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 3:45 pm

I always read these discussions with interest, though they alway seem to dance around giving any specific information. I am guessing that is because there is just nobody here who knows about it - or the laws itself are very gray (I'm leaning toward the latter).

The question i the OP's mind (I think) is not the legal DANGER of this, but the overarching legality.

A scammer (or his family or friends) are unlikely to ever even mention a whiff of this to the police, meaning that we are all pretty darn safe.

BUT that doesn't make it legal. At worst just safely illegal.

Does anyone know about jurisdictions/proof of evidence needed in our hypothetical discussion situation?

I remember reading somewhere that one of the major problems in prosecuting 419ers (that would apply to us) is that it is virtually impossible to establish exactly WHO sent the e-mail. Even though they can track the e-mails origin to a specific computer that doesn't necessarily link the owner of that computer to a crime.

I'm speaking, of course, with an American perception - I know very little about law in any other country. I am pretty sure that it is not illegal to lie (unless under oath). Saying my name is Ted when it's really Bill isn't going to even get me a fine. Falsifying documents...I think it depends on the documents. If it bears an official or copyrighted symbol of a corporation or government entity, that could be more of a problem I think but I do not know the legal implications.

Also it's perfectly acceptable to sweet talk those stupid jerk Mod's. They love it. (I haven't quite got the hang of it Embarassed

)

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:03 pm

Peanut wrote:

I always read these discussions with interest, though they alway seem to dance around giving any specific information. I am guessing that is because there is just nobody here who knows about it - or the laws itself are very gray (I'm leaning toward the latter).

Obi-wan actually sent me a very detailed and informative PM about it. If he wouldn't mind I would ask if he would post the information here. I think its an important other side of the coin to scam baiting, and to bait safely would mean to protect not just from scammers.

Quote:

Also it's perfectly acceptable to sweet talk those stupid jerk Mod's. They love it. (I haven't quite got the hang of it )

No no not mods, the Admins. Very Happy

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:16 pm

Scambaiters have diplomatic and internet immunity.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:47 pm

I'm sure that would be very informative, ezilja!

Ohhhhh I getcha. The admins won't have any of it... Shocked

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:33 pm

Note to self: Turn all baiting characters/personnas to diplomats to be protected by immunity laws. Very Happy

I don't see how what we do is different from writing a script for a TV show or a movie. It is fictional writing. The radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds had people jumping out of windows from fear even though at every break it was announced that what the audience was hearing was a reading of a novel.

AFIK there were NO law suits [sic] over that. Violent video games have been "linked" to violent acts, but it is a correlational connect, NOT a causation. If I write a fictional piece of email and someone believes it to be true, travels at their expense to some location and has a mishap, I did not CAUSE the mishap.

The reader took a vacation to check out something they believed. I, in no way forced the person to go there. I am just a skilled writer. Just like any advertisement or travel brochure. Ever read one or purchased something on the advert and been disappointed?

Creative writing and imagination are actually a sign of a healthy mind. We do NOT condone illegal acts and they are quashed almost immediatly here. Some people have been **BANNED** from the site for promoting illegal activities.

Do we try to divert the scammer/criminal's attention so that they have a smaller impact on victims and the rest of the world? You betcha!
Is what we do illegal? NOPE
Do people have different levels of tolerence regarding creative or deceptive writing? Yup, do what is within your belief, moral and ethical standards.
Does what we do upset some people? Yes, especially scammers/criminals, just as having a lock on your door or a barking dog or a motion sensor light or a security system sticker (real or not) does.

IMO it is good to have these kinds of discussions (seemingly monthly) so that we all can examine our own behaviors and motivations and be true to our own standards. Cool

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:11 pm

Peanut wrote:

Also it's perfectly acceptable to sweet talk those stupid jerk Mod's. They love it. (I haven't quite got the hang of it Embarassed

)

<brief thread hijack>

Shocked

I guess you haven't! That certainly isn't the way to sweet-talk this sweet and loving mod, Peanut. I'm not sure if I still love you. Crying or Very sad

</thread hijack>

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:19 pm

Given that most LE agencies can't get off their arses to chase these guys down, my bet is that they won't get off their arses to chase me down if a lad should get hurt/die while participating in fun and games at my behest. IF they even find out about it.

I doubt the UK has an extradition treaty with Nigeria, though I could be wrong!! Wink

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:15 pm

I think the police have better things to worry about.

Taking the chad safari team as an example:

1. Common sense. Someone from Lagos is likely to know that Chad is a hell hole. If he goes there, he goes knowing this and takes his chances.

2. motivation. If he goes to Chad thinking he is going to successfully defraud someone, he goes there as part of the commission of a criminal act. This lowers his chances of any good comebacks should he go to law. our email records will provide ample evidence of this.

3. Africans seem to take a pretty robust, pragmatic view of life and don't seem inclined to waste time nit-picking. I feel that anyone returning from Chad with one leg, pleading that he has been chasing a TWAT for money and got fiddled, streded and sick sick, will only make a goat of himself.

4. Once we've done a proper job on them they won't be able to afford a lawyer, how ironic since they probably got that way by impersonating one on the interweb.

5. It's too much fun and I'm not stopping til they come in here with guns.

Next Very Happy

*** BANNED *** Joined: 10 Jan 2004 Posts: 3779

rumbero wrote:

Scambaiters have diplomatic and internet immunity.

Plead insane and all is well.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Agree or disagree, but do so politely and keep the personal attacks to a minimum (in this case 'to a minimum' is synonymous with nil).

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Not much of a baiter, but even less of a lad-hugger here, but for what it's worth...

Personally I'd draw the line at sending them into WU or a bank with notes they can't understand that could get them shot ("I have a gun!"). Or asking them to hold signs they can't read that could get them beaten or killed ("Mohammed was a %^&*"). For me, that's just a little too much, an overt deception that could lead to immediate physical harm or death, based on their trust in you. The best baits seem to involve letting the lad's own greed lead them. It's enough to lead them along and let them decide their own actions/means to get there.

Anything short of that, including taking their money, receiving goods (with no payment), asking lads to get tattoos, and leading them into a dangerous locale is fair game. But I'm not going to pass judgment on those that push the boundaries I would set for myself.

Even if the leg goes gangrenous in the Abeche bait, I wouldn't hold the baiters in any way responsible. This is a perfect example of letting the lads destroy themselves.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:04 am

Quote:

or a bank with notes they can't understand that could get them shot ("I have a gun!").

For the record, it was supposedly a bomb he was wearing under his shirt, not a gun. We were trying to get him arrested at that point, not shot. Also, from what I gather, the streets of Abeche aren't much safer than standing in a bank with a bomb threat.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:09 am

Not another ethics thread!

I'll throw in my two cents. I will not try to convince a lad to do anything I think they wouldn't do to a victim. Fair enough? Laughing

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Again... not passing judgment.

But for myself, I see a line between using lad's trust in you to ask him to do something he knows, or could easily determine for himself, is going to be dangerous... and setting him up directly for immediate injury or death.

I see it as analogous to convincing him that he NEEDS to get in a cage with a hungry tiger, vs luring him into a room where he has no idea that there's a hungry tiger inside. There's a difference, at least my own mind.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:26 am

Point noted. If you don't feel comfortable with a certain bit, don't do it. I for one have no qualms or sympathy for scammers. I personally enjoy insulting them, causing them paranoia through dolla chops, wasting their time and killing their banks accounts. Given the opportunity, I would send one into the middle of a civil war. It is their choice and greed, it is their decision to make in the end.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 am

I'm only posting this in case the links in my siggy haven't already been viewed by you lot. Wink

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:18 am

sir scam alot wrote:

Not another ethics thread!

Now look, someone mentioned ethics and callum's "siggy post" is here already.

Burn the ethics, all this thread is about is what the Law might have to say.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 07 May 2008 Posts: 51

I just thought I'd chime in with a few things. First off, I'm no lag hugger and if one is arrested/maimed/killed as a result of a baiter I would probably celebrate.

There are 2 things to keep in mind:

1. Your perception and common sense do not always run parallel with the law. Something may sound right to you but the law may not always agree.

2. On the other hand, in many cases, although you may technically break a law, there are many circumstances where the probability of being prosecuted are near zero.

The best answer I can come up with is that there is no blanket answer. Everything is a case-by-case basis. It will depend on the circumstances of your bait, and what jurisdiction you fall under.

just as an example, I looked up some info on fake ID laws -

Below are some snippets from a state of virginia website that explains fake ID laws for that jurisdiction:

COV 18.2-204.1. Fraudulent use of birth certificates, driver's licenses, etc.

It is illegal to use another's identification as one's own.
It is illegal to possess or sell an ID for the purpose of establishing a false identification.
Persons who possess, use or distribute fake IDs are charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor. If the document is used to purchase a firearm, the charges increase to a Class 6 felony.

COV 18.2-204.2. Facsimile or manufacture, sale, etc., or possession of fictitious, simulated official license or identification.

It is illegal to possess, produce or distribute a falsified document that can be mistaken as an official government document.
Violators face Class 1 misdemeanor charges for the sale or production of such ID and Class 2 misdemeanor charges for possession of such ID.

According to this information, it seems to me that it would be illegal to send a fake ID to a lad, at least in the state of Virginia.

For a while I was speculating what would happen if a baiter sent a lad to somewhere like the UK or US via plane and had them standing holding a sign at the airport with a name like IMA B OMBU. This would most likely result in the airport being closed, and could create a national security situation. I believe that once the appropriate officials figured out that the lad didn't know any better, and that you directed him to do this, you'd be more liable than him. In my estimation, sending him into a bank with a note that he has a gun is the same thing.

I also think it is well established that cash baiting is something that would be considered larceny by pretty much any jurisdiction.

I don't think it is inherently illegal to send someone on safari. Heck, Chris Hansen baited some lads and had several of them meet him in London, and televised it on Dateline NBC. Although he did meet with them, he still lied to them because he didn't have any intention to give them money. So this was effectively a safari in my view.

However, if someone is harmed during a safari, is it murder? I've seen YW say that if he drops a briefcase of money off a cliff and you jump after it, that's not his fault. My common sense agrees with this.

But when I dig into wikipedia to get some answers, I think my common sense may be wrong:

Quote:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries

What is malice aforethought?

Quote:

Specifically in the criminal law, malice aforethought (or malice prepense) is the element of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") which must accompany the actus reus of death, in order to secure a conviction for murder under the common law.

"Malice aforethought" is a precisely defined legal term that does not correspond to the lay definitions of either of its constituent words. It means one of any of the following states of mind concurrent with an act or omission that resulted in death of a person. In his leading textbook, Glanville Williams says at para 11.2 that it is:

a term of art if not a term of deception. Murder does not require either spite or premeditation. Mercy killing can be murder, so can a killing where the intent is conceived on the instant.
In English law the mens rea requirement is an intention to cause death or to cause serious injury. Intention in this context is found either when the perpetrator acts with the purpose of causing death or serious injury, or, following Reg. v. Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82, where death or serious injury is a 'virtually certain' result of the perpetrator's act and the perpetrator realises that death or serious injury is a virtually certain result.
To varying extents in the United States, the requisite intention can also be found where the perpetrator acts with a "depraved heart" showing lack of care for human life, or with intent to commit any felony whatsoever (termed felony murder.) In England, such mens rea would only found a verdict of reckless or constructive manslaughter.

Of course, the article would say "to varying extents" with regards to the depraved indifference.. which makes the answer vague and still subject to interpretation.

But moving on with the definition of murder, we find this:

Quote:

a common law murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought if the defendant acts with any of the following states of mind:

(i) Intent to kill; (ii) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm; (iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (abandoned and malignant heart); or (iv) Intent to commit a felony (felony-murder doctrine).

So therefore, according to these definitions, if you are acting with a malice aforethought ("guilty mind") and you have the intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm, or "to varying extents" if you show depraved indifference for human life, then you could be guilty of murder. Also note that in the USA, they don't distinguise between intent to harm and intent to kill when deciding whether or not a murder has been committed. If you throw someone down the stairs with intention of breaking their bones, and they end up dead, you still commit murder, albeit not in the first degree.

Keep in mind 2 things in this instance:
1. It doesn't matter, legally, whether your victim is a 419 scammer or a 9 year old girl. There is no distinction. A person's malignant acts are not (legally speaking) justification for killing them. Even though most people (around here, anyway) would be okay with it.

2. I touched on this above, but to reiterate: the commission of the crime, (as dictated by the letter of the law) and the actual invokation of legal penalties are two different things. Chances are that:

a. The authorities in your jurisdiction would never find out what you did.
b. They may find it extremely difficult to prove in court that you acted with "malice aforethought" (unless of course you happen to mention on 419eater that you're planning on killing off your lad)
c. Jurors, and even law enforcement/officers of the court may sympathize with your cause.

In the end it will always be a case by case basis. As much as I'd love to see a lad end up dead in a dumpster somewhere, I think I'd hate even more to see a baiter get 20-life for it. There are definitely some legal gray areas here, but everyone should consider and weigh the risks and act accordingly. I know some of the things I've done have probably fallen short of legal, but I am an adult and I make my own decisions and am capable of evaluating the risks involved with everything I do.

Okay I'm done writing my book. Hope this helps.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:56 am

So to prevent anything falling into those jurisdictions, you'd need to carefully select what words you send in your emails to prevent the impression of intent.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:15 am

Actually, while Morf's explanation is very good, it is incomplete. Very Happy

He's dealt with the mens rea (or guilty mind) but not the actus reus - the act itself, so he has not covered causation, which is where the legal position gets much more complicated in this context. Sending a lad on a safari to somewhere dangerous has to be sufficiently causative of the death if it is going to amount to criminal liability for that death. However, before I set out what I think is the best way of summarising this, I'm going to do some research - not on Wiki. Smile

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:22 am

I can still clap for the utter smack that did to the nasty turn the thread was about to head down.

The act can be defeated if you send them with the mindset "lets send them somewhere because it will waste their time." rather than the mindset "lets send them there because if the insects dont infect them the rebels will give them lead poisoning."

(n00bs diary: I wonder if I can get ALL the staff to post here...)

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:40 am

Morf wrote:

According to this information, it seems to me that it would be illegal to send a fake ID to a lad, at least in the state of Virginia.

Who's sending fake IDs to lads? I hope this is purely hypothetical... Evil or Very Mad

Not quite a Newb Joined: 07 May 2008 Posts: 51

Full quote of above post removed - see it^^ Wink

- SB

Yes, it was hypothetical. We don't send fake ID's to lads because they could be used against victims. This has been discussed many times, but I don't think I've seen anyone mention that it might ALSO be illegal. Just another reason not to do it.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:29 am

The legality of sending ID to lads has been discussed many times.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:32 am

Your post caught me before I'd had my morning coffee, plus I'm not well at the moment, so apologies if it sounded a bit "off"... Glad to hear its just hypothetical though.

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