No Honor Among Thieves: Woman Scams Nigerian Scammers Out Of $33k

from the trust-issues dept

With so much focus on Nigerian-based scams, many Nigerian scammers now seek to use middlemen to help with things like bank accounts to keep suspicion levels lower. There are plenty of stories of people in the US, Europe and elsewhere who take "jobs" that involve having a local bank account through which scam money flows to Nigeria -- where they're allowed to keep a percentage of the cash. Often, they are not otherwise involved or knowledgeable about the scam.

That appears to be the case with one woman in Australia, who has now gotten in trouble... because she scammed the scammers out of $33k while managing the pass through bank account (found via Slashdot). She apparently had no idea of the scam that was going on (involving bogus online used car sales), but decided to keep some extra amounts of money. Of course, when some of those scammed in the car deal sought to track down the scammers... the focus shifted to her, where her own thievery from the thieves was discovered.

The story notes that the woman has now pled guilty to "aggravated fraud," though it's unclear if the fraud was for the original fraud from her "bosses" in the Nigerian scam ring... or for scamming the scammers themselves. Somehow I doubt they would press charges.

Filed Under: fraud, nigerian scam, scams

Belgian Anti-Piracy Group Facing Copyright Fraud, Embezzlement & Money Laundering Charges

from the funny-how-that-works dept

The Belgian anti-piracy group, SABAM, has been one of the most aggressive anti-piracy groups out there. The group recently lost two huge court cases in which it tried to get courts to force ISPs and hosting firms to put in place filters to stop infringement. Perhaps more controversially, the organization has tried to require social networks to pay a flat fee for all the infringement happening on their networks. A year ago, there was a story of SABAM taking cash for a band they didn't represent after a TV show played a "joke" on the group.

However, in what appears not to be a joke, it looks like SABAM and some of its execs are facing some pretty serious charges, including "falsifying accounts to cover up bribe payments, abuse of trust, copyright fraud and embezzlement," according to TorrentFreak. Apparently, according to the charges, SABAM wasn't very good at actually distributing the money it was supposed to distribute to artists. Things to keep in mind every time one of these groups insists it's looking out for the interests of artists...

Filed Under: belgium, copyright, embezzlement, fraud, money laundering
Companies: sabam

More Details Emerge On Questionable UK Seizure Of Music Blog

from the crazy-estimates dept

Yesterday we wrote about the bizarre seizure of a music blog, RnBXclusive.com, by UK law enforcement officials. Many people doubted that it was real, given the insanity of the splash page that SOCA -- the UK's Serious Organized Crime Agency -- had put up on the site. However, SOCA has since confirmed that it's real. SOCA is also claiming that this is about "fraud" rather than copyright infringement, because the site apparently had posted some pre-release music (something that happens pretty frequently). It's called a leak, not fraud. And many artists embrace them -- or (quite frequently) leak the works themselves because it builds up buzz.

SOCA is also making the absolutely laughable statement that this one blog was costing the labels "approximately £15 m per year." Perhaps in some fantasy land where the IFPI/RIAA is in charge of "new math," but not anywhere in reality. Now, certainly some of these leaks may have broken the law, but at best they should be civil issues and actual harm should be proved, rather than fantasy harm. While RnBXclusive was a decently widely read blog among music blogs, Dajaz1 (who, again, knows in great detail how all this insanity works) is pointing out that if the £15m claim is accurate, then you could easily sum up all the music blogs around, and they would account for more losses than "what the recorded music industry has made total since the very first record deal was signed. Per year."

Isn't it time that law enforcement stopped relying on fantasy numbers and started living in reality? Especially when it comes to censoring blogs?

Filed Under: blogs, fraud, pre-release, seizures, soca, takedowns, uk

Judge In South Carolina Poised To Dismiss Righthaven Suit There As Well

from the down-goes-another-one dept

Ah, the hits just keep on coming for Righthaven. Having already had judges in Nevada and Colorado dismiss Righthaven cases for lack of standing, the one remaining state where Righthaven had tried its questionable legal tactics was South Carolina, which had prompted a somewhat epic countersuit. Not surprisingly, it's looking like it's a trifecta of losses for Righthaven, as magistrate judge Jacquelyn Austin has made it clear that she's not buying whatever it is that Righthaven is selling. She's given the company until October 28th to explain why the case shouldn't be dismissed for lack of standing.

Defendant contests Plaintiff’s ownership of the disputed copyright and argues the case should be dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff’s ownership of its assigned copyrights has been contested in Nevada and Colorado. Judges in Nevada have dismissed complaints for lack of standing and issued orders to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The copyright assignments in the Nevada cases are governed by a Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven LLC and Stephens Media LLC which appears to be very similar to the Copyright Alliance Agreement (the “CAA”), including its Schedule 1 – Terms and Conditions, between Plaintiff and MediaNews Group, Inc. (“MediaNews”) that Defendant asserts governs the copyright assignment at issue in this case.* Moreover, the CAA appears to support Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff does not have standing to sue for copyright infringement. Specifically, the CAA appears to qualify any copyright assignments it governs such that Plaintiff is left only with a bare right to sue and does not own any exclusive rights in the copyright, as would be required for Plaintiff to have standing to allege an infringement claim on those copyrights. See Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an assignee who held an accrued claim for copyright infringement, but who had no legal or beneficial interest in the underlying copyright itself, could not institute a cause of action for infringement); Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1982) (holding that one who owns no exclusive right in a copyright may not sue for infringement; only the owner of an exclusive right under a copyright may bring suit).

Although Plaintiff argues substantive analysis of the assignment must await discovery, the Court believes this issue should be addressed because it goes to Plaintiff’s standing to bring a copyright infringement claim at all. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court issues this Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s lack of ownership of any exclusive rights in the copyright and, therefore, lack of standing to sue.

I'm assuming that this is really just more guidance to Righthaven competitors from a judge who recognizes Righthaven's "genuine" legal arguments, right Steve?

Filed Under: copyright, fraud, south carolina, unauthorized practice of law
Companies: righthaven

Actress Sues Amazon Because Her Age Appeared On Her IMDB Profile

from the it's-fraud-to-report-the-truth dept

Eric Goldman pointed us to a bizarre legal complaint against Amazon.com by an anonymous actress. Her complaint? That Amazon's IMDB movie info site put her real age on her profile page. She claims that she never gave Amazon that info directly, but that it pulled the info from her credit card file, which she used to sign up for a "pro" IMDB account.

In Plaintiff’s case, Defendants were able to and did access Plaintiff’s personal and credit card information by intercepting and recording her confidential electronic communications without or beyond her consent, further using that information to cross-reference public records and other sources to obtain, among other things, Plaintiff’s legal name, age, date of birth, and other personal, confidential information, and making some of that unlawfully-obtained confidential information available to the public at www.imdb.com and other affiliated and unaffiliated websites.

By this practice, Defendants committed fraud, breached the terms of the Subscriber Agreement and Privacy Policy entered into with Plaintiff, and violated Plaintiff’s statutory privacy and consumer protection rights as described herein. Plaintiff brings this action seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief to redress Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

All of this... because she didn't want her age identified on her IMDB page. The details behind all of this is that the actress is apparently Asian American, but does not use her real name for acting. Instead, she uses an Americanized name, and claims that she has been meticulous in not connecting the two identities at all. Thus, she claims that no one could possibly know the real age of the actress' stage name, unless they could connect her real name to the stage name. She claims that in signing up for IMDBPro, she supplied her credit card, with her real name, which Amazon then used to identify who she was and to figure out her actual date of birth. The woman insists that she appears much younger, and that she's suffered greatly from having her age revealed:

First, because lesser-known forty-year-old actresses are not in demand in the entertainment business, Plaintiff has suffered a substantial decrease in acting credits, employment opportunities and earnings since Defendants’ addition of Plaintiff’s legal date of birth to the Internet Movie Database. Second, because Plaintiff looks so much younger than her actual age indicates, Plaintiff has experienced rejection in the industry for each “forty-year-old” role for which she has interviewed because she does not and cannot physically portray the role of a forty-year old woman.

So what's the actual legal issue? She's claiming breach of contract, fraud, and violations of Washington State's privacy and consumer protection acts. The details suggest that it's not quite as crazy as it seemed at first... but still pretty crazy. First off, it's not entirely clear that Amazon actually did what she claims (used her credit card info to establish her age). It's entirely possible that the info on IMDB came from other sources. Second, even if it's upsetting to her, it's not at all clear that one's age is the kind of info that could ever be deemed "private" or personally identifiable info that is subject to privacy rules. The case seems to hinge on whether or not there's any real expectation of privacy in one's age. I just can't see a court buying that argument.

Filed Under: actress, age, breach of contract, fraud, imdb
Companies: amazon

Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?

from the court-may-think-so... dept

We've noted in the past how the courts have been stretching massively the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which was really designed to deal with unauthorized access to computers -- commonly referred to as malicious hacking. Yet, the courts have been interpreting it to cover all sorts of things that nobody would actually think of as hacking. In a recent case, for example, a guy who was a consultant at giant Deloitte & Touche, but then left to join a competitor, was sued by D&T because he destroyed the original hard drive in his work issued computer. When he quit, he returned the computer with a brand new hard drive. He had taken out the old hard drive and destroyed it because it had personal data on it (tax returns, account info and logins for personal things) that he didn't want to share with D&T.

It's difficult to see how this amounts to "hacking" or unauthorized access, and so the guy sought to have the case dismissed. Yet the court is allowing it to go forward, saying that the destruction of the hard drive was "without authorization" and thus the action fits under the CFAA. The problem here, as in other CFAA cases, is that it seems to interpret almost anything that doesn't have direct authorization as being "unauthorized access" and thus, the equivalent of fraud or hacking. But in this case, it seems pretty clear that the guy didn't do anything to harm the original company. He was just a little overzealous in trying to protect his personal info. Considering that his expertise as a consultant was in security and privacy... perhaps his actions aren't all that surprising, really. What really is questionable here is why D&T is suing in the first place. They got back the computer with a newer hard drive, so it's not like he returned a broken sytem to them.

Filed Under: cfaa, fraud, hacking, hard drive
Companies: deloitte & touche

Should Doctors Who Put Their Names On Ghostwritten 'Journal' Articles For Big Pharma Be Sued For Fraud?

from the and-don't-forget-racketeering dept

A few years back, we wrote about one of the (many) nasty and nefarious practices of the pharma industry: ghostwriting scientific "review" articles that pretended to give an overview of research on a certain treatment, but which really promoted a specific treatment, while de-emphasizing the risks. These ghostwritten works were then made to look legitimate by getting a real doctor or academic to put their name on it, and then getting it published, sometimes in somewhat prestigious journals. Back in 2009, there was some movement on this story, as some Senators began investigating this practice... but not much came of it.

However, now, there's a fascinating article over at PLoS, arguing that guest authors who put their names on such ghostwritten papers should be charged with fraud under the RICO Act. The article argues that mere academic sanctions and/or banning such authors from publishing again in certain journals may not be enough. Instead, it suggests that a credible claim can be made in some cases on a RICO class action:

Because a journal’s readers are all harmed by the fraud, they may sue the guest in a civil RICO class action. One of their harms involves the value of the journal subscription. The subscription price represents the value of a year’s worth of articles that conform to the guidelines. Readers would not willingly pay for the fraudulent articles, as shown by the hypothetical example of a guest author who disclaims responsibility for authorship. Whether or not they read the article in question, its publication deprives them of the opportunity to read an article satisfying the journal’s requirements, and thus diminishes the value of their subscription. The harm may be measured by reducing the subscription price in proportion to the space devoted to the ghostwritten article. If the subscription costs $100, and the journal publishes 100 articles per year, it could be said that each subscriber suffers a $1 loss from a fraudulent article. The individual loss is small, but the aggregate loss to all subscribers may be significant—particularly if the cost is trebled under RICO.

While I find the whole practice of bogus pharma marketing of this nature to be ridiculous, I'm still not sure I see a strong RICO claim here. My guess is that a lot of courts would throw this kind of claim out pretty quickly. I agree that something should be done to stop ghostwritten articles, but I'm not convinced that potentially charging them under the RICO Act is going to be the most effective.

Filed Under: fraud, ghost writing, journals, medical journals, pharmaceuticals, rico

Petition To South Carolina Supreme Court Charges Righthaven With Unauthorized Practice Of Law

from the gift-that-keeps-on-giving dept

We just wrote about the effort by one of the people sued by Righthaven to file a massive response with counterclaims. One of those claims was that Righthaven was involved in the unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina. Now, the very same legal team has petitioned the South Carolina State Supreme Court -- which has specifically asked people to petition it on the unauthorized practice of law -- in order to get a declaratory judgment on the issue. The claims in this petition match, pretty much exactly, the claim in the original response lawsuit (with some more detail), but taking it straight to the state Supreme Court is definitely an interesting move.

To be honest, I've always found statutes or rules against "the unauthorized practice of law" to be a bit questionable in general. People should be able to avail themselves of the legal system without a lawyer, if they so choose (even if it's not very smart), and requiring one to become "licensed" has always struck me as much more of a method of limiting supply (and increasing costs), rather than any real attempt to maintain quality. That said, the unauthorized practice of law, remains against the law, and it appears that Righthaven may have to defend itself on this one.

The filing does list out some interesting cases, basically state by state by state by state, that highlight "sham" assignments for the sake of lawsuits, and compares them all to Righthaven... and then notes that Righthaven is worse than almost all of those other cases:

Righthaven is far worse than the debt collectors referenced in the cases cited above. In every single one of those cases, the debt collector at least tried to collect the debt prior to litigation.... But with Righthaven, its first and only act in the collection of alleged debts is to prosecute a lawsuit. That is all Righthaven does and all it ever did. Righthaven is not a debt collector who unintentionally ran afoul of the law of unauthorized practice, Righthaven is an entity set up ab initio for the express purpose of committing the unauthorized practice of law.

Clearly, it seems the lawyers are hoping for a sympathetic ruling here in the South Carolina Supreme Court, which will, in turn, help even further the claims in the original case, that this whole thing is really racketeering. I still think that claim is a long shot, but if this petition actually goes forward, Righthaven may be in a lot more trouble than it had ever imagined.

As with the response in the lawsuit, this petition has some amusing moments. My favorite, concerning Righthaven's continued (and continuing) efforts to rewrite its agreement with Stephens Media to get just enough control to be allowed to sue, the filing mocks the repeated attempts by Righthaven to find the magic words, and says:

It's a wonder Righthaven's pleadings don't end with 'arbracadabra.'

It also later claims: "Righthaven and the truth are not well acquainted." It's always fun when you find a lawyer who's willing to go out on a limb a bit with some humor in these filings, though, certainly, some courts have problems with such cheeky attitudes. Either way, if these lawsuits do well, Righthaven may be in a lot more trouble than people already think it's in.

Filed Under: copyright, fraud, south carolina, unauthorized practice of law
Companies: righthaven

Judge: Not Having The Best Security Not Illegal; Defrauded Company Can't Blame Bank

from the required-security? dept

An interesting ruling coming out of Maine. A judge has sided with a bank, in a case in which a company tried to blame its bank for not having better security, after it was hit by a trojan horse password stealer on one of its computers and subsequently had scammers transfer about $600k out of its account. The judge agreed that the bank did not have particularly good security, but also noted that there is no legal requirement that the bank have the absolutely best security. This is definitely the right decision, even if some may have a gut reaction the other way. To some extent, the company has to take some responsibility for its own actions, and on the flip-side, one would hope that market pressures would drive the banks to implement better security. For example, in this case, the bank itself -- Ocean Bank -- is getting a ton of bad publicity about its really poor security due to this lawsuit. So, even if it's won the lawsuit, that hardly means the bank comes out of it unscathed.

Filed Under: banks, fraud, liability, security