John Rogers Home and Business Searched by the FBI

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I never said it was easy. I am saying that the language they use is not the reason it's hard, but rather that it's hard to prove a fraudulent state of mind.

I don't know about that. I think if you read one of CC's LOA's you would find a lot of verbiage making them not liable for their opinion. I haven't read one but I would bet they are pretty good at denying culpability.....

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't know about that. I think if you read one of CC's LOA's you would find a lot of verbiage making them not liable for their opinion. I haven't read one but I would bet they are pretty good at denying culpability.....

I think it's quite obvious that as long as they've been running their bogus operation and the FBI hasn't already shut them down that it's been deemed not an easy task.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I think it's quite obvious that as long as they've been running their bogus operation and the FBI hasn't already shut them down that it's been deemed not an easy task.

Given the amount of fraud that goes on in this world, it's obviously not an easy task to build a case that will hold up on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Some get busted but most do not. And prosecutorial resources are scarce relative to the number of fraudsters.

[barrysloate]

Peter- here is something I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it: if I rendered an opinion on an autograph, and I got it wrong (I called a bogus autograph genuine) I agree that I could have simply given an erroneous opinion.

But if you gave me a thousand bogus autographs to authenticate, and I said all thousand were genuine, isn't there a tipping point where nobody would believe me? Wouldn't it at some point become obvious that I was committing fraud?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Barry, if nobody believed you then is it fraud? At that point your opinion wouldn't be material.

But where I think you meant to go is where I was going with this originally: that at some point there can be enough circumstantial evidence that a seller knows his opinion is false; and if a seller knows his opinion is false that's just as fraudulent as affirmatively stating the item is genuine.

[barrysloate]

I don't know what the threshhold is for fraud, but I understand your response. It seems like CC will go on indefinitely.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Peter- here is something I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it: if I rendered an opinion on an autograph, and I got it wrong (I called a bogus autograph genuine) I agree that I could have simply given an erroneous opinion.

But if you gave me a thousand bogus autographs to authenticate, and I said all thousand were genuine, isn't there a tipping point where nobody would believe me? Wouldn't it at some point become obvious that I was committing fraud?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Barry, if nobody believed you then is it fraud? At that point your opinion wouldn't be material.

But where I think you meant to go is where I was going with this originally: that at some point there can be enough circumstantial evidence that a seller knows his opinion is false; and if a seller knows his opinion is false that's just as fraudulent as affirmatively stating the item is genuine.

The key element of fraud is proving that the person knew that the material representation he made was false. The big problem is that someone can designate themselves as an "expert" and rubberstamp everything as authentic and as long as that stuff sells, its a win-win situation for both the expert and the seller of the bogus items and why even try to do a competent job by rejecting items? That would be leaving good money on the table. All the expert has to do is be vigilant in believing and communicating what he is authenticating is real.

For something like that to be shut down it would take either an FBI sting like what happened in Operation Bullpen or have a network TV news magazine like 20/20, Dateline or 60 Minutes give them knowingly bad items expose the gross incompetence or fraud and essentially force them out of business.

I recall around 2004, PSA had a World Series of Grading contest at the National. An independent group should do the same with the grading companies of cards, autographs and memorabilia. If done properly it could bring a lot of them problems to light.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Given the amount of fraud that goes on in this world, it's obviously not an easy task to build a case that will hold up on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Some get busted but most do not. And prosecutorial resources are scarce relative to the number of fraudsters.

CC and Morales are the most obvious fraudsters in the hobby at this time...I would think if what they were doing was easy to prosecute it would have been done by now. They're gaming the system.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

CC and Morales are the most obvious fraudsters in the hobby at this time...I would think if what they were doing was easy to prosecute it would have been done by now. They're gaming the system.

Or living on borrowed time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't know about that. I think if you read one of CC's LOA's you would find a lot of verbiage making them not liable for their opinion. I haven't read one but I would bet they are pretty good at denying culpability.....

That's another issue. I haven't seen one either so can't comment.