Sorry for messing up the code in the previous post.
Zuma, I agree with you. I do feel sorry for people who are foolish and lost money but, again, we must each bear the consequences of our foolish actions and learn from them. I cannot see why those of us who were not so foolish and not so greedy should bail out those who were not prudent.
This was nothing but a scam from the very beginning. This could not possibly work, there’s no way that CyberRebates could make money doing this. Well, there is one way. Take the money and then when people ask for their rebates don’t send it. The CyberRebate people probably spent a the money as fast as possible, planning in advance to go bankrupt. They probably had a lot of steak dinners, a lot of luxury hotel suites, and suchlike, since they knew they’d have to give back any tangible purchases. Live like kings for a few months, then go bankrupt. Assholes.
It was a thinly disguised pyramid scheme. It makes you wonder how easy it is to fool people. No matter how implausible, if it sounds good, people are willing to believe it. Politicians know this very well.
The interesting thing about the Albania case was that the people knew there was something dishonest about the setup, but they thought the whole thing was secretly being backed by something like laundered mafia drug money, so they thought their investments were safe.
I posted this URL from Wired today in MPSIMS, unaware that this thread existed. The article mentions two cases in which the credit card companies took back the charges and were investigating the situation. So if you paid with a credit card, I’d strongly suggest that you contact them as soon as possible. Good luck to you.
I think from a credit card perspective this is a very greay area. This is, obviously, not a straight purchase of an item but rather an investment of funds. I cannot think a credit card would guarantee your investments just because you paid with a credit card. I think if a credit card has few claims they may just accept them but if they have many they would probably dispute them. It will be an interesting legal analysis.
At any rate, i just cannot comprehend the people who got taken for tens of thousands of dollars. Many were reselling the stuff on ebay… what were they thinking?
Well I would not take it as an investemnt. You are agreeing to buy a product for a price (never mind that the price is 10x the normal selling price). You get the product. I see the rebate as secondary. What are the rules of the rebate - does it state that you can get your money back by returning the product if the rebate is canceled (I know this is not the same as canceling the rebate)
k2dave, that’s why I say it will make for interesting legal analysis.
You can say you just bought a product and never mind the rebate. well, in that case, never mind the rebate, you bought the product at 10x its market price.
OTOH, if the return of your original money is integral part of the transaction, then you have received a CD for lending them your money for 14 weeks. That is an investment by any other name you call it. I think the courts would look at the substance rather than the name.
It is like when banks were giving out toasters and stuff because it was not taxed as interest like cash was. That loophole was soon closed. If you get a TV instead of cash, it is still interest. I think something similar will happen in this case.
As I say, I think it will make for very interesting legal analysis. Law students can have a field day arguing this one. I can see arguing this one flat or round.