Pete70

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

It doesn't make sense. You need to move ahead with this as quickly and forcefully as possible. 

 

Have you retained an attorney yet? This should be your first step. 

I want to try and find out as much as I possibly can by myself before I spend a lot of money on attorneys.

3 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

I just don't understand how it's a weak case with all the evidence I have?

 

If it indeed is, then it seems the law is backing up people acting like this, instead of the opposite which it should be!

Basically:

- I have evidence of him making specific statements

- I can prove that this is indeed his account (voice messages as well as pictures)

How can I not make him legally accountable for what he said? This doesn't make sense to me

3 hours ago, Fab5BKK said:

Pete, you are such in a denial state... Hopeless

 

You did ask for advice. I offered you advice based on my practice of Law.

 

What could I say... If you know better, go for it.

End of Story

I just don't understand how it's a weak case with all the evidence I have?

If it indeed is, then it seems the law is backing up people acting like this, instead of the opposite which it should be!

On 7/10/2021 at 12:43 PM, Fab5BKK said:

Hi Pete & All,

 

Please note that the following doesn't constitute a legal advice and can't be used in court. Legal advice would require communication of all documents, pieces of information and a payment.

 

A few thoughts here (lawyer by training - Master degree in International Commercial Law with more than 20 years of international contract background).

 

1. Do you have a contract, signed and witnessed?

 

2. In this contract, did you (both parties) agree on arbitration process and legal jurisdiction?

 

3. Other than what you called evidence do you have witnesses that can testify before court?

 

4. If you go "legal" , do it 100% legal (no blackmail, no defamation, no abuse, no threats towards the defendant and third parties), otherwise you could be sent to court and have to pay lots of damages

 

5. Theorically speaking, you could go to court. However, did you consider the time, resources, hassle involved? Bearing in mind your case is weak if you didn't answer yes to the 3 questions above.

 

Just my 2 cents, free of charge!

Thank you for the feedback.

1: Depends on the definition of a contract in whatever jurisdiction this would be in, I suppose? There was an agreement, yes, and that was in writing. Is it a plain form of paper that we both signed? No, it's not.

2 and 3 definitely not, no.

4: There has been no such things.

5: Frankly, I've got time and that wouldn't really concern me.

But why do you say it's a weak case? I have written evidence of both him stating what will happen to the funds, and him then later breaking that agreement, as well as him stating that he will "get me my money". How is that a weak case to sue to ensure to get the funds back with support of the courts?

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

the problem is your perception of the situation might not be the same perception of the court once they hear your friend and the details of the story

 

you see it as a scam, the court will see it as a risky venture that went wrong for 2 ill-prepared investors

 

obviously the scammer should be in court, but he won't be

I think you missed my updated earlier today.

I highly doubt there is another scammer.

It's all Adrian.

His behavior is only logical if he intended to keep the money from the start. Why else would he never share evidence of having paid the scammer? Because he hasn't paid anyone. He just kept the money.

This isn't about getting "the scammer" to court.

This is about going after Adrian, and Adrian alone.

8 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Not sure how a case could proceed under Vietnamese law as

At present, Vietnamese law does not mention cryptocurrencies as a legal means of payment, and neither does it recognize them as an asset or a foreign currency.

Bitcoin and other similar cryptocurrencies have been specifically designated by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) as illegal and are banned for trade relationships. Therefore, using, supplying, and issuing cryptocurrencies in Vietnam is liable to fines — up to US$8,700 — and imprisonment. However, possessing, trading, and investing in cryptocurrencies is not forbidden nor permitted; it is only tolerated for the time being.  

https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnam-establishes-research-group-study-regulations-cryptocurrencies-2.html/

Thanks but that's not really relevant - we didn't even get to the mining part. Crypto isn't even involved in this situation at this point.

It's a pure scam

Just now, GrandPapillon said:

but you are responsible, maybe not in your eyes, but in  a court you will.

 

chat logs from facebook is not a digitally authenticated contract, you need to get real here. You have chat logs, it doesn't prove anything actually happened.

 

ghost means he will not show up in court, not that he doesn't exist.

 

he is ghosting you online, chances are he will ghost you in court. Case closed.

It doesn't need to be digitally authenticated. Why would it need to be?

Statements were made, and the logs provide proof who and when has made said statements. That has to be legally binding.

Same thing if I threaten the life of someone via facebook I can be charged for it. People have been arrested over statements they made on twitter.

This article also says it quite clearly:

https://www.quora.com/Are-Facebook-messages-admissible-in-court-as-evidence

"There is nothing specific about a Facebook message that makes it different from any other evidence that could be submitted to the court. Assuming it’s relevant to an issue in the case, that it can be authenticated, that it’s not more prejudicial than probative, and that it doesn’t fail some other rule of evidence, it would be admissible."

With authentication being a given (the chat contains a lot of information that only the accused would have access to) - this is the same thing as a verbal contract. Verbal contracts are also enforceable in court.

I think it doesn't get any more clear than this?

He has admitted to me that he has taken the money for a purpose, has then misappropriated and lost it without my permission or even knowledge, and then admitted to pay me back later on, but has then changed his mind and ghosted me.

How is that not a 100% solid fool proof case?

Just now, GrandPapillon said:

the judicial system is expensive, hence why you always want to bargain a deal. Nobody wins when you go to court, except the lawyer.

 

Maybe apologize to your friend for being so bossy and upset, and see what happens next.

 

Going to court with weak evidence, and a ghost accused, is not going to help recover the funds.

 

and don't forget you are at least 50% responsible for the mistake, and the judge will take this into consideration, hence you can only hope to recover 50% of your funds, and then you will need subtract all those court costs.

If it was so easy as to apologize I wouldn't be here now.

What makes you think it's a ghost? As I've said I have very precise proof of his identity. Even voice recordings.

And how is a facebook chat log weak evidence? He is authenticated as himself against that platform, which is easily verified by Facebook. Logs can also easily be retrieved by facebook. And the logs contain the clear agreement, which constitutes a contract.

And no I am not responsible for other people's mistakes. How did we suddenly get to that point?

If I give you $100 in exchange for a bottle of wine, you take the money, set it on fire and don't give me my bottle of wine. How exactly is that my fault?

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

it doesn't make sense for you because your are not a lawyer and obviously you never went to court over something like this. You have a very naive view of the court system. If only it was that simple.

 

If you are not paying bills, and there is no contract, then no hearing and that's game over.

 

In the US, I had a client with unpaid bills of 80K USD, and the lawyer wanted  10K USD to start the process. Even with all the writing evidence I had, and the contract etc... I was told I couldn't recover more than 50K USD, with court fees etc... and in person appearance, I would be lucky to recover 25K USD if I had to ask a collection agency to execute the judgement (they want 50% of the claims)

It says pretty clearly here:  https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money

"You can apply to a county court to claim money you’re owed by a person or business."

and

"You might have to go to a court hearing if the other person or business (the ‘defendant’) denies owing the money and you disagree with their response.

You can get the court to order them to pay if they:

• do not respond to your claim"

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

unfortunately that's how it works, the accused have a fundamental right to face their accusers, and that's how 99% of court systems work, with a few exception in the usual dictatorships

 

if he doesn't show up or a lawyer doesn't show up for his case, then the court will postpone the hearings. You can't start proceeding in courts against someone if he is not there or if he is not represented.

 

If it was a serious crime, then the police will apprehend the criminal and take him in custody for court appearance.

 

Obviously, this is not the case here.

 

The court wants to hear both sides of they story, and your story is as credible as the other side, so you need to have him appear in court.

 

They can't make a decision without hearing both sides, that's how it works, and thank god for that.

I have proof in writing of theft of a large sum of money. How is that not the case for the police to get involved?

What you are saying is still not making sense.

It would mean  that nobody, ever, would be going in to court over an unpaid bill or whatever, if, as you say, it's perfectly fine to just ignore it and it goes away. That's got to be BS.

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

but you have no case, unless he decides to come to court and share his side of the story, and tells the truth

 

 

wait what? that doesn't make sense. Otherwise the whole court system  would be a failure.

It can't be that nothing happens as long as they decide not to show up. Nobody ever would show up if that were the case.

It shouldn't matter at all whether they show up or not.

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

possible, and yes the way he expressed himself, he sounds like a bully dodgy chav

 

it's also possible he doesn't want to show you anything that you could use against him in court

I have pretty much everything there is to have. Passport, bank accounts in several countries, addresses, phone numbers, etc etc.

2 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

You might want to read this

Can you bring a claim in the English court?

The basic rule is that the English court has jurisdiction over a non-resident, non-EU defendant if either (1) the defendant can be served with court papers within England and Wales or (2) all the claims against the defendant fall within at least one of the categories of dispute over which the court is prepared to assert jurisdiction. Whether the court will actually exercise that jurisdiction depends on the factors mentioned below.

 

If service within England and Wales is not possible, then the claimant has to obtain the court’s permission to serve the defendant elsewhere in the world. Permission will only be given if three conditions are satis&ed: (1) the claim has a reasonable prospect of success; (2) England is the proper place in which to bring the claim; and (3) each claim falls within at least one of twenty-one categories or ‘gateways’. In other words the court must be satis&ed that it both can and should assert jurisdiction over the claim. Each of these conditions must be addressed in written evidence and presented to the court either on paper or at a hearing to which the defendant is not invited. The defendant’s chance to argue arises after service has been effected.

https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/insight/article/pdf/4577

 

Not straight forward I made a small claim a number of years ago where both parties were in the UK, the typical timeframe of a small claims court is 3-4 months depending on when the Letter before action was sent

Thank you! I duly appreciate the information.

And yeah, I presume this will not be over quick. As long as I have a reasonable chance to get my funds back, it's well worth it for me.

Just now, Pete70 said:

You know what I just realized.

 

There never was a purchase.

 

This whole thing was planned from the start - there never was any intention  to purchase anything. He just kept the money.

 

Why?

 

Isn't it obvious?

 

If there was a purchase (and he himself had been scammed) he would immediately produce a proof of purchase to show what happened. There is really only one reason why you would NOT produce any information on that: if it never happened!!

 

Man how was I so stupid.

 

The rest was then easy and took its natural course.

With that setup, it was just a matter of time until confrontation happened. And then he would simply react the way he did, and react by blocking me.

I'd bet though he didn't count on me suing him in an English court.

You know what I just realized.

There never was a purchase.

This whole thing was planned from the start - there never was any intention  to purchase anything. He just kept the money.

Why?

Isn't it obvious?

If there was a purchase (and he himself had been scammed) he would immediately produce a proof of purchase to show what happened. There is really only one reason why you would NOT produce any information on that: if it never happened!!

Man how was I so stupid.

and within the last 30 minutes, his daughter has blocked me now as well. I have contacted her this morning and let her know the situation.

She used to stay at our house during vacations.  We're not strangers.

So they're talking, and he's pushing whatever agenda he has onward to others.

1 minute ago, Pete70 said:

And well, she's pregnant, which makes me even less wanting to do that.

 

 

 

And yep, he knows that.

2 minutes ago, asiam110 said:

 

I hope it works out.  The closing of the dialog by him is alarming, I'm just suggesting threats at this stage probably won't help (especially since realistically enforcement is going be extremely difficult/costly if even possible), it's closing the door of possibly resolving this amicably.  I would be stress too, again hope it works out, give it some time there's nothing to be gained by emailing him again at 2am

Obviously, yes. I Concur.

This all has happened over a period of time. Not today. Today's time isn't really relevant other than me feeling more and more pressure of having to tell my wife, and in so doing, breaking her heart.

And well, she's pregnant, which makes me even less wanting to do that.

2 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

if it was "important" savings, then it was very foolish to invest it that way, without securing some kind of written plan, or making clear that certain actions were to be taken

 

if the friend didn't want to go through that process, then that was the red flag and deal breaker

 

if someone doesn't want to put in writing what you agree orally, then something is up, and you have your answer

Well, yes and no.

Sure, I would never have invested this into a random stock, or a random crypto or whatever. But because it was with a very highly trusted person (as I've said before and I will say again: I would have entrusted the live of my children to him without hesitating), I went ahead with it.

So in that sense, yes it was important. It was not something I would risk on a poker game (which I don't play anymore) or an investment at the local circus.

Yet, the way this has happened just isn't right.

Just now, asiam110 said:

 

Did you have a contract? I fully agree your friend is in the wrong here.  Yes, ideally you should of been repaid within 34 days,.. I'm saying reporting him to ActionFraud UK when you haven't got a leg to stand on legally isn't going to appeal to his sense of good nature - if he's lost the money through bad judgement of sending out money out of marketplace then he probably can't return 9k in 34 days. 

 

 

Again, I disagree.

I did not expect to be repaid in 34 days. I still don't today.

I expected to have a dialog, and in far less than that.

And again, I have his agreement, in writing digitally, that he'll deliver.

I have his agreement that he'll repay.

And then I have, well, him disappearing.

The one thing I do not comprehend is the silence. It doesn't suit him. It's not a logical consequence of our relationship nor our interactions.

It doesn't make any f'n sense.

4 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

If the op is planning to use the UK small claims court it is advisable to send a letter before action before contacting the court

Here is a good example with the contents required and the legal wording

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-before-small-claims-court-claim-aSFAC8Q6Jqan

 

Nowdays Courts want to see that all avenues have been explored and going to the court is a last resort as all other means of resolution have failed

Thanks for that!

29 minutes ago, Paul DS said:

So you invested 3rd hand in an unregulated generally untrusted investment with many crooks around, you knew you had no redress legally and now you are paying the price!

 

Crypto is mostly unregulated. Sites such as Binance are full of victims.

 

Bitcoin etc is fantasy land! Thr more it is popularised, the more scammers take your money.

 

It will be impossible to make a case...who with, contracts etc, what country, is it a regulated financial instrument? No, never!

 

Sorry, but the saying is "If it looks to good to be true, then it's a con!"

 

Good luck!

... please read the OP

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He hasn't defaulted on that, yet, it's only been just over a month.   Unless he promised the return of the money within a specific time...which he didn't according to you.

I get that, and frankly time wouldn't have been an issue.

All he needed to do was say "I sent $$xxxx to yyyy from zzzz.". Instead he always chose to deflect when asked who the money went to, and then decided that blocking me was the right way forward.

This behavior speaks volumes.

7 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Warren Olsen, the "Bangkok private eye" would have said: "Count your loss and move on!"

 

 

I was prepared for a loss and would have accepted it. Machines broke, bitcoin crashed, whatever.

But not like this.