International Fraud - how to proceed

[Pete70]

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.

 

 

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, Pete70 said:

 

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 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

[Pete70]

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.

[GrandPapillon]

1 hour ago, 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.

 

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

[Pete70]

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.

[GrandPapillon]

8 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

 

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

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

 

sending money blindly to distressed expats in third world countries is a recipe for disaster, above all when those expats are in distressed financial situations (and COVID is one), you don't really know what happened to him

 

Should have made the deal face to face with a face to face follow-up, and yes you are to blame, above all if it was your wife savings or half your savings, it was beyond foolish to put that much money in a crypto mining venture

[GrandPapillon]

I had money "stolen" by expat friends when I was residing in Thailand, trying to help them out or offering them jobs when they were in need. Everytime that backfired or I got screwed over it.

 

1. First payment of 20K THB out of 50K THB and the guy did a runner instead of delivering what I asked him to do. He eventually got deported from Thailand for visa overstay LOL

 

2. 100K THB for a large writing job, and thanks to me he got a new permanent job at a large HK publication, but never got a thank you or ack for this, au contraire, he thought this was normal and took the whole thing for granted

 

3. Giving 200K THB for a 5 day job that was complete sh*t, and the guy (British) not completing his side of the bargain and he was still proud of what he has done. Very disappointing, as I thought he was a friend, and he wouldn't finish the work, I had to finish it with someone else since this was commissioned for a client of mine. Didn't offer to return the money. He left Thailand soon after to take another permanent job, which he got fired from 6 months after, for lying on his professional skills (he was a hack). Came back to Thailand with his tail between the legs, and ask me for another chance to do something else together. I passed, and eventually we had a fight at bar since he couldn't get anything out of me and I exposed him as the fraud that he was LOL

Edited July 6, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[Pete70]

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.

[GrandPapillon]

27 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

 

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.

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 the story, and your story is as credible as the other side, so you need to have him appear in court. The truth is always between the two sides of the story. Maybe there is something you are not telling us that could make his case stronger in his defense.

 

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

Edited July 6, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[Pete70]

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.

 

 

[GrandPapillon]

1 minute ago, Pete70 said:

 

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.

 

 

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)

[Pete70]

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"

 

 

[GrandPapillon]

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.

[GrandPapillon]

2 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

 

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"

 

 

yeah, if you have a paying contract, but that's not the case here. You are taking him to court for making mistakes. Completely different legal rhetoric.

 

It's not a loan or unpaid bills you have with him.

Edited July 6, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[Pete70]

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?

 

 

[GrandPapillon]

3 minutes ago, Pete70 said:

 

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?

 

 

but you are responsible, maybe not in your eyes, but in a court you will for not taking the necessary precaution or giving him carte blanche to act with your money, which is exactly what happened. You are at least 50% responsible for the loss.

 

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.

Edited July 6, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[Pete70]

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?

 

 

 

 

[GrandPapillon]

not in a court system, things can get very random. Like I said, with experience you will find out.

 

Take him to court and see if he shows up. If he doesn't, expect the court to postpone to a new hearing date. This can happen a dozen of times. Happened to me, and it's frustrating.

 

The court don't care, they are used to it. Many hearings are postponed for small reasons.

 

Complete waste of time for everyone, hence why it's expensive at the end.

Edited July 6, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[GrandPapillon]

a friend in Thailand had a claim of 100K EUR against a very large company in Europe. He took them to court, cost him 20K flying there and hiring lawyers etc... at the end only got 50K EUR because the firm claimed that they didn't want to renew the contract, despite violating terms of the contract for termination. The court took the middle road as always, and awarded my friend with 50K EUR. The firm agreed to pay immediately, but it took them 6 months LOL

 

He could have gone to appeal and further, but that was another 20K EUR and 3 years

 

he took the 50K EUR, paid his staff with the remaining 30K EUR and shutdown the office in Thailand

Edited July 6, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[Liverpool Lou]

11 hours ago, robblok said:

It should be easy for the English guy to prove fraud.  He stated he paid a scammer

He didn't state that he "paid a scammer", though!

Edited July 6, 2021 by Liverpool Lou

[Why Me]

OP, you are letting hope obscure reality. Consider the following scenario in a British court where you are both present.

 

Judge: Did you borrow 400k b. from the plaintiff?

 

Brit: Yes,  your Honor, I did.

 

Judge: Why then do you refuse when he's asking to be repaid the loan amount?

 

Brit: I am not refusing. I told him and he knows this that crypto mining is a high risk/reward business. In fact, he loaned the money in the expectation of a 50+% return on investment (cleverly painting the plaintiff as a greedy fellow wanting to get rich off his friend's labor).

 

I expect this to be the case too but the time frame isn't clear. And when I am in the black I will repay Pete fully. In any case, as a signal of my good intentions I am going to hand over to him in court in your presence 10k b. out of my own pocket (does so).

 

Judge: And the rest? Will you make a commitment?

 

Brit: Certainly I will. And if it may please your Honor I will return in a year with a clear picture of the business and a firm payment schedule (thinks to himself, I'll pay the sob 5k next year).

[vinny41]

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/

[Pete70]

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

 

[GrandPapillon]

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

[Pete70]

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.

 

 

[GrandPapillon]

it's going to be hard to prove he has done it alone, you are making a claim and you have no evidence of it

 

tough call,

 

so are you going to "invest" another 5,000 GBP in this legal case?

[robblok]

10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He didn't state that he "paid a scammer", though!

I guess you don't know what crypto mining is ? Its not crypto trading. Crypto mining is having a computer help with transactions of cryptocurrency. It takes computing power and for that you get a reward. There are special computes that are made for that. That is what the guy was going to but. He was not going to invest in crypto.

 

The only way for him to lose money is if he did not buy the machines. Else he could take pictures of the machines and showing output. So Paying a scammer and not getting the computers is the only way to be defrauded.

 

I guess a lot of people don't know the difference between crypto mining and crypto training. Lot of people are thinking this is crypto investment. It is not.

 

So now please reply if you were that English guy would you prove payment to a scammer the only way to prove you lost money to the OP or would you be rude like this English guy.

 

 

[robblok]

Lot of uninformed people in this topic thinking it was crypto currency trading. Maybe people should read up on things a bit more before making comments about crypto trading being risky (it is) but that is not what this is.

 

This is mining meaning having a specialized computer (usually with a good vga card as they seem to do the calculations not the processor). This computer will help complete crypto transactions from buyers and sellers. Anyone who has ever traded crypto knows there is always a fee for a transaction. That fee goes to crypto miners.

 

Wish people would educate themselves more before making themselves look bad. 

 

The OP was talking about mining not investment in a crypto coin for investment.  Mining is far less risky. The only way this English guy could be scammed if he paid for a computer that he did not get.

 

Did everyone miss the part about him buying computers for mining that were not in stock. It was all about buying computers for that purpose.

 

The OP mentioned the computers first not being in stock and guy lost money buying the machines. So please read better and stop sprouting non sense.

[robblok]

9 hours ago, Why Me said:

OP, you are letting hope obscure reality. Consider the following scenario in a British court where you are both present.

 

Judge: Did you borrow 400k b. from the plaintiff?

 

Brit: Yes,  your Honor, I did.

 

Judge: Why then do you refuse when he's asking to be repaid the loan amount?

 

Brit: I am not refusing. I told him and he knows this that crypto mining is a high risk/reward business. In fact, he loaned the money in the expectation of a 50+% return on investment (cleverly painting the plaintiff as a greedy fellow wanting to get rich off his friend's labor).

 

I expect this to be the case too but the time frame isn't clear. And when I am in the black I will repay Pete fully. In any case, as a signal of my good intentions I am going to hand over to him in court in your presence 10k b. out of my own pocket (does so).

 

Judge: And the rest? Will you make a commitment?

 

Brit: Certainly I will. And if it may please your Honor I will return in a year with a clear picture of the business and a firm payment schedule (thinks to himself, I'll pay the sob 5k next year).

Eh crypto mining is not a high risk business crypto trading is.

 

With crypto mining the guy has to buy computers (as said in the OP)

 

So if he did not buy those and the money is lost then its easy to prove fraud.

 

Please read up on crypto mining vs crypto trading.

 

Your whole premisses are wrong. The guy is a crook if he cant show either payment to a scammer or having possession of the comptuers.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

14 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He didn't state that he "paid a scammer", though!

I guess you don't know what crypto mining is ?

You guess wrong and I don't need your patronising explanation of it.

 

The Briton did not state anywhere, to his Swiss pal or anyone else, that "he had paid a scammer".  If you insist on claiming that he did say that, doubtless, you'll be able to show that quote here.