Topic: SCAM - Coinabul owe me 81btc - page 15. (Read 61682 times)

You answered your own question - another Ponzi scheme?  If he took the money he collected from his Ponzi and donated to an orphanage, it's still a Ponzi and he's still a scammer.  Next question.

Translation for the rest of us: Coinabul is probably a scammer.

davidspitzer, you seem to have some legal training and your arguments might make some sense in a court of law. This is an internet discussion forum were anybody can come and give his opinion, yourself included. Joel Katz said it better than I ever could:

Not really  - either way Coinabul should pay back the consumer (no matter how you describe it) Fraud is only really pertinent if you plan to pursue criminal action. I don't think Coinabul is guilty of a crime, just really poor business decisions, which probably exposes them to a Tort action in which the consumer has a compelling argument

Whether or not they knew is difficult to know, but they reasonably should have known. According to Jay, the insurer said:

Had Coinabul done their due diligence the would have known their insurer's per parcel limit and not exceeded it.

Whether or not they underinsured with the intent to pocket the savings or it was just negligence, who's to know? And does it matter?

You would have to prove that coinabul actually knew at the time that if the parcel was lost that no insurance coverage was to be had. If they only should have known your back to negligence and conversion. Fraud is a specific intent crime

the shipment exceeded your per parcel limit for USPS First Class International packages.

on this forum, we use the 'scammer' tag for people who could easily, but choose not to, make good on their promises, whether there was deception initially or not. We don't have 800 different tags for fine legal distinctions in how one person can rip off another.

The deception is that the repayment (in one example) or insurance (in the other) was unconditional when it was not.

I disagree with your analysis. If a fail to pay you back that is conversion. The very essence of a scam is the intent to deceive.  

So if Pirate had been investing people's Bitcoins in another Ponzi scheme that he himself believed was legitimate, he wouldn't have been scamming?


A scam doesn't have to be pre-planned. If you fail to make good on an obligation, that can be a scam even if you never previously considered how you would handle the particular situation you wound up in. For example, say I irrationally believe that I can't possibly lose at blackjack. If I borrow $400 from you to play blackjack, then lose and choose not to pay you back, you can reasonably describe me as scamming you. This is true even if I was positive I'd win and fully intended to pay you back from my winnings. So long as I represented that repayment was unconditional and I never intended to pay you back if I lost, it's a scam.

That is what is alleged to have happened here. Coinabul conveyed the representation that opting to buy insurance ensured that the buyer was covered against the package being lost or stolen in shipment when Coinabul never intended to make good on that representation if the insurance carrier failed to make good. This can be a scam even if Coinabul never considered the possibility that their insurance carrier might fail to make good and leave them to make good on their promise from their own pocket because of the false representation to the customer that they were in fact insured against the package being lost or stolen.

Holy Moses.  How can you accidentally scam someone when the whole point of a scam is a pre-planned act to defraud someone?  Geezus I give up, it's like arguing with Zero Hedge posters about what a Ponzi scheme is and that Bitcoin isn't one.  Just stop already.

I still assert that a "swindle" or a "scam" requires prior intent.

Scam = A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scam

Coinabul swindled him out of his money by not giving him his refund or re-sending his silver. Therefore Coinabul is my definition of a scammer.

It's a slang word, just like "offing" or "whacking" someone means to murder.  If I accuse you of whacking someone it's the same as an accusation of murder.  If you're accusing someone of scamming, you're accusing them of the intent to commit fraud.  What's your definition of a scammer?

If your negligence causes someone harm and you don't compensate them, that's evil. Negligence is not evil, so long as you compensate people when it causes harm.

You, not me, started this BS about scam requiring prior intent.

In my opinion its not a scam, they just use some shitty business practices. Not evil, just negligent. I wouldn't use the service either way.

You people are being goddamned fucking silly.

You, not me, started this BS about scam requiring prior intent.