Victim of a Bitcoin and Paypal scam :(

[TheEnd]

jammy_basturd said:

Do you have any proof to say that this eBay buyers account wasn't hacked?

That's the problem, plausible deniability.
Very easy to do, like the parcels that don't turn up, and hey presto, free goods.

Proof can be gained by checking IP's etc, but that would need police involvement.

[crosseyedlion]

jammy_basturd said:

Do you have any proof to say that this eBay buyers account wasn't hacked?

Nope, but what difference does that make to me? If you sold something to someone in return for legitimate money, would you expect to have to return the money without the goods you sold coming back to you if it turns out the owner of the money was lax with security?

[crosseyedlion]

TheEnd said:

That's the problem, plausible deniability.
Very easy to do, like the parcels that don't turn up, and hey presto, free goods.

Proof can be gained by checking IP's etc, but that would need police involvement.

Except this time we can prove the package arrived. There's no ambiguity on my part.

[jogon]

crosseyedlion said:

Except this time we can prove the package arrived. There's no ambiguity on my part.

PayPal only accept a tracking number and signed signatory from a courier firm as a confirmed receipt of delivery. Even if you had a photo of them collecting an item with a signed piece of paper stating they collected it with a copy of their driving licence and passport it means absolutely nothing in their eyes.

Terrible company.

[crosseyedlion]

jogon said:

PayPal only accept a tracking number and signed signatory from a courier firm as a confirmed receipt of delivery. Even if you had a photo of them collecting an item with a signed piece of paper stating they collected it with a copy of their driving licence and passport it means absolutely nothing in their eyes.

Terrible company.

Yea, that's why I'm going to do printed wallets and do recorded delivery in future. I wondered why some of the others did that, I now know why.

[crosseyedlion]

jogon said:

PayPal only accept a tracking number and signed signatory from a courier firm as a confirmed receipt of delivery. Even if you had a photo of them collecting an item with a signed piece of paper stating they collected it with a copy of their driving licence and passport it means absolutely nothing in their eyes.

Terrible company.

Yea, that's why I'm going to do printed wallets and do recorded delivery in future. I wondered why some of the others did that, I now know why.

[jammy_basturd]

crosseyedlion said:

jammy_basturd said:

Do you have any proof to say that this eBay buyers account wasn't hacked?

Nope, but what difference does that make to me? If you sold something to someone in return for legitimate money, would you expect to have to return the money without the goods you sold coming back to you if it turns out the owner of the money was lax with security?

Well at the same time, if I was the "buyer" I wouldn't want to lose £500 of my money paying for something someone else has taken delivery of.

Also, please stop pressing Back on your browser after you've posted.

[northwest monkey]

Ebay & Paypal Buyer / Seller protection only covers for tangible things* and I'm guessing that the Bitcoin was "delivered" digitally.

If you read the T's and C's for Ebay/Paypal it will tell you what you need to do to be covered. I've had something very similar happen to me earlier this year, but because I could prove delivery I was covered and didn't lose out. In fact, I gained as for some reason, Ebay gave me my seller fees back as well.

Nothing wrong with selling on Ebay as long as you play by their rules & are careful.

Whether your "buyer" has had their account hacked or not, I very much doubt the Police will be interested.

• with some exceptions.

[98elise]

crosseyedlion said:

Really? I have nothing to hide but you don't think they'd be interested in a £500 fraud?

I lost a car in a fraud, and the police told me it was a civil matter.

Bloke viewed my car, paid by cheque and told me he would collect when the funds cleared. Rang me to check my bank account a few days later. I checked via cashpoint (pre-internet days) and the funds were there. I released the car, then the next day the cash disappeared from my account as the cheque bounced.

Police wouldn't let me report it stolen as I was no longer the owner, and wouldn't accept that I'd been scammed. As far as they were concerned the bloke just hadn't paid me yet!!!!

[KFC]

crosseyedlion said:

Nope, but what difference does that make to me? If you sold something to someone in return for legitimate money, would you expect to have to return the money without the goods you sold coming back to you if it turns out the owner of the money was lax with security?

Would you be singing from this same hymn sheet if someone had accessed your Paypal or bank account and bought a bitcoin without you knowing, leaving you $700+ down?

You got greedy, got scammed, and hopefully learned a lesson.

I think you'd need to be absolutely nuts to sell bitcoins via Paypal in any manner at all... even if you post the confirmations etc. Its completely untraceable and irreversable. If they say you posted them a blank sheet of paper what are you going to do?

[mrmr96]

KFC said:

Would you be singing from this same hymn sheet if someone had accessed your Paypal or bank account and bought a bitcoin without you knowing, leaving you $700+ down?

Who should bear this loss in your opinion?

If it was the buyer who was lax with their password, then the buyer should bear it.
If it was a problem with the paypal service, then paypal should bear it.

I can't think of a case where the seller is culpable for the buyer/paypal allowing unathorised access to their funds. So why should the seller of an item ever be made to bear the cost of this?

[KFC]

mrmr96 said:

Who should bear this loss in your opinion?

If it was the buyer who was lax with their password, then the buyer should bear it.
If it was a problem with the paypal service, then paypal should bear it.

I can't think of a case where the seller is culpable for the buyer/paypal allowing unathorised access to their funds. So why should the seller of an item ever be made to bear the cost of this?

The seller should eat the loss here - he chose to play fast and loose with the rules while chasing a quick buck... its a bit silly for him to now turn around and expect someone else to pick up the tab surely?

The Paypal and eBay terms are perfectly clear that they weren't going to cover the transaction - which makes it ridiculous to go ahead with it given the product itself was completely anonymous and untraceable...

[mrmr96]

KFC said:

mrmr96 said:

Who should bear this loss in your opinion?

If it was the buyer who was lax with their password, then the buyer should bear it.
If it was a problem with the paypal service, then paypal should bear it.

I can't think of a case where the seller is culpable for the buyer/paypal allowing unathorised access to their funds. So why should the seller of an item ever be made to bear the cost of this?

The seller should eat the loss here - he chose to play fast and loose with the rules while chasing a quick buck... its a bit silly for him to now turn around and expect someone else to pick up the tab surely?

The Paypal and eBay terms are perfectly clear that they weren't going to cover the transaction - which makes it ridiculous to go ahead with it given the product itself was completely anonymous and untraceable...

I think you need to disregard the sellers motives really, since everyone who sells something wants to make/recieve money. Just because someone wants to make a trade doesn't mena they are a bad person or deserve to be scammed. Plenty of people and businesses trade things for profit. So lets leave that aside and look at who has ACTUALLY done something wrong: Either the dishonest seller or the hacker who took their account over. The seller is innocent IMO.

As I said, I maintain that either the buyer is culpable if they let someone else get access, or the payment service provider is. (Especially since they charge for providing a payment service, if it's not up to scratch then they should pick up the tab if the ball is dropped.)

[KFC]

The seller is innocent in that they haven't committed any crime where it looks like at least one other person has.

But you need to take responsibility for your own actions to some level - the fact that you already knew (or should have knew) Paypal weren't going to cover the transaction if it went wrong. Then the fact the item being sold was completely anonymous and untraceable. Put both of those together, and who would you like to see pay it? The obvious answer would be the crook... but clearly that isn't going to happen.

Should paypal refund someone elses greed and/or stupidity? If they do, it'll just encourage everyone else to have a go too as nothing to lose, right?

[mrmr96]

KFC said:

Should paypal refund someone elses greed and/or stupidity?

There's clearly no point reasoning with you.

[KFC]

mrmr96 said:

There's clearly no point reasoning with you.

I'm not saying there is a brilliant solution here... but the seller paying it is the least bad one of the few available.

[blindswelledrat]

KFC said:

The seller is innocent in that they haven't committed any crime where it looks like at least one other person has.

But you need to take responsibility for your own actions to some level - the fact that you already knew (or should have knew) Paypal weren't going to cover the transaction if it went wrong. Then the fact the item being sold was completely anonymous and untraceable. Put both of those together, and who would you like to see pay it? The obvious answer would be the crook... but clearly that isn't going to happen.

Should paypal refund someone elses greed and/or stupidity? If they do, it'll just encourage everyone else to have a go too as nothing to lose, right?

What are you on about? Is everyone who buys and sells stuff 'greedy'?
Your just letting the fact that it's a bit coin cloud your thought process.
It fairly simple :
Op sold an item
Buyer either a) committed fraud or b) gave his password to someone
Why do you think the seller should pay for that?

[KFC]

blindswelledrat said:

What are you on about? Is everyone who buys and sells stuff 'greedy'?
Your just letting the fact that it's a bit coin cloud your thought process.
It fairly simple :
Op sold an item
Buyer either a) committed fraud or b) gave his password to someone
Why do you think the seller should pay for that?

Like I say, the seller paying is the least worst of all the realistic outcomes here.

Buying and selling stuff isn't in itself greedy - buying that specific item and going outside of the Paypal/eBay terms to do it clearly was. Often you'll get away with it anyway... this time he didn't.

There are only 3 people who can pay here - the seller, the guy who owns the Paypal account, and Paypal themselves. One of them admittedly broke the rules, one is denying any knowledge of it, and the other say don't use it for electronic transactions. Of the 3, who do you think is fairest to have to pay?

blindswelledrat said:

Buyer either a) committed fraud or b) gave his password to someone
Why do you think the seller should pay for that?

Or c) legitimately had his account compromised.

[crosseyedlion]

KFC said:

Or c) legitimately had his account compromised.

Tell me. Apart from falling outside the seller protection policy, how did I infringe on paypal rules?

[crosseyedlion]

KFC said:

Or c) legitimately had his account compromised.

Tell me. Apart from falling outside the seller protection policy, how did I infringe on paypal rules?