International Fraud - how to proceed

[Golden Triangle]

With regard to his employer, you guys may think it either unethical to contact IBM or that they won't be interested in what one of their senior employees is doing, you could be wrong, I was a civil servant for 20+ years prior to retirement, bringing the civil service into disrepute was a sackable offence, I don't know what IBM's view would be but far from happy would be my guess.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Golden Triangle
Word missing

[itsari]

Why not go to the  small claims court  in the UK as your friend has assets in the UK that you could possibly recover your money from if successful with your claim .

[Pete70]

Just now, itsari said:

Why not go to the  small claims court  in the UK as your friend has assets in the UK that you could possibly recover your money from if successful with your claim .

 

It costs 20'000 THB just to submit a claim. That's a lot of money.

[3STTW]

5 minutes ago, itsari said:

Why not go to the  small claims court  in the UK as your friend has assets in the UK that you could possibly recover your money from if successful with your claim .

 

It won't work; no transaction took place in the UK. Aside form which, there doesn't seem to be any paper trail or legally binding contract.

Edited July 5, 2021 by 3STTW

[itsari]

2 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

 

It costs 20'000 THB just to submit a claim. That's a lot of money.

5 percent of the claimed money over 10 thousand  to 20 thousand 

[Pete70]

2 minutes ago, 3STTW said:

 

It won't work; no transaction took place in the UK. Aside form which, there doesn't seem to be any paper trail or legally binding contract.

 

A transfer to a UK bank account is a transaction  in the UK isn't it

 

And there is a paper trail documenting said transfer, as well as the "promise" to send back the funds.

[itsari]

2 minutes ago, 3STTW said:

 

It won't work; no transaction took place in the UK. Aside form which, there doesn't seem to be any paper trail or legally binding contract.

 

7 minutes ago, 3STTW said:

 

It won't work; no transaction took place in the UK. Aside form which, there doesn't seem to be any paper trail or legally binding contract.

I would say it is possible from the information provided .

[ukrules]

So you've both been scammed together and you're attempting to make him pay for it all.

 

You're quite a friend aren't you.

 

I hope he reads this.

[itsari]

3 minutes ago, ukrules said:

So you've both been scammed together and you're attempting to make him pay for it all.

 

You're quite a friend aren't you.

 

I hope he reads this.

No friends in business . Maybe you have been in Thailand too long 

[RJRS1301]

32 minutes ago, Golden Triangle said:

With regard to his employer, you guys may think it either unethical to contact IBM or that they won't be interested in what one of their senior employees is doing, you could be wrong, I was a civil servant for 20+ years prior to retirement, bringing the civil service into disrepute was a sackable offence, I don't know what IBM's view would be but far from happy would be my guess.

This claim is not provable though with contracts, so IBM will not be interested.

Public service would have also needed proof and investigated thoroughly

 

 

[GrandPapillon]

57 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

 

Yeah I invest extremely conservatively. I don't own shares or options or anything of the sort. I don't gamble.

 

The only reason I did this was because this was the single most highly trusted individual in my entire life. I would have trusted him with the life of my daughters for <deleted>'s sake.

we really don't know people, even after 30 years, until something like this come up

 

<deleted>, we don't even know ourselves ????

[Khabib]

I think your best option is to let some time pass and hope you can rekindle the friendship, thus receiving your money too. 

 

You suggested you don't do stocks, gamble whatever, but sent money that was always undoubtedly at risk.

 

I understand the anger, with daughters and half your savings gone missing.

 

Good luck 

[Pete70]

7 minutes ago, ukrules said:

So you've both been scammed together and you're attempting to make him pay for it all.

 

You're quite a friend aren't you.

 

I hope he reads this.

 

It was his decision to deviate from the plan and pay a stranger, not mine. His mistake, and he deliberately excluded me from it.

 

How else am I supposed to see that?

[GrandPapillon]

1 hour ago, Pete70 said:

 

A verbal agreement, or a written one in chat, does constitute a contract, doesn't it.

 

 

legally it does, and oral agreements are even stronger than written ones, above all in lower courts

 

but if he refused to ack the "oral agreement" in court, it's impossible to prove you had a contract, hence why we have "written" contract on the top of the "oral" one

 

lower courts will always ask for testimony of the oral agreements between each party to make sure what was the "understanding" and if the written contract was in contradiction with the oral agreement

 

you must know that if a lower court establishes that both parties had an oral agreement that was "violated" by the written agreement, the oral agreement will win over the written one. Always.

 

Written agreements have less "intrinsic" value than "oral" agreements, just so you know

 

most people assume the other way around, strangely.

Edited July 5, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[GrandPapillon]

4 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

 

It was his decision to deviate from the plan and pay a stranger, not mine. His mistake, and he deliberately excluded me from it.

 

How else am I supposed to see that?

you can take him to court as a co-investor if he indeed screwed up the deal. You might have a case in the UK, so try it there. Maybe not too expensive. Him living in Vietnam is irrelevant if he is domiciled in the UK.

[Khabib]

 

The only problem with oral agreements, it enters the realm of hearsay.

[Pete70]

1 minute ago, Khabib said:

 

The only problem with oral agreements, it enters the realm of hearsay.

 

We have a facebook chat log.

 

That should be simple as it can't be tampered with and the courts can request that directly from facebook.

[GrandPapillon]

5 minutes ago, Khabib said:

 

The only problem with oral agreements, it enters the realm of hearsay.

right, but if his partner is honest, he will tell the court the true nature of the oral agreement

 

if he is not, then you have your answer and it was never meant to be recovered

Edited July 5, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[Khabib]

Pete70,

 

That's true. You must be sure he has assets in the uk, and you must thoroughly investigate the detail of the incredibly complicated situation you describe before you go that route.

 

I think, from what I've read you will more likely get it back in time giving your friend a bit more chance. Blocking is rude, but if he's lost money too at the moment, he's not going to be a happy bunny.

 

I think the end cost of pursuing him in the uk, plus the emotional element too, will be greater than the money currently "at risk"

 

I hope you and your friend sort this and retrieve those happy memories you had together, very valuable indeed.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, Pete70 said:

this isnt' helping. I'm not getting any helpful legal advice here at all.

You're making an assumption that you're not getting anything "helpful"!  Maybe you're just not getting what you wanted to hear.  As you said, you "have no idea". 

[GrandPapillon]

4 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

 

We have a facebook chat log.

 

That should be simple as it can't be tampered with and the courts can request that directly from facebook.

for a small case, they are not going to bother FB, and it might be insufficient in the eyes of the court. He needs to tell himself to the court. Electronic communication is "accessory" and can be used to discredit the "testimony" of the party, but courts always want to hear a direct testimony first by the party. Without the testimony of the party, electronic communications are insufficient for a final decision.

[Pete70]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You're making an assumption that you're not getting anything "helpful"!  Maybe you're just not getting what you wanted to hear.  As you said, you "have no idea". 

Many have been helpful. Just you, you haven't.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, Pete70 said:

ripping off someone is one thing.

 

Taking half their entire family's savings? That's a whole other level.

You gave "half you entire savings" to him, didn't you, and he told you that he'll pay you back, didn't he?   Isn't that the real "level"?

[Khabib]

2 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

for a small case, they are not going to bother FB, and it might be insufficient in the eyes of the court. He needs to tell himself to the court. Electronic communication is "accessory" and can be used to discredit the "testimony" of the party, but courts always want to hear a direct testimony first by the party. Without the testimony of the party, electronic communications are insufficient for a final decision.

 

Thats absolutely right. Details like ip address isn't even good enough I think. It needs more than that 

[Pete70]

4 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

for a small case, they are not going to bother FB, and it might be insufficient in the eyes of the court. He needs to tell himself to the court. Electronic communication is "accessory" and can be used to discredit the "testimony" of the party, but courts always want to hear a direct testimony first by the party. Without the testimony of the party, electronic communications are insufficient for a final decision.

 

You're saying if a guy says "A", it's irrelevant that I have electronic communication that proves he originally said "B"?

 

I don't believe that can be true.

 

[GrandPapillon]

it's easy to get angry when you get scammed or lost money to a friend, or a deal, no matter the amount

 

if it's small, you learn your lesson

[Khabib]

8 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

right, but if his partner is honest, he will tell the court the true nature of the oral agreement

 

if he is not, then you have your answer and it was never meant to be recovered

If he takes his friend to court, all friendship ceases, along with the truth, in that moment, I think.

[mvdf]

Best way forward is to "appeal to his conscience" (as the saying goes) by perhaps trying to revive the friendship. This might sound calculating or even manipulative but then again, if you are intent on recovering your money, this might be an effective alternative. 

 

Using law enforcement or debt recovery tactics in this part of the world is not always a guaranteed solution. It can be expensive and any assurances given should never be relied upon.

[GrandPapillon]

1 minute ago, Pete70 said:

 

You're saying if a guy says "A", it's irrelevant that I have electronic communication that proves he originally said "B"?

 

I don't believe that can be true.

 

it will discredit him, so it will be useful. But they are not going to take your word for it, as you will have to give your own testimony. The court will not take a decision if there are contradictions between testimony and you only have a chat log from FB.

 

Chat log is not "forensic" evidence to win a case.

[GrandPapillon]

2 minutes ago, Khabib said:

If he takes his friend to court, all friendship ceases, along with the truth, in that moment, I think.

yep, but at least it will be resolved and he will have his answer

 

instead of having a "ghost" situation, which is worse IMO