Is there a mod or advance member that can help me?

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:13 am

I want to ask some questions about the legal aspect and morality of scam baiting results. I've searched around the forums and read many of the FAQs and tip threads, and some of their branched threads contained inside of them. So rather than release another ethics thread like someone eating Steamed onions in a elevator....

If I could get some people that wouldn't mind helping me out over pm or email, to answer my questions, that would be great! I don't have many, and I'm not asking for abstract things like personal preferances. Just straight facts about mostly legal worries.

Thanks in advance.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:25 am

Being a MOD does not necessarily make one an expert on the legal or moral issues of scambaiting. Unless you need to discuss matters of a persanal nature, there's no reason to confine this to PM's.
If, as you say, you have searched the pertinent threads and not found your answers, it's okay to ask more questions.
You'll probably get a wider range of answers from the general membership.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:34 am

Well I'm not worried about any of the ethics of scambaiting at all.

I had a girlfriend almost fall for a 419 scammer claiming to be king of nigeria once. (she asked me, and I happened to know that email is NOT 100% risky free)

Personal ethics are clear, religion is full of retribution, pop culture in crime fighters literally beating up crime.

The issue comes into the Legality of it all. If your lad gets beaten/robbed/killed are you under legal grounds to be found guilty of something like conspiracy to commit or criminal negligence.
Also the act of falsifying anything federal is often recognized as a legal offense.
Granted that anything the lad gets into he could have easily backed out of. But even victims sometimes fall under legal investication after they fall for scams when they technically didn't know they were going to get had.

I'm just worried that because the idea of a lad travelling to Darfur with a sign that says "sudan sucks camel humps" was suggest by a baiter as a way for the scammer to be spotted by his "maga". That it would be under one of those legal issues, or one that I might have forgotten.

Add-on edite: One of the laws I just remembered is the Vigilanty law in the states. It's fine for someone to be a bounty hunter and collect bonds, but regular citizens can't just hunt down criminals because they are bad people.

second edit: Also I have found this thread: http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=126475&highlight=legality

Which i'm reading now but it appears to do most with if scammers can bring legal action instead of authorities and governments.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:09 am

First, the morality question is basically between you and your god. We do not pass judgment nor do we decide your ethical system.

We are not vigilanties. We do not arrest scammers or act as a legal representatives. We do not collect bonds not do we "hunt down" anyone. We trick them and waste their time. They contacted us, we do not go in search of them. We do not force a scammer to travel or hold up signs, they decide that on their own believing they are fooling us in to giving them money. That law does not apply.

What is your concern? If you feel it is unethical or legally wrong, then don't do it. Or we can put in touch with the many victims who have been robbed of their life savings and health and let you decide what is ethical.

We have members from law enforcement and have had visits from the FBI and even one from the CIA and no one suggested we were treading on a legal swamp.

Do you really think a scammer will bring legal action on a baiter? Where would he go? Who would he list as the defendant?

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:26 am

Ah you misuderstood my mentioning of personal ethos and religion. I was stating that neither had a problem with scam baiting. For one my personal ethos is that they deserve what ever they get themselves into while pursuing a crime. As for Religion I think all religions call for those that damn themselves to be damned.

I never will believe that a scammer will bring legal action against any baiter. No matter how they got baited.

The only worry I have over legal issues is since we are technically lieing and feeding them false information. If our information leads to their poor choices are we guilty under something like a conspiracy law or a criminal negligence law.

We do technically plan to try and convince scammers that their Vic is in the middle of a freedom fighter war camp. Even though the scammer can decide to just not go, or outright dump the baiter, if they do go and get beaten/killed wouldn't the baiter technically have been guilty of some degree in the law for putting the idea there with intent.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:56 am

Quote:

...like a conspiracy law or a criminal negligence law.

I think the only thing that might be applicable here may be "deception" as we are making the lad believe untrue facts.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:09 am

Well the negligence law is the strongest case I think that could be made. We KNOW the area is dangerous that we sometimes want to Lads to travel to, but we don't tell them that fact. Or warn them after they are there.

I know most of the forum is probably giving me a eyeroll and a "noob" label (which, hey, I am a n00b. so Rolling Eyes

to that). The reason I want to know the legality of it is because the laws in America are starting to get blurred a little. I remember recently (last month perhaps?) hearing that a California police department developed a perfect anti-terrorist idea.

See suspicious activity; report suspicious activity.

They even said they had a list of 65 activities to ESPECIALLY watch for. The top three, as I recall, were 1. People standing near large groups of other people. 2. People taking pictures in public or private places. 3. People shooting video in public or private places.

That's old fashion witch hunting and McCarthyism there. So it doesn't take much to fall under investigation anymore, and they probably wont tell you until they want to 'talk'. I just want to get a little insurance reassurance by asking about scambaiting's legal possiblities.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:10 am

Moved here from General Chat - baiting related. Very Happy

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:21 am

I am sure that the CIA, FBI and all those agencies are very aware of what this organization is all about.
If they felt that what we were doing was wrong, this site would not exist.

Scambaiters are not liars. We just tell the mugus what they want to hear.
Nobody has forced any mugu into doing anything he did not want to.
They have the option to drop the bait or continue with it.

If you feel that what we do is unethical to omit some information. The lad can always do research on that country.

Elite Baiter Joined: 19 Jan 2008 Posts: 1043

Well. I think you'd be very unlucky for a leo to be interested in you. For one thing, the person is in another country. I'm sure a lot of the negligence laws aren't international. Even if one were to try to make a case, the district attorney (or whoever decides which cases should be fought) would throw it out. if it actually went to court, then one of the principle reasons for a jury would come into play. Common sense. I realise it is one of the least common to be found, but there is no feasible way you'd get in trouble.

Realistically all you are doing is lying on the internet. No jail time there. They are not real barristers or legal documents. You are not under oath.

Saying that: i am not a layer/solicitor, if you really care, you can pay one quite a lot of money to tell you.

Edit: I somewhat disagree with the they have the choice to not continue thing. Yes they could do research. So could victims. It doesn't mean we have the right to abuse them. That's just something we decide to do. It is slightly vigilante, but that doesn't make it bad. They are almost completely outside the law, so this form of private justice will have to do. I'm by no means a lad hugger, but you're a bit of an idiot if you think what we do differs all that much from what the lads do. We're just on the right side.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:57 am

ezilja.fallut - welcome to our wacky world.

If a lad died as a result of any e-mail exchange I had with him, I'd class myself as being very lucky, but the chances of that happening are minimal and being able to prove it would be virtually impossible.

I hurt their feelings without mercy and receive more death threats than I can recall, but I do that naturally anyway, so if they can't handle it they should choose another pasttime other than scamming.

It is enough that I have an effect. If I knew that they were mindless idiots who would do as I say, I would instruct them to place their heads on a railway line and wait for the next engine, but it's far from being that easy. They only do what they do out of choice. If they do it because I lied to them, well I beat them at their own game. Maybe I won't get a front seat in Heaven, but I'll know I did good and had fun doing it.

Considering these issues only proves you aren't a mindless person following the herd instinct. No harm in that. Very Happy

Fixed typo. TS

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:55 am

Getting back to the legal side, as opposed to the ethical side, it would be very difficult to establish jurisdiction (if you fire a shot from France and kill someone in Belgium, whose jurisdiction would it lie in?). Most likely the jurisdiction would be the country of effect, and being mostly West Africa, you can put that idea to bed - would it worry you not being allowed into Nigeria?

I'm guilty of a capital offence in Iran. Would I risk going back there? Probably not. Would it worry me? Probably not. I'm 90% certain they know it, but no-one has knocked at my door and I don't expect them to.

There is a difference between text book guilt and applicable guilt. While some of the stuff might be arguably criminal, it is also arguably not, and frankly speaking, no sensible person would try to charge you unless there was death involved - and there are some unimaginable bastard pigs who wouldn't even worry about that - and even then the worst you could expect is an argument in Nigeria, not wherever you are.

If you keep it light, don't worry. If you get into heavier stuff, keep it overseas and/or anonymous.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:27 am

just to add to the discussion about the legal side of things - there are some kinds of possible baiting activities that do offer a much higher probability of being at legal risk (both in terms of being technically illegal, and in terms of the potential for real LEO interest/attention in pursuing a case), and it's no coincidence that such activities are banned from even being discussed on the forums.

If you are concerned about the specific legal implications of some baiting tactic you are using (or thinking of using), discussion on this topic is typically reasonable and practical*, especially if you're clear that you want to know about legality and prosecutability rather than morality/ethics.

Morality is a personal matter, and always risky for open discussion because many people feel so strongly about their own views.

*"typically" because sometimes such conversations degenerate into ethics threads.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:56 am

Well done ezilja for raising this. I just love these debates.

Lets take a possible senario.

Scammer contacts me at a fake address with my fake name of Fred. He calls himself Joe from Benin. So we bat emails back and forth and eventually I convince Joe to go on safari. He then gets beaten up and dies of his injuries somewhere in Nigeria. To the local police, a foreigner has been killed. The find his ID as Charlie, contact his Embassy who tell his family.

Let us suppose that his family know about his scamming. Are they going to hand over his PC to the police, or tell the police about the PC he used in the local cafe? It is unlikely that the locals police will do anything, so the family decide that justice must be done so they write to the US Embassy to say that an American citizen called Fred tricked their son into going to Nigeria and getting himself killed.

Sorry Sir! There are 1500 Freds in the USA, and the address doesnt exist.
What proof have you got?
I see! So your Charlie, using a false name and address, was trying to con our Fred out of money and you expect us to do what?

I can't see anyone trying to take that any further can you?

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 6

GordonBennett wrote:

Getting back to the legal side, as opposed to the ethical side, it would be very difficult to establish jurisdiction (if you fire a shot from France and kill someone in Belgium, whose jurisdiction would it lie in?). Most likely the jurisdiction would be the country of effect, and being mostly West Africa, you can put that idea to bed - would it worry you not being allowed into Nigeria?

That is not the case, at least in Europe. Not sure about UK, but civil-law countries of continental Europe persecute also acts committed by its citizens outside their territorial jurisdiction, if these acts constitute crimes in their own legal systems.

Lets take as an example Mr X who is a citizen of Imaginaria, country in Europe. Mr X, a former soldier, became a mercenary hired by government of Nonexistania and took part in that remote country's civil war. During this war he committed atrocities for which he was never charged by his employer. However, upon his return to Imaginaria, he will be arrested and charged by his home country, on the condition that authorities of Imaginaria find out what he was doing.

As I said, this rule applies only to cases in which individual in question committed an act that constitute a crime in country that charges the perpetrator. Therefore if Mr Y, also citizen of Imaginaria, was charged in country of Bigotria on account of homosexuality but managed to escape to his homeland, he will not be charged by his own country (provided that homosexuality is legal in Imaginaria).

Some legal systems even allow to charge non-citizens on accounts of act committed outside given country's jurisdiction. For example, if Ms Z committed a crime in her homeland and then came to Imaginaria, she can be charged, provided that law of Imaginaria states that. A detention of Augusto Pinochet in Spain few years ago was an example of attempt to enforce that principle.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:43 am

Quote:

A detention of Augusto Pinochet in Spain few years ago was an example of attempt to enforce that principle.

Which failed. They argued and lost. Unless you kill thousands, you should be alright.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 6

It failed because Pinochet had diplomatic immunity status as a former head of state. If one is ordinary citizen, he or she should not expect such treatment.

EDIT: removed quotation

Not quite a Newb Joined: 22 May 2008 Posts: 42

I'm not exactly well versed in these aspects of law, but on a purely sensible note, (changing the situation slightly) if I ask someone to meet me up town and on the way there she got raped and killed there's no way someone would think of trying to prosecute me. Even if I wasn't actually going to go up town. Doing it on a bigger scale is the same logic. Simply being in Darfur or the like does not mean you will die. It takes the actions of a third party breaking the law, over which you have no control.

As to fake documents, I'm not even going to try and guess the exact legal state on that. I would guess giving fake documents to try and stop yourself or others being the victim of a 419 scam is perfectly reasonable though.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:21 pm

I think the easiest way to settle this is by getting your lad to kill himself and then blaming me.

I'll be more than happy to carry the can. Twisted Evil

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:39 pm

Thank you everyone for your responses! And also to obi-wan knievel or his PM.

political rant removed - lotta

From what i've learned reading everything here it looks like most of what we do is competely clean, and anything (on a SMALL scale) shady is looked at favorably by police for the help in stopping criminals that they havn't the resources to arrest and prosecute.

I'll certainly continue investigating this as we still arnt '100% risky free' in it, and I'd like to try and make that so.

Side note: has anyone asked the FBI if they like what we are doing? Sure local police and anti-fraud units probably don't mind and maybe even like us, but what do the feds think?

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:11 pm

Please.......No politics!

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:22 pm

^^ sorry

It was only one sentance though...hardly a rant...but i'll take the lesson kindly. Smile

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:26 pm

Thank you

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:31 pm

anything for a admin with a pretty irish avatar?

Very Happy

(n00b diary: is it bad to sweet talk admins? I'll have to find out.)

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

I'm not worried at all about the legal implications of telling lies to scammers. After all, they started it.

I just can't imagine a scenario where anything would be prosecuted, or even investigated. Who is going to bring it to the attention of law enforcement in the first place? Certainly not the scammers.

If I ever do get contacted by the real FBI, I'm all ready. I've saved all of my emails from the "Federal Bereau of Investigation of the United State" where they encouraged me to go on with my transactions with someone in Nigeria who speaks English poorly, and even told me that if I don't pay the fees, they will arrest me for "money laundry". Wink

Is there a mod or advance member that can help me?	View next topic View previous topic