Ebay Shill Bidder gets done!
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 23,329
Likes: 6
From: Norfolk
Ebay Shill Bidder gets done!
Yes, thats right, Ebay have finally managed to successfully bring charges against someone using a second account to bid against his own items.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-...gainst_Himself
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-...gainst_Himself
Ive been to loads of car auctions where they bounce bids off the wall (have even seen the wall win a couple of times and the car have to come back trhough 
), I really cant see the harm in it, no one is being forced to pay more than they want to for anything.
Ebay only care cause they are losing reserve fee charges.
Its ebay themselves that make ebay auctions less good value, with all the excessive fees, not shill bidders
), I really cant see the harm in it, no one is being forced to pay more than they want to for anything.Ebay only care cause they are losing reserve fee charges.
Its ebay themselves that make ebay auctions less good value, with all the excessive fees, not shill bidders
Last edited by Chip; Jul 6, 2010 at 10:11 AM.
Black Country RSOC
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: Stourbridge
My last employer had an Auction hall on site to dispose of MB finance cars and the number of times ive sat there and thought "that cars doing well" and there hasnt been a single genuine bid. They were all off the wall!!!!
Trending Topics
Advanced PassionFord User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
From: hull
Ive been to loads of car auctions where they bounce bids off the wall (have even seen the wall win a couple of times and the car have to come back trhough ), I really cant see the harm in it, no one is being forced to pay more than they want to for anything.
Ebay only care cause they are losing reserve fee charges.
Its ebay themselves that make ebay auctions less good value, with all the excessive fees, not shill bidders
), I really cant see the harm in it, no one is being forced to pay more than they want to for anything.Ebay only care cause they are losing reserve fee charges.
Its ebay themselves that make ebay auctions less good value, with all the excessive fees, not shill bidders
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
By using this process he managed to sell two Mercedes vehicles, a pie and pasty warmer, a cash register, a refrigerated display counter, three mobile phones, a Land Rover and a digital camera.
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
From: Reading/Essex
http://feedback.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayIS...edbackAsSeller
his ebay account
what law has he acutally broke then?
his ebay account
what law has he acutally broke then?
http://feedback.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayIS...edbackAsSeller
his ebay account
what law has he acutally broke then?
his ebay account
what law has he acutally broke then?
Its classed as fraud mate!
As far as im aware, getting your mates to bid something up would still be classed as fraud if it could be proved that they had no intention to buy, difficult to prove as it might be the case that your mate happens to want to buy something you are selling on there of course, but if you kept cancelling their bid on multiple auctions (which ebay have a record of) then I believe a prosecution for that would be possible too.
I feel sorry for the guy as he has blatantly been punished WAY over the top for what he did, just to make sure this ends up in the media and talked about on forums etc, as a way of publicising the fact it wont be tolerated, ie he has been made an example of.
Bet he never dreamt (like most people dont!) that he risked legal proceedings to this extent!
People now know though of course, so mission accomplished.
The Fraud Act 2006 came into force 15 January 2007. It has radically changed the law of criminal fraud.
The old law
Before the Fraud Act came into force, the statutory fraud offences were based on deception. They included:
* Obtaining property by deception.
* Obtaining a money transfer by deception.
* Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
* Obtaining services by deception.
Each offence would only apply in specific circumstances.
In addition there was (and remains) a non statutory offence of conspiracy to defraud which is defined very widely. There is no need to intend deception or financial loss but there must be more than one participant in the fraud.
Defects in the old law
The deception offences had become a bit of a mess. It was often confusing to work out which offence applied, and they frequently overlapped.
The excessive intricacy of the deception offences contributed to the length and complexity of trials. Moreover, the whole area was riddled with technical loopholes. For example, the court held that a machine (for example a cashpoint) cannot be “deceived” because it does not think.
The new law
The Fraud Act swept all of the old statutory deception offences away. Instead a new offence of fraud has been defined as follows:
* The defendant must have been dishonest, and have intended to make a gain or to cause a loss to another.
* In addition, the defendant must carry out one of these acts:
Making a false or misleading representation.
Failing to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose.
Abusing a position of trust.
The new offence of fraud is intended to be wide and also flexible, particularly as technology changes.
There is no reliance on the concept of "deception". It does not matter whether the false information actually deceives anyone, it is the misleading intention which counts.
The offence of conspiracy to defraud has not been abolished, but the government's objective is that reliance on it by prosecutors should be very much less.
The impact of the change
What will the impact on business of the new act? This will probably not be very profound outside the criminal law enforcement field, but several areas should be highlighted:
* The Fraud Act could be used to criminalise conduct which may previously only have amounted to a breach of contract or other civil law or moral obligation. Examples may include:
Breach of banking covenants. Where a loan contract contains an obligation by the borrower to draw an event of termination to the attention of the bank, then a failure to do so may now be a fraud.
"Shill bidding" on online auction sites. This is where sellers bid up the price of their own items using a second identity.
Certain advertising practices previously seen as sharp, but not illegal, for example paying for a favourable restaurant or hotel review in a publication which appears at first glance to be independent.
Breach of fiduciary duty by directors; and preferences and transactions at undervalue in insolvency situations.
* The Fraud Act significantly limits the right of a defendant to claim privilege against self-incrimination (the right to refuse to disclose documents or give evidence if doing so would expose him to the risk of a criminal prosecution) where he is being charged with a fraud offence.
* Finally, there is the money laundering legislation. As a result of the wider offence, the situations where parties may be obliged by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to report suspicious transactions to the authorities have been increased.
The old law
Before the Fraud Act came into force, the statutory fraud offences were based on deception. They included:
* Obtaining property by deception.
* Obtaining a money transfer by deception.
* Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
* Obtaining services by deception.
Each offence would only apply in specific circumstances.
In addition there was (and remains) a non statutory offence of conspiracy to defraud which is defined very widely. There is no need to intend deception or financial loss but there must be more than one participant in the fraud.
Defects in the old law
The deception offences had become a bit of a mess. It was often confusing to work out which offence applied, and they frequently overlapped.
The excessive intricacy of the deception offences contributed to the length and complexity of trials. Moreover, the whole area was riddled with technical loopholes. For example, the court held that a machine (for example a cashpoint) cannot be “deceived” because it does not think.
The new law
The Fraud Act swept all of the old statutory deception offences away. Instead a new offence of fraud has been defined as follows:
* The defendant must have been dishonest, and have intended to make a gain or to cause a loss to another.
* In addition, the defendant must carry out one of these acts:
Making a false or misleading representation.
Failing to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose.
Abusing a position of trust.
The new offence of fraud is intended to be wide and also flexible, particularly as technology changes.
There is no reliance on the concept of "deception". It does not matter whether the false information actually deceives anyone, it is the misleading intention which counts.
The offence of conspiracy to defraud has not been abolished, but the government's objective is that reliance on it by prosecutors should be very much less.
The impact of the change
What will the impact on business of the new act? This will probably not be very profound outside the criminal law enforcement field, but several areas should be highlighted:
* The Fraud Act could be used to criminalise conduct which may previously only have amounted to a breach of contract or other civil law or moral obligation. Examples may include:
Breach of banking covenants. Where a loan contract contains an obligation by the borrower to draw an event of termination to the attention of the bank, then a failure to do so may now be a fraud.
"Shill bidding" on online auction sites. This is where sellers bid up the price of their own items using a second identity.
Certain advertising practices previously seen as sharp, but not illegal, for example paying for a favourable restaurant or hotel review in a publication which appears at first glance to be independent.
Breach of fiduciary duty by directors; and preferences and transactions at undervalue in insolvency situations.
* The Fraud Act significantly limits the right of a defendant to claim privilege against self-incrimination (the right to refuse to disclose documents or give evidence if doing so would expose him to the risk of a criminal prosecution) where he is being charged with a fraud offence.
* Finally, there is the money laundering legislation. As a result of the wider offence, the situations where parties may be obliged by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to report suspicious transactions to the authorities have been increased.
I feel sorry for the guy as he has blatantly been punished WAY over the top for what he did, just to make sure this ends up in the media and talked about on forums etc, as a way of publicising the fact it wont be tolerated, ie he has been made an example of.
Bet he never dreamt (like most people dont!) that he risked legal proceedings to this extent!
People now know though of course, so mission accomplished.
Last edited by Chip; Jul 7, 2010 at 09:09 AM.
Advanced PassionFord User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 1
From: Ipswich
So if he's not actually broken any law, how/why has been fined? The way ebay/paypal fleece their customers, its no wonder they get fleeced themselves, cant see anything wrong with shill bidding myself, doesn't really hurt anyone, its a shame ebay dont concentrate their efforts on the more serious stuff, nigerians etc...
He has broken the law.
Because he has broken the law and been caught, the 2006 fraud act to be precise.
Ebay nearly always come out on top in the long run, they are too rich and too clever to lose.
Some people say the same about speeding (us lot) or rape within marriage (catholic church) or honour killings (many religiions), but that doesnt change the fact that they are against the law.
Thats said about lots of other crimes too, and still isnt a defence, software piracy for one as a common example.
As far as im aware, they do concentrate a lot of effort on such things, its just not as news worthy.
how/why has been fined?
The way ebay/paypal fleece their customers, its no wonder they get fleeced themselves
cant see anything wrong with shill bidding myself
doesn't really hurt anyone
its a shame ebay dont concentrate their efforts on the more serious stuff, nigerians etc...
He'll probably appeal and get it reduced a bit, it will still be harsh though even if they do drop it a bit.
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
From: Here and there ...
No they didn't. He could have been given 5k fine per offence - he was charged with ten offences so the maximum fine could have been 50k.
Either way, the Fraud Act 2006 is way over the top and way too expansive. It gives scope for more or less anything that is "dishonest" or incorrect to be pursued as a criminal charge for fraud.
Absolutely ridiculous that criminal charges that severe would be brought against someone, at the very worse that's an offence more suited to a caution. Having said that that, it is not the first case I am aware of that is directly related to eBay where someone has been given a punishment over the top in an attempt to set an example.
Quite annoying when there are hundreds of cases of people committing more deliberate and harmful fraud such as benefit fraud where a caution is the only punishment applied.
Typically wonderful UK "justice" system. Disgusting.
Last edited by Isaac.Hunt; Jul 7, 2010 at 02:20 PM.
Thats interesting that each one could have had the max 5K fine, I assumed they had treated it as one offence.
I totally agree though its massively unfair on him that he's feeling the full brunt of a way over the top law when what he did was such a minor thing.
Its never fair when you set an example by going over the top on one individual, but its the cheapest way to advertise the fact that you are going to start chasing up a particular thing.
The moral of the story of course, is dont fuck with eBay cause they wont be playing fair, lol
I totally agree though its massively unfair on him that he's feeling the full brunt of a way over the top law when what he did was such a minor thing.
Its never fair when you set an example by going over the top on one individual, but its the cheapest way to advertise the fact that you are going to start chasing up a particular thing.
The moral of the story of course, is dont fuck with eBay cause they wont be playing fair, lol
Last edited by Chip; Jul 7, 2010 at 02:27 PM.
eBay appear to be determined to try and make it so that people decide its not worth the risk, and the next logical step for an example after making an example of an individual is to drag up someone and their mate next I should think!
I dont doubt for an instant they have some very good examples on file!
Its like classing doing 78mph up the motorway as "dangerous driving" rather than just a minor speeding offence.
They need a new offence for this IMHO
Wye Valley Hardcore
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,283
Likes: 30
From: Hereford/Colchester
Ive been to loads of car auctions where they bounce bids off the wall (have even seen the wall win a couple of times and the car have to come back trhough ), I really cant see the harm in it, no one is being forced to pay more than they want to for anything.
Ebay only care cause they are losing reserve fee charges.
Its ebay themselves that make ebay auctions less good value, with all the excessive fees, not shill bidders
), I really cant see the harm in it, no one is being forced to pay more than they want to for anything.Ebay only care cause they are losing reserve fee charges.
Its ebay themselves that make ebay auctions less good value, with all the excessive fees, not shill bidders
I then brought up the fact that eBay is full of fake, stolen, grey import designer clothing which cheats 1,000's of customers daily which made him very uncomfortable and just said, it was in their continued effort to pursue blah blah blah, we aren't aware of the problem, it's up to eBayers, such as yourself to report these auctions to them as it's impossible to monitor etc, Which I said, sorry its NOT my job to sit there and do your job for you, its a massive problem YOU need to sort out, which i then picked holes in they're Paypal buyer protection program, their Top Rated Seller Structure etc then he directed a question at someone else and ignored me the rest of the meeting
a very nice sidestep away from some very real issues with eBay.eBay just want it all their own way I'm afraid. They also haven't ruled out that they will turn into a direct retailer, the same as Amazon in the very near future.
Last edited by muz; Jul 8, 2010 at 10:33 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nicodinho
Ford Non RS / XR / ST parts for sale.
6
Oct 7, 2015 12:56 PM
