A GUY TRIED TO SCAM ME FOR 2500 BUT PAID ME BACK 4000. WHAT SHOULD I DO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoney

I dont think he can chargeback even if he wanted to. I actually put in a Paypal dispute for the 2500 which he then "agreed" with after i threatened him, so Paypal sent me back the 2500. He then sent another 1500 separately. I also told him if he pulls any funny business like that he would be nuked and I would make sure he goes to jail. Btw, I was fully prepared to lose money on this and get an attorney to put pressure on the local police to arrest his ass.

I told him to send me 1500 for wasting my time, as i had to put hours into dealing with this, and it was just a pain in the ass in general.

It is actually an interesting legal question, and I thought about it when i demanded the 1500 for my time. Could that be classified as extortion? I am obviously not worried about a scammer trying to come after me for extortion but still am curious what the law is regarding that especially if one took it to the extreme.

For example, Some guy tries to rip you off for 10k and you have 100 percent proof this was his intention. In your research, you find out he is a career scammer. You then tell him you want 10k back and then another 50k for punitive damages, emotional distress or whatever and if he doesnt pay you will expose him.

---

Extortion is when force or violence is threatened, while blackmail is when release of info is threatened.

Also, since you mentioned the time you spent involved in this matter, he is compensating you for your time. Send him an invoice for the time and you are probably covered if your time is otherwise similarly valuable based on your career/opportunity costs. "Due diligence research" sounds like a reasonable item category. But if the amount demanded isn't comparable to what you would otherwise earn for your time, that would almost surely qualify as blackmail.

P.S. On the other hand, fraud generally commands treble (triple) damges in civil cases. So, you could say that the less-than-treble damages (4000/2500 < 3) is an out-of-court settlement in lieu of pursuing the matter in civil court.

---

Thanks for making that distinction; I should have known that.

So in my 10,000 dollar example you would put that in the blackmail category?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Extortion is when force or violence is threatened, while blackmail is when release of info is threatened.

Also, since you mentioned the time you spent involved in this matter, he is compensating you for your time. Send him an invoice for the time and you are probably covered if your time is otherwise similarly valuable based on your career/opportunity costs. "Due diligence research" sounds like a reasonable item category. But if the amount demanded isn't comparable to what you would otherwise earn for your time, that would almost surely qualify as blackmail.

P.S. On the other hand, fraud generally commands treble (triple) damges in civil cases. So, you could say that the less-than-treble damages (4000/2500 < 3) is an out-of-court settlement in lieu of pursuing the matter in civil court.

---

Thanks for making that distinction; I should have known that.

So in my 10,000 dollar example you would put that in the blackmail category?

---

To be honest it doesn't really matter as they are often prosecuted in same category. Many people who blackmail are charged with extortion. Varies by where you live.

You don't have a service contract so you can't dthrwaten or demand money even if you itemize it. It's blackmail either way. But highly unlikely the scammer can do anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Extortion is when force or violence is threatened, while blackmail is when release of info is threatened.

Also, since you mentioned the time you spent involved in this matter, he is compensating you for your time. Send him an invoice for the time and you are probably covered if your time is otherwise similarly valuable based on your career/opportunity costs. "Due diligence research" sounds like a reasonable item category. But if the amount demanded isn't comparable to what you would otherwise earn for your time, that would almost surely qualify as blackmail.

P.S. On the other hand, fraud generally commands treble (triple) damges in civil cases. So, you could say that the less-than-treble damages (4000/2500 < 3) is an out-of-court settlement in lieu of pursuing the matter in civil court.

---

Thanks for making that distinction; I should have known that.

So in my 10,000 dollar example you would put that in the blackmail category?

---

I am no expert in this area, but I recall where you can potentially cross the line is threatening to expose them for $. Its fine to ask for your money back and damages even. Its when you threaten to turn them over to the police or expose them unless they pay damages where you may theoretically run into trouble. I know lawyers are not allowed to make that threat in negotiations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoney

Thanks for making that distinction; I should have known that.

So in my 10,000 dollar example you would put that in the blackmail category?

---

I am no expert in this area, but I recall where you can potentially cross the line is threatening to expose them for $. Its fine to ask for your money back and damages even. Its when you threaten to turn them over to the police or expose them unless they pay damages where you may theoretically run into trouble. I know lawyers are not allowed to make that threat in negotiations.

---

Agreed about threatening to release info. Plus, ($50k+$10k)/$10k > 3, so you wouldn't be able to claim out-of-court settlement, as that would be greater than treble damages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charham

I am no expert in this area, but I recall where you can potentially cross the line is threatening to expose them for $. Its fine to ask for your money back and damages even. Its when you threaten to turn them over to the police or expose them unless they pay damages where you may theoretically run into trouble. I know lawyers are not allowed to make that threat in negotiations.

---

Agreed about threatening to release info. Plus, ($50k+$10k)/$10k > 3, so you wouldn't be able to claim out-of-court settlement, as that would be greater than treble damages.

---

There is no such rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Agreed about threatening to release info. Plus, ($50k+$10k)/$10k > 3, so you wouldn't be able to claim out-of-court settlement, as that would be greater than treble damages.

---

There is no such rule.

---

It's implied by the fact that a plaintiff in a civil fraud case would only be able to be awarded up to 3 times the amount of the economic damage, which in this hypothetical case is $10k. As such, if an out-of-court settlement was claimed, the maximum amount a court would likely consider reasonable is 3 x $10k, or $30k. Else, why would the defendant agree to such a settlement if they wouldn't face a higher judgment in a civil court case given the treble damage rule (in most jurisdictions)? As such, the extra $30k could look like blackmail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

There is no such rule.

---

It's implied by the fact that a plaintiff in a civil fraud case would only be able to be awarded up to 3 times the amount of the economic damage, which in this hypothetical case is $10k. As such, if an out-of-court settlement was claimed, the maximum amount a court would likely consider reasonable is 3 x $10k, or $30k. Else, why would the defendant agree to such a settlement if they wouldn't face a higher judgment in a civil court case given the treble damage rule (in most jurisdictions)? As such, the extra $30k could look like blackmail.

---

You do understand there are like 4 actively practicing lawyers that post here right? Maybe sit this one out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

It's implied by the fact that a plaintiff in a civil fraud case would only be able to be awarded up to 3 times the amount of the economic damage, which in this hypothetical case is $10k. As such, if an out-of-court settlement was claimed, the maximum amount a court would likely consider reasonable is 3 x $10k, or $30k. Else, why would the defendant agree to such a settlement if they wouldn't face a higher judgment in a civil court case given the treble damage rule (in most jurisdictions)? As such, the extra $30k could look like blackmail.

---

You do understand there are like 4 actively practicing lawyers that post here right? Maybe sit this one out?

---

Preciously. But that is easier said than done for some.
Fraud is an intentional tort which allows for compensatory and punitive damages, and depending on the jurisdiction can be unlimited. It isn't measured by a particular multiplier; though there are some types of claims that can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

You do understand there are like 4 actively practicing lawyers that post here right? Maybe sit this one out?

---

Precisely. But that is easier said than done for some.
Fraud is an intentional tort which allows for compensatory and punitive damages, and depending on the jurisdiction can be unlimited. It isn't measured by a particular multiplier; though there are some types of claims that can be.

---

FYP

Also, I appreciate being corrected. And sometimes speaking up in ignorance is a opportunity to learn. So, really, I do appreciate being schooled by those genuinely more knowledgable. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Precisely. But that is easier said than done for some.
Fraud is an intentional tort which allows for compensatory and punitive damages, and depending on the jurisdiction can be unlimited. It isn't measured by a particular multiplier; though there are some types of claims that can be.

---

FYP

Also, I appreciate being corrected. And sometimes speaking up in ignorance is a opportunity to learn. So, really, I do appreciate being schooled by those genuinely more knowledgable. Thanks!

---

De nada!

I would extract as much money from him and donate it to pfa freerolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

FYP

Also, I appreciate being corrected. And sometimes speaking up in ignorance is a opportunity to learn. So, really, I do appreciate being schooled by those genuinely more knowledgable. Thanks!

---

De nada!

---

Tell, are you aware of this argument? And if so, do you concur or disagree?

http://www.cooper-firm.com/hit-em-wh...tort-case.html

Quote:

---

Recently, the Supreme Court revisited these guidelines in conjunction with a $145 million punitive damage award against State Farm. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 1521-26 (2003). In striking down that award, the Court returned to the three Gore factors and provided additional analysis that should be considered in the application of punitive damages.

...

Another important limitation stated in Gore and applied with renewed vigor by the Campbell Court is that the award must be based on conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not on other "unsavory" or out-of-state conduct. Id. at 1522-23. This presents a difficult choice for the plaintiff's counsel. The natural instinct in these cases is to present all possible evidence of the defendant's bad conduct, including evidence of company-wide practices or policies, to demonstrate the requisite culpability for punitive damages. In light of the Campbell admonitions, however, such evidence, if admitted, could be used by the defendant on appeal to argue that the award was based on conduct beyond that which harmed the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff's counsel must carefully consider what evidence to offer, balancing the desire to maximize the award at the trial level with the goal of avoiding a reversal on appeal. To the extent evidence of other wrongful conduct is identified, plaintiff's counsel should make every effort to demonstrate its similarity to the conduct that harmed the plaintiff.

The Campbell Court also discussed in detail the ratio of the punitive to compensatory damages. While stating that "there are no rigid benchmarks that a punitive damages award may not pass," the Court implied a strong preference for awards that do not exceed single-digit ratios, with the appropriate ratio changing depending on the egregiousness of the conduct and the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Id. at 1524. It reiterated that a ratio greater than four-to-one "might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety." Id.

---

c$, you've been besmirched by a lowlife, and it's within your rights to repeatedly demand and receive satisfaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

De nada!

---

Tell, are you aware of this argument? And if so, do you concur or disagree?

http://www.cooper-firm.com/hit-em-wh...tort-case.html

Quote:

---

Recently, the Supreme Court revisited these guidelines in conjunction with a $145 million punitive damage award against State Farm. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 1521-26 (2003). In striking down that award, the Court returned to the three Gore factors and provided additional analysis that should be considered in the application of punitive damages.

...

Another important limitation stated in Gore and applied with renewed vigor by the Campbell Court is that the award must be based on conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not on other "unsavory" or out-of-state conduct. Id. at 1522-23. This presents a difficult choice for the plaintiff's counsel. The natural instinct in these cases is to present all possible evidence of the defendant's bad conduct, including evidence of company-wide practices or policies, to demonstrate the requisite culpability for punitive damages. In light of the Campbell admonitions, however, such evidence, if admitted, could be used by the defendant on appeal to argue that the award was based on conduct beyond that which harmed the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff's counsel must carefully consider what evidence to offer, balancing the desire to maximize the award at the trial level with the goal of avoiding a reversal on appeal. To the extent evidence of other wrongful conduct is identified, plaintiff's counsel should make every effort to demonstrate its similarity to the conduct that harmed the plaintiff.

The Campbell Court also discussed in detail the ratio of the punitive to compensatory damages. While stating that "there are no rigid benchmarks that a punitive damages award may not pass," the Court implied a strong preference for awards that do not exceed single-digit ratios, with the appropriate ratio changing depending on the egregiousness of the conduct and the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Id. at 1524. It reiterated that a ratio greater than four-to-one "might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety." Id.

---

---

Doesn't really matter what I think. But there are plenty of examples of much higher multipliers. As an aside, Where I live it's quite difficult to get good awards, much less punitive ones. That is the case in most places. The chamber of commerce just does a good job of publicizing the bigger awards making people fearful that they are next. Most states have passed some measure of tort reform by now. Likewise, there are stringent penalties for truly "frivolous" litigation which again is just more buzz words meant to stir the base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Tell, are you aware of this argument? And if so, do you concur or disagree?

http://www.cooper-firm.com/hit-em-wh...tort-case.html

Quote:

---

Recently, the Supreme Court revisited these guidelines in conjunction with a $145 million punitive damage award against State Farm. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 1521-26 (2003). In striking down that award, the Court returned to the three Gore factors and provided additional analysis that should be considered in the application of punitive damages.

...

Another important limitation stated in Gore and applied with renewed vigor by the Campbell Court is that the award must be based on conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not on other "unsavory" or out-of-state conduct. Id. at 1522-23. This presents a difficult choice for the plaintiff's counsel. The natural instinct in these cases is to present all possible evidence of the defendant's bad conduct, including evidence of company-wide practices or policies, to demonstrate the requisite culpability for punitive damages. In light of the Campbell admonitions, however, such evidence, if admitted, could be used by the defendant on appeal to argue that the award was based on conduct beyond that which harmed the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff's counsel must carefully consider what evidence to offer, balancing the desire to maximize the award at the trial level with the goal of avoiding a reversal on appeal. To the extent evidence of other wrongful conduct is identified, plaintiff's counsel should make every effort to demonstrate its similarity to the conduct that harmed the plaintiff.

The Campbell Court also discussed in detail the ratio of the punitive to compensatory damages. While stating that "there are no rigid benchmarks that a punitive damages award may not pass," the Court implied a strong preference for awards that do not exceed single-digit ratios, with the appropriate ratio changing depending on the egregiousness of the conduct and the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Id. at 1524. It reiterated that a ratio greater than four-to-one "might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety." Id.

---

---

Doesn't really matter what I think. But there are plenty of examples of much higher multipliers. As an aside, Where I live it's quite difficult to get good awards, much less punitive ones. That is the case in most places. The chamber of commerce just does a good job of publicizing the bigger awards making people fearful that they are next. Most states have passed some measure of tort reform by now. Likewise, there are stringent penalties for truly "frivolous" litigation which again is just more buzz words meant to stir the base.

---

There may be many cases as you mention, but would they still carry precedental weight given the Campbell court ruling mentioned here?

So essentially you got back the money you lit on fire with Garrett?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Tell, are you aware of this argument? And if so, do you concur or disagree?

http://www.cooper-firm.com/hit-em-wh...tort-case.html

---

Doesn't really matter what I think. But there are plenty of examples of much higher multipliers. As an aside, Where I live it's quite difficult to get good awards, much less punitive ones. That is the case in most places. The chamber of commerce just does a good job of publicizing the bigger awards making people fearful that they are next. Most states have passed some measure of tort reform by now. Likewise, there are stringent penalties for truly "frivolous" litigation which again is just more buzz words meant to stir the base.

---

There may be many cases as you mention, but would they still carry precedental weight given the Campbell court ruling mentioned here?

---

The Campbell decision mentioned here clearly states there still is no rigid benchmark, more like loose guidelines. So yes, previous cases with actual awards would still carry precedent as it actually happened, not just some theoretical guideline or recommendation.

Lol @ the Campbell court saying over 4:1 might be close to unconstitutional. Might? Way to stick a flag in the sand on that one judges!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Tell, are you aware of this argument? And if so, do you concur or disagree?

http://www.cooper-firm.com/hit-em-wh...tort-case.html

---

Doesn't really matter what I think. But there are plenty of examples of much higher multipliers. As an aside, Where I live it's quite difficult to get good awards, much less punitive ones. That is the case in most places. The chamber of commerce just does a good job of publicizing the bigger awards making people fearful that they are next. Most states have passed some measure of tort reform by now. Likewise, there are stringent penalties for truly "frivolous" litigation which again is just more buzz words meant to stir the base.

---

There may be many cases as you mention, but would they still carry precedental weight given the Campbell court ruling mentioned here?

---

You are quoting what I presume is some article or review. The author may have an agenda of be an idiot. Idk. But that's not precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by handicapme

I wouldnt worry about a charge back here unless you did expose him and then in that case he says fuck you. Also, while I'm all for exposing scammers and all... you did get your money back and then some, if there is any chance this guy can cause you harm in real life I say drop it and know you got lucky... if he can't, drop his data and let this site SEO it.

---

I dont think he can chargeback even if he wanted to. I actually put in a Paypal dispute for the 2500 which he then "agreed" with after i threatened him, so Paypal sent me back the 2500. He then sent another 1500 separately. I also told him if he pulls any funny business like that he would be nuked and I would make sure he goes to jail. Btw, I was fully prepared to lose money on this and get an attorney to put pressure on the local police to arrest his ass.

I told him to send me 1500 for wasting my time, as i had to put hours into dealing with this, and it was just a pain in the ass in general.

It is actually an interesting legal question, and I thought about it when i demanded the 1500 for my time. Could that be classified as extortion? I am obviously not worried about a scammer trying to come after me for extortion but still am curious what the law is regarding that especially if one took it to the extreme.

For example, Some guy tries to rip you off for 10k and you have 100 percent proof this was his intention. In your research, you find out he is a career scammer. You then tell him you want 10k back and then another 50k for punitive damages, emotional distress or whatever and if he doesnt pay you will expose him.

---

You would never be arrested for extortion here.

First off, no chance he would go to the police if he was scamming (which I'm sure you are not incorrect about), because they would demand information on the entire situation, and it would backfire on him.

But that aside, the fact that he reversed the Paypal transaction when you threatened to out him (I presume you threatened no violence or anything else illegal) is pretty much proof you caught him.

And the $1500 "for your time", again is a reasonable demand given that he was scamming you and wasting your time. He didn't have to pay it, but once he did, he could never claim extortion. At the very least, you could prove that you were being scammed and your time was wasted, so you offered him a payment for wasted time for you to drop the matter.

There would NEVER be criminal charges in a situation like this, even if he did attempt to report it.

The police are pretty particular when they decide whether or not to go through with "blackmail" and "extortion" cases. In almost all cases, it involves a situation where the victim does not owe money to the perpetrator for anything else.

Examples:

- I threaten that I am going to come over and break both of your legs unless you send me $20,000 tomorrow (which you otherwise don't owe me).

- I threaten to reveal pictures I obtained of you and Jewdonk having gay sex unless you send me $20,000 tomorrow.

- I threaten to spread false rumors that you molest young boys if you don't send me $20,000 tomorrow.


However, the following are NOT examples of extortion/blackmail where action would be taken, even if technically stretching the law:

- You steal $1,000 from me, and I threaten to tell your wife that you cheated on her unless you give it back.

- You scammed me, and I threaten for you to return the money or I'm going to come down and beat you up.

- You sold copies of PFA Radio without my permission and didn't compensate me, and now I'm threatening to post a naked picture of your ass if you don't give me some of the proceeds.


Again, the actions above aren't necessarily 100% legal, but they will never result in arrest or prosecution if it turns out that the "blackmail/extortion" is in response to some sort of legitimately shady financial dealing (or at least the strong appearance of one), where you got mad and made threats to get your money back.

The fact is that most scammers have been threatened at some point (even with extreme violence or death), but they could never get anyone arrested for extortion under these circumstances.