his opinion, yourself included. Joel Katz said it better than I ever could:

on this forum, we use the 'scammer' tag for people who could easily, but choose not to, make good on their promises, whether there was deception initially or not. We don't have 800 different tags for fine legal distinctions in how one person can rip off another.

True the tag might fit given the context used on the board, no argument their

[davidspitzer]

Not really  - either way Coinabul should pay back the consumer (no matter how you describe it) Fraud is only really pertinent if you plan to pursue criminal action. I don't think Coinabul is guilty of a crime, just really poor business decisions, which probably exposes them to a Tort action in which the consumer has a compelling argument

Translation for the rest of us: Coinabul is probably a scammer.

I did not say that but the tag "scammer" might apply given the context used in the board to cover all misdealings. In the legal sense I think you would have a very hard time arguing that in court. I do agree that coinabul is in the wrong and clearly should reimburse the buyer

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I don't think coinabul will get scammer tagged - theymos probably does not consider the evidence here to be "clear".

[kibblesnbits]

Holy Moses.  How can you accidentally scam someone when the whole point of a scam is a pre-planned act to defraud someone?  Geezus I give up, it's like arguing with Zero Hedge posters about what a Ponzi scheme is and that Bitcoin isn't one.  Just stop already.

So if Pirate had been investing people's Bitcoins in another Ponzi scheme that he himself believed was legitimate, he wouldn't have been scamming?

You answered your own question - another Ponzi scheme?  If he took the money he collected from his Ponzi and donated to an orphanage, it's still a Ponzi and he's still a scammer.  Next question.

[kibblesnbits]

I don't think coinabul will get scammer tagged - theymos probably does not consider the evidence here to be "clear".

At this point, it's not (in my opinion).  Coinabul has been around since the beginning.  Anyone else get screwed?  Not me, other than some communication issues.  Havent seen any other claims?  Has there ever been one besides OP? 

While I disagree with most here about the scammer tag, I believe they are liable for the insurance mishap.  Cost of doing business unfortunately.