Article about Collecting and Fraud in the Hobby

Snowman · #1 09-21-2022, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Assuming you are talking broadly about altering cards and not just cleaning which some don't view as alteration at all, are you suggesting I don't know this area of the law and you do? Are you suggesting Brent's elite criminal defense lawyer who along with me explained this at length in the day and later advised Brent to cooperate doesn't know the law but you do? Are you suggesting SA Brusokas has spent years investigating activity that was perfectly legal? Come on Travis, stop it.

As to your question, which is fair and you should have stopped there, you need to understand the nature of mail and wire fraud. just altering the card hasn't yet defrauded anyone through the wires or mail. It only becomes a crime when those elements are met, in other words when there's been a scheme carried out through the wires or mail by means of a material misrepresentation or non-disclosure. In other words, it's not the sale per se of the altered card that's the problem, it's the non -disclosure of the fact that it's altered. If I trim a card, get it past the graders, and sell it with full disclosure, there's no fraud. So your logic -- if it isn't illegal to alter it, it can't be illegal to sell it -- misunderstands the nature of mail and wire fraud. Oh, and in your free time read the Mastro indictment and the part about the Wagner. The part that allegedly was mail fraud was not the trimming but the concealment.

Now if your REAL point is not that it couldn't be a crime, but that it isn't something that SHOULD be prosecuted, that would be a different point and discussion.

I'm not making claims about anyone's knowledge of the law or lack thereof. I think my primary concern with your argument is that you seem to just declare that restoring a baseball card for the purpose of profiting from it is tantamount to fraud. That may be a majority opinion among serious collectors, but I don't think the rest of the world sees it that way. I don't even think most people would view it as slimy behavior, let alone criminal. I think they would just roll their eyes at us. The fact that someone profits from something that a niche group of people dislike doesn't make it a crime. Can you point to something specific that clearly makes this behavior a crime?

The fact that Brent sought legal counsel is not evidence of criminal activity. He has not been charged with any crimes related to this scandal, to our knowledge, despite the FBI being all up in his business. Nor has anyone else for that matter. Ever in fact (to my knowledge). And it's not due to a shortage of evidence. The feds were handed mountains of irrefutable evidence of multiple card doctors having bought, altered, regraded, and then resold cards for a profit. They know the names behind every account those doctors used on every online platform and who all was involved. In my observation, they clearly decided this was a nothing burger. I'm open to being wrong with my read of the situation, but the clock sure is ticking on that being the case if so.

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it. Also, I believe Mastro himself references this fact in one of his interviews. I'd have to find it, but I believe he expressly states that the Wagner had nothing to do with why he was charged. Also, multiple associates of his were charged with mail fraud in the same case, yet they had nothing to do with that card. Also, I believe he said he sold it to the next owner in person in a cash deal, so how could mail fraud even come into play if so? My understanding is that the mail fraud charge was for auctioning off (and shipping) a baseball that he and his associates knew was a counterfeit.

Another disconnect that we're having though is with respect to the legal obligations (or lack thereof) that someone would have to disclose what they've done to a card prior to selling it. Obviously, it's the "right" thing to do in most cases, but that doesn't make it an obligation. I realize this may seem outlandish on the face of it for something like trimming a card, but if you continue along this path, you eventually find yourself having to defend the position that wiping off a fingerprint or a smudge from a modern chrome card is an act of "card molestation" that "must be disclosed" (I'm quoting this from Sports Card Radio's recent YouTube video where he hilariously, and quite literally, states precisely this - and he wasn't joking).

The real problem from my viewpoint is that people foolishly place PSA on a pedestal and fail to educate themselves on what they're actually buying. I have zero sympathy for those "collectors" (or "investors"). I collect raw sets. I don't need PSA's remarkably inconsistent opinion on the condition of the vast majority of my collection. I probably wouldn't even care if I found out that a few of the cards in my sets had been trimmed (so long as they still measure and look accurate). With the cards I do submit for grading, I only do so because the market dictates that it's necessary. And in those cases, I stick to low and mid grade cards, so alterations aren't much of a concern. And if I get a BS grade, I crack it out and resubmit until I get an accurate grade.

1952boyntoncollector · #2 09-21-2022, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'm not making claims about anyone's knowledge of the law or lack thereof. I think my primary concern with your argument is that you seem to just declare that restoring a baseball card for the purpose of profiting from it is tantamount to fraud. That may be a majority opinion among serious collectors, but I don't think the rest of the world sees it that way. I don't even think most people would view it as slimy behavior, let alone criminal. I think they would just roll their eyes at us. The fact that someone profits from something that a niche group of people dislike doesn't make it a crime. Can you point to something specific that clearly makes this behavior a crime?

The fact that Brent sought legal counsel is not evidence of criminal activity. He has not been charged with any crimes related to this scandal, to our knowledge, despite the FBI being all up in his business. Nor has anyone else for that matter. Ever in fact (to my knowledge). And it's not due to a shortage of evidence. The feds were handed mountains of irrefutable evidence of multiple card doctors having bought, altered, regraded, and then resold cards for a profit. They know the names behind every account those doctors used on every online platform and who all was involved. In my observation, they clearly decided this was a nothing burger. I'm open to being wrong with my read of the situation, but the clock sure is ticking on that being the case if so.

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it. Also, I believe Mastro himself references this fact in one of his interviews. I'd have to find it, but I believe he expressly states that the Wagner had nothing to do with why he was charged. Also, multiple associates of his were charged with mail fraud in the same case, yet they had nothing to do with that card. Also, I believe he said he sold it to the next owner in person in a cash deal, so how could mail fraud even come into play if so? My understanding is that the mail fraud charge was for auctioning off (and shipping) a baseball that he and his associates knew was a counterfeit.

Another disconnect that we're having though is with respect to the legal obligations (or lack thereof) that someone would have to disclose what they've done to a card prior to selling it. Obviously, it's the "right" thing to do in most cases, but that doesn't make it an obligation. I realize this may seem outlandish on the face of it for something like trimming a card, but if you continue along this path, you eventually find yourself having to defend the position that wiping off a fingerprint or a smudge from a modern chrome card is an act of "card molestation" that "must be disclosed" (I'm quoting this from Sports Card Radio's recent YouTube video where he hilariously, and quite literally, states precisely this - and he wasn't joking).

The real problem from my viewpoint is that people foolishly place PSA on a pedestal and fail to educate themselves on what they're actually buying. I have zero sympathy for those "collectors" (or "investors"). I collect raw sets. I don't need PSA's remarkably inconsistent opinion on the condition of the vast majority of my collection. I probably wouldn't even care if I found out that a few of the cards in my sets had been trimmed (so long as they still measure and look accurate). With the cards I do submit for grading, I only do so because the market dictates that it's necessary. And in those cases, I stick to low and mid grade cards, so alterations aren't much of a concern. And if I get a BS grade, I crack it out and resubmit until I get an accurate grade.

crime and whether someone wants to enforce it are 2 different things. But yeah if a 'crime' is never prosecuted its like if a tree falls in the forrest but noone is there does is make a noise..

In my life i always hear of people getting away with something but I know that if i ever did it, i would always get in trouble. (not that i would ever do it etc) However i sort of chalk this card altering business to that.

In a more serious nature there are atrocities is many parts of the world that people think are a nothing burger as well, so just saying other people dont care really is a nothing burger as well.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 09-21-2022, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'm not making claims about anyone's knowledge of the law or lack thereof. I think my primary concern with your argument is that you seem to just declare that restoring a baseball card for the purpose of profiting from it is tantamount to fraud. That may be a majority opinion among serious collectors, but I don't think the rest of the world sees it that way. I don't even think most people would view it as slimy behavior, let alone criminal. I think they would just roll their eyes at us. The fact that someone profits from something that a niche group of people dislike doesn't make it a crime. Can you point to something specific that clearly makes this behavior a crime?

The fact that Brent sought legal counsel is not evidence of criminal activity. He has not been charged with any crimes related to this scandal, to our knowledge, despite the FBI being all up in his business. Nor has anyone else for that matter. Ever in fact (to my knowledge). And it's not due to a shortage of evidence. The feds were handed mountains of irrefutable evidence of multiple card doctors having bought, altered, regraded, and then resold cards for a profit. They know the names behind every account those doctors used on every online platform and who all was involved. In my observation, they clearly decided this was a nothing burger. I'm open to being wrong with my read of the situation, but the clock sure is ticking on that being the case if so.

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it. Also, I believe Mastro himself references this fact in one of his interviews. I'd have to find it, but I believe he expressly states that the Wagner had nothing to do with why he was charged. Also, multiple associates of his were charged with mail fraud in the same case, yet they had nothing to do with that card. Also, I believe he said he sold it to the next owner in person in a cash deal, so how could mail fraud even come into play if so? My understanding is that the mail fraud charge was for auctioning off (and shipping) a baseball that he and his associates knew was a counterfeit.

Another disconnect that we're having though is with respect to the legal obligations (or lack thereof) that someone would have to disclose what they've done to a card prior to selling it. Obviously, it's the "right" thing to do in most cases, but that doesn't make it an obligation. I realize this may seem outlandish on the face of it for something like trimming a card, but if you continue along this path, you eventually find yourself having to defend the position that wiping off a fingerprint or a smudge from a modern chrome card is an act of "card molestation" that "must be disclosed" (I'm quoting this from Sports Card Radio's recent YouTube video where he hilariously, and quite literally, states precisely this - and he wasn't joking).

The real problem from my viewpoint is that people foolishly place PSA on a pedestal and fail to educate themselves on what they're actually buying. I have zero sympathy for those "collectors" (or "investors"). I collect raw sets. I don't need PSA's remarkably inconsistent opinion on the condition of the vast majority of my collection. I probably wouldn't even care if I found out that a few of the cards in my sets had been trimmed (so long as they still measure and look accurate). With the cards I do submit for grading, I only do so because the market dictates that it's necessary. And in those cases, I stick to low and mid grade cards, so alterations aren't much of a concern. And if I get a BS grade, I crack it out and resubmit until I get an accurate grade.

You are missing my point about Brent. His counsel advised him to cooperate in the investigation of which he was and may still be a target. If there was no possible crime here, he would not have so advised him. Likewise, if there was no possible crime here, the FBI would have dropped this very quickly. It did not.

G1911 · #4 09-21-2022, 11:54 AM

I have a hard time seeing how altering an item without disclosing it for the purpose of increasing price is not fraud.

I also think the odds Brent gets charged for this are very small. The feds are not going to take the time and effort to clean up a hobby almost nobody actually wants cleaned up.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 09-21-2022, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I have a hard time seeing how altering an item without disclosing it for the purpose of increasing price is not fraud.

I also think the odds Brent gets charged for this are very small. The feds are not going to take the time and effort to clean up a hobby almost nobody actually wants cleaned up.

You might want to run that by Brian Brusokas. You are aware presumably the FBI started an investigation in 2019, issued scads of subpoenas, and that Brent as a target or potential target agreed to cooperate, right?

G1911 · #6 09-21-2022, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You might want to run that by Brian Brusokas. You are aware presumably the FBI started an investigation in 2019, issued scads of subpoenas, and that Brent as a target or potential target agreed to cooperate, right?

I am well aware. Hence why I said �charged�. I don�t think this is going to end up with Brent with in court on charges of fraud for altering cards. That is why I said, specifically, what I said. You are aware that that is different from being investigated, right?

Peter_Spaeth · #7 09-21-2022, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I am well aware. Hence why I said “charged”. I don’t think this is going to end up with Brent with in court on charges of fraud for altering cards. That is why I said, specifically, what I said. You are aware that that is different from being investigated, right?

Man you are being smug today. You also said the feds would not take the time and effort, suggesting to me you were not aware they are in fact devoting a substantial time and effort.

PS, he would not be charged with altering cards, it would be with mail and wire fraud for selling without disclosure.

G1911 · #8 09-21-2022, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Man you are being smug today. You also said the feds would not take the time and effort, suggesting to me you were not aware they are in fact devoting a substantial time and effort.

PS, he would not be charged with altering cards, it would be with mail and wire fraud for selling without disclosure.

I copied your exact condescending phrasing, that you chose to use first. Smugness breeds smugness.

I am, again, aware, which is why I said exactly what I said. �Charged for fraud�. �Fraud for altering cards� is, very obviously, not the literal name of the crime but a descriptor of what has happened, on which we seem to agree. We are, of course, all intimately aware that Brent did not alter cards to silently keep in his personal collection.

Snowman · #9 09-21-2022, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I have a hard time seeing how altering an item without disclosing it for the purpose of increasing price is not fraud.

Alterations lie on a spectrum of acceptability to collectors. It would never occur to me that I might have some obligation to inform a future buyer that I wiped a fingerprint or a smudge off of a card prior to submitting it for grading. Yet, there are those in the hobby who literally wish to make such demands of others (Sports Card Radio is one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI4B8lfebdE starting around the 3:40 mark).

Likewise, it would never occur to me that if I had a card with a dinged/lifted/bent corner that I pushed back down prior to selling that this is something that ought to be disclosed. Honestly, I find even the mere suggestion to be pretty damn funny.

Everyone has a different dividing line for what they deem as acceptable and unacceptable. Nobody cares to place demands to disclose on condition improvements they deem as acceptable, only for things they deem as unacceptable. But where that line gets drawn is different for everyone. So who gets to decide for the masses?

At the end of the day, it's a dog eat dog world out there, especially in this hobby. The reality is that ~nobody is going to disclose this stuff, so you just need to educate yourself and look out for your own interests, whatever those are. If you have a card in hand and you are unable to detect any alterations whatsoever, despite having years of grading experience at one of the top grading companies, then what difference does it really make if something was indeed done to that card? At some point, we just become the old man screaming at clouds. Don't scream at clouds.

Johnny630 · #10 09-21-2022, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Alterations lie on a spectrum of acceptability to collectors. It would never occur to me that I might have some obligation to inform a future buyer that I wiped a fingerprint or a smudge off of a card prior to submitting it for grading. Yet, there are those in the hobby who literally wish to make such demands of others (Sports Card Radio is one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI4B8lfebdE starting around the 3:40 mark).

Likewise, it would never occur to me that if I had a card with a dinged/lifted/bent corner that I pushed back down prior to selling that this is something that ought to be disclosed. Honestly, I find even the mere suggestion to be pretty damn funny.

Everyone has a different dividing line for what they deem as acceptable and unacceptable. Nobody cares to place demands to disclose on condition improvements they deem as acceptable, only for things they deem as unacceptable. But where that line gets drawn is different for everyone. So who gets to decide for the masses?

At the end of the day, it's a dog eat dog world out there, especially in this hobby. The reality is that ~nobody is going to disclose this stuff, so you just need to educate yourself and look out for your own interests, whatever those are. If you have a card in hand and you are unable to detect any alterations whatsoever, despite having years of grading experience at one of the top grading companies, then what difference does it really make if something was indeed done to that card? At some point, we just become the old man screaming at clouds. Don't scream at clouds.

Travis what you said is the truth. People might not like it but it's just the way it is. People in this Hobby want it both ways all the time and that's not how it works. It's just not.

raulus · #11 09-21-2022, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

At some point, we just become the old man screaming at clouds. Don't scream at clouds.

Not to get too political, but your admonition reminded me of this historical event:

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kno...umps-election/

Peter_Spaeth · #12 09-21-2022, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Alterations lie on a spectrum of acceptability to collectors. It would never occur to me that I might have some obligation to inform a future buyer that I wiped a fingerprint or a smudge off of a card prior to submitting it for grading. Yet, there are those in the hobby who literally wish to make such demands of others (Sports Card Radio is one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI4B8lfebdE starting around the 3:40 mark).

Likewise, it would never occur to me that if I had a card with a dinged/lifted/bent corner that I pushed back down prior to selling that this is something that ought to be disclosed. Honestly, I find even the mere suggestion to be pretty damn funny.

Everyone has a different dividing line for what they deem as acceptable and unacceptable. Nobody cares to place demands to disclose on condition improvements they deem as acceptable, only for things they deem as unacceptable. But where that line gets drawn is different for everyone. So who gets to decide for the masses?

At the end of the day, it's a dog eat dog world out there, especially in this hobby. The reality is that ~nobody is going to disclose this stuff, so you just need to educate yourself and look out for your own interests, whatever those are. If you have a card in hand and you are unable to detect any alterations whatsoever, despite having years of grading experience at one of the top grading companies, then what difference does it really make if something was indeed done to that card? At some point, we just become the old man screaming at clouds. Don't scream at clouds.

Weak slippery slope argument. Nobody condones trimming as far as I know, or recoloring, or hopefully bleaching.. So who cares if you can come up with some stuff as to which there may be less consensus?

Snowman · #13 09-21-2022, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Weak slippery slope argument. Nobody condones trimming as far as I know, or recoloring, or hopefully bleaching.. So who cares if you can come up with some stuff as to which there may be less consensus?

But they very much do. I guess that's my point. As I mentioned above, just go look at the comments under any trimming scandal post by Cardporn on Instagram. You will find opinions all across the spectrum, including countless collectors with the "who cares, what difference does it make if it can't even be detected" viewpoint. The reason I use the slippery slope argument here is because it is in fact a slippery slope discussion with respect to alterations in this hobby. Sure, the majority may not condone trimming. But is that the only dividing line we have to distinguish between which alterations are and are not allowed? Majority vote? Perhaps it's a fair one. I don't know. But my point is that I don't think it's as straightforward of a debate as many would like it to be. And if we start putting trimmers behind bars, what's to prevent half the people on this board from being charged with removing T206s from a scrapbook by soaking them and then later reselling them without disclosure?

I realize that it may not come across this way, but I do understand and respect your viewpoint on this. I think trimming cards for profit is a slimeball thing to do. But I probably wouldn't vote to convict them of a crime for it if I were on a jury unless someone could clearly demonstrate to me that it is in fact a crime. And that case has not yet been made to me.

Peter_Spaeth · #14 09-21-2022, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

But they very much do. I guess that's my point. As I mentioned above, just go look at the comments under any trimming scandal post by Cardporn on Instagram. You will find opinions all across the spectrum, including countless collectors with the "who cares, what difference does it make if it can't even be detected" viewpoint. The reason I use the slippery slope argument here is because it is in fact a slippery slope discussion with respect to alterations in this hobby. Sure, the majority may not condone trimming. But is that the only dividing line we have to distinguish between which alterations are and are not allowed? Majority vote? Perhaps it's a fair one. I don't know. But my point is that I don't think it's as straightforward of a debate as many would like it to be. And if we start putting trimmers behind bars, what's to prevent half the people on this board from being charged with removing T206s from a scrapbook by soaking them and then later reselling them without disclosure?

I realize that it may not come across this way, but I do understand and respect your viewpoint on this. I think trimming cards for profit is a slimeball thing to do. But I probably wouldn't vote to convict them of a crime for it if I were on a jury unless someone could clearly demonstrate to me that it is in fact a crime. And that case has not yet been made to me.

There you go again trying to ski that slope. If law enforcement understands the hobby largely views scrapbook removal as legitimate, they won't prosecute, end of story. Laws are always bounded by discretion and common sense. In more technical terms, they would determine they could not prove concealment of a MATERIAL fact.

Lorewalker · #15 09-21-2022, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

But they very much do. I guess that's my point. As I mentioned above, just go look at the comments under any trimming scandal post by Cardporn on Instagram. You will find opinions all across the spectrum, including countless collectors with the "who cares, what difference does it make if it can't even be detected" viewpoint. The reason I use the slippery slope argument here is because it is in fact a slippery slope discussion with respect to alterations in this hobby. Sure, the majority may not condone trimming. But is that the only dividing line we have to distinguish between which alterations are and are not allowed? Majority vote? Perhaps it's a fair one. I don't know. But my point is that I don't think it's as straightforward of a debate as many would like it to be. And if we start putting trimmers behind bars, what's to prevent half the people on this board from being charged with removing T206s from a scrapbook by soaking them and then later reselling them without disclosure?

I realize that it may not come across this way, but I do understand and respect your viewpoint on this. I think trimming cards for profit is a slimeball thing to do. But I probably wouldn't vote to convict them of a crime for it if I were on a jury unless someone could clearly demonstrate to me that it is in fact a crime. And that case has not yet been made to me.

I guess I would want to know if those making that argument even have the ability to see an alteration that is pointed out to them let alone one that is not. And how much of their argument is based on the fact that a TPG slabbed the altered card.

G1911 · #16 09-21-2022, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Alterations lie on a spectrum of acceptability to collectors. It would never occur to me that I might have some obligation to inform a future buyer that I wiped a fingerprint or a smudge off of a card prior to submitting it for grading. Yet, there are those in the hobby who literally wish to make such demands of others (Sports Card Radio is one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI4B8lfebdE starting around the 3:40 mark).

Likewise, it would never occur to me that if I had a card with a dinged/lifted/bent corner that I pushed back down prior to selling that this is something that ought to be disclosed. Honestly, I find even the mere suggestion to be pretty damn funny.

Everyone has a different dividing line for what they deem as acceptable and unacceptable. Nobody cares to place demands to disclose on condition improvements they deem as acceptable, only for things they deem as unacceptable. But where that line gets drawn is different for everyone. So who gets to decide for the masses?

At the end of the day, it's a dog eat dog world out there, especially in this hobby. The reality is that ~nobody is going to disclose this stuff, so you just need to educate yourself and look out for your own interests, whatever those are. If you have a card in hand and you are unable to detect any alterations whatsoever, despite having years of grading experience at one of the top grading companies, then what difference does it really make if something was indeed done to that card? At some point, we just become the old man screaming at clouds. Don't scream at clouds.

The difference is that none of this is what PWCC did. PWCC's ring was not engaged in borderline conduct. They very clearly and intentionally altered cards, snuck them past the graders (at best), and then sold them without disclosure of their severe alterations, cutting away parts of the original item. They did not remove fingerprint smudges to spawn this controversy.

I don't think a slippery slope changes this. Am I guilty of speeding if I'm going 65.1? Is that really worse than 64.9? Am I really doing wrong? Does it matter when what I'm actually being accused of is going 112?

I agree that this is very unlikely to ever actually go to court, but I'm really not seeing a real argument how running an alteration ring and selling items on provably false grounds is not actually fraud.

Peter_Spaeth · #17 09-21-2022, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

The difference is that none of this is what PWCC did. PWCC's ring was not engaged in borderline conduct. They very clearly and intentionally altered cards, snuck them past the graders (at best), and then sold them without disclosure of their severe alterations, cutting away parts of the original item. They did remove fingerprint smudges to spawn this controversy.

I don't think a slippery slope changes this. Am I guilty of speeding if I'm going 65.1? Is that really worse than 64.9? Am I really doing wrong? Does it matter when what I'm actually being accused of is going 112?

I agree that this is very unlikely to ever actually go to court, but I'm really not seeing a real argument how running an alteration ring and selling items on provably false grounds is not actually fraud.

You're not seeing one because there isn't one. If the BS posted by Snowman is the best the defenders can do, that's really lame.

G1911 · #18 09-21-2022, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're not seeing one because there isn't one. If the BS posted by Snowman is the best the defenders can do, that's really lame.

I never expected people to really stop doing business with PWCC no matter how many mountains of evidence the Blowout gents uncovered. I did, naively, think people would stop publicly trying to claim they didn't really do anything wrong, it's arbitrary after all.

Lorewalker · #19 09-21-2022, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it.

This was my recollection as well but I understand next to nothing I read that is prepared by a lawyer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I have a hard time seeing how altering an item without disclosing it for the purpose of increasing price is not fraud.

I also think the odds Brent gets charged for this are very small. The feds are not going to take the time and effort to clean up a hobby almost nobody actually wants cleaned up.

Agree entirely that the feds are not going to take the time to try to clean up the hobby but they have shown us that they will pursue much smaller crimes in the hobby. Not sure their pursuit of the investigation of PWCC needs to be done in an effort to clean up the hobby. Still feel Brent could be charged.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fraud in the hobby	Snapolit1	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	84	04-23-2021 05:14 PM
Hobby history: 1977 Chicago Tribune article on card collecting	trdcrdkid	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	08-16-2017 04:19 PM
Hobby history: 1945 Sporting News article on baseball card collecting	trdcrdkid	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	04-25-2017 10:28 AM
NY Post article on Halper Fraud	brooklynbaseball	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	4	07-24-2011 10:14 AM
Auction Fraud Article	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	33	08-06-2002 10:17 PM