Brian Drent grades GEM MINT 10 for integrity

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

Wait, so when is a theft not a crime?

When the authorities decide not to prosecute.

[vintagewhitesox]

Deciding not to prosecute just means you wont face the criminal justice system and risk the possibility of being found guilty. The actual act of taking property that you do not rightfully own is still a crime.

[Jacklitsch]

From a practical standpoint I guess the Auction House did the right thing but...

I will first have to presume that he checked with the consignor and got his approval and if not...

The prudent thing would be to file an interpleader action joining Dan and the consignor as Defendants and let the Court figure it out.

[pwilk17]

You said that this is a happy ending to a recent theft. Do you think the innocent consignor of the card (who now is out $ - perhaps many $) thinks that this is a happy ending?

[Exhibitman]

In a nutshell, the card was sold on Ebay and the buyer (from Glendale CA) paid by CC then claimed that he had not received it--despite the fact that signature confirmation was used--he claimed the item wasn't in the box. He instituted a Paypal/CC claim and got his money back and still had the card. The card then turned up in the MH auction. Whether he reholdered it and then sold it or whether it went through more than one set of hands I cannot say. If it wasn't for the kangaroo court system at the Ebay-mandated Paypal, however, this sort of crap could never take place because you could use a check and wait for it to clear. With Paypal, you take the same risks as any merchant w/r/t fraudulent charge-backs.

My experience in LA County has been that law enforcement is as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to false pretense stuff like this; they simply declare it a civil dispute and punt. The scammer in this case used a mailbox store to have his items delivered so that there would be a signature but it would not be his.

So far as title goes, it depends in some degree on how the item was obtained and what jurisdiction you are in. Under some states' laws a good faith purchaser for value acquires clean title even if the seller to that person got the item by larcenous means.

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

So far as title goes, it depends in some degree on how the item was obtained and what jurisdiction you are in. Under some states' laws a good faith purchaser for value acquires clean title even if the seller to that person got the item by larcenous means.

It looks like Brian Drent screwed his consignor. If the consignor obtained the card in good faith and he had clean title, then Brian really should not have simply mailed the card to another person.

[danmckee]

Thank you Adam. Yes law enforcement was not interested at all. And actually, it was a PSA graded card and the scammer didn't actually say he didn't get it, he said that it "was not as described" and American Express did the charge back just before their 9 month max window for charge backs.

Also, they didn't even make the buyer return the item!!

Some of the responses here are exactly why I no longer frequent this board.

If you know-it-alls ever have a card stolen or lost and have to go through what I did with PSA or what my friend did here, then you would understand.

I agree with you that theft is theft but as Adam stated, law enforcement couldn't be bothered and said to handle it in court which is a joke.

This is all I am going to say on this matter and anyone who would like details can look at my past threads here on the new board as I posted as soon as the card was hocked.

I posted this because I felt Brian Drent deserved some good feedback for what he did.

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by danmckee

Thank you Adam. Yes law enforcement was not interested at all. And actually, it was a PSA graded card and the scammer didn't actually say he didn't get it, he said that it "was not as described" and American Express did the charge back just before their 9 month max window for charge backs.

Also, they didn't even make the buyer return the item!!

Some of the responses here are exactly why I no longer frequent this board.

If you know-it-alls ever have a card stolen or lost and have to go through what I did with PSA or what my friend did here, then you would understand.

I agree with you that theft is theft but as Adam stated, law enforcement couldn't be bothered and said to handle it in court which is a joke.

This is all I am going to say on this matter and anyone who would like details can look at my past threads here on the new board as I posted as soon as the card was hocked.

I posted this because I felt Brian Drent deserved some good feedback for what he did.

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan

Dan,

With respect, do you not see that there are two innocents here? There is the one who originally got scammed, and there is the innocent consignor who bought the card not knowing of the scam.

Many of the posters have simply made the point that Brian's conduct prefers one of these innocents over the other. In this case, he preferred the interests of a third party over the interests of the consignor who trusted him to sell his card and do his best for him.

That is not the obvious right thing to do - at least in the eyes of many posters (some of whom are lawyers). And as some have pointed out, the law recognizes many ways to obtain proper legal title to goods that were once stolen or obtained by questionable means. Neither the law nor the moral high-ground in this matter necessarily side with the guy who was originally scammed. You are assuming that to be the case and that is your view, but people don't have to agree with you.

Cheers,
Blair

[calvindog]

It does sound like Drent screwed the consignor by being honest. What I hate most of all are heads of auction houses who screw the consignors rather than conspiring with them to rip off innocent bidders in auctions. Those are the great guys in our hobby, the ones who will help others steal money while stuffing as much in their pockets as possible. Those are the auctioneers we need to protect, displaying our false umbrage on the board whenever the truth comes out and the bad guys are attacked -- all in an effort to obfuscate, to protect wallets.

Better we should all pile on an innocent guy over a $100 misunderstanding instead. Funny how the guys who pile on the small-fries are wildly supportive of the big fraudsters, the great guys. I guess it's only offensive when they lose a few nickels; as long as they're on the right side of the equation when massive fraud goes down, it's all good.

I don't mean to be a downer or become irrelevant so perhaps we can have a good ol' fashioned bidding party and celebrate our ill-gotten windfalls! And before 10 or so of you email me secretly, thanking me for posting the truth, why not have the balls instead to post something here?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by danmckee

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan, buddy, take a deep breath. Respectful disagreement (I don't think anyone has been nasty in this thread) is no reason to leave. Stick around, your input is valued.