What’s a “pigeon drop” scam?
I keep running into it in mystery books. This weekend it was even on The Simpson’s as a classic scam.
So what is it?
PIGEON DROP SCAM
In the pigeon drop scam, swindlers work in pairs or teams. One befriends an unsuspecting consumer, the “pigeon,” while the other approaches them with money or valuables he claims to have just found.
After some rehearsed conversation, the con artists agree to split the money three ways with you and arrange to meet at a lawyer’s office or somewhere else of their choosing.
But can they trust you, they ask. To get your share, you’ll need to put up some “good faith” money, which they will return to you after the goods are divided.
To prove yourself trustworthy, you turn over a large sum of money to them and later go to meet them at the designated spot. Soon after arriving, you realize the pair is long gone and so is your money.
And if you want to see a movie that features this scam, see House of Games.
It’s the fairly decent David Mamet film about confidence scams starring Mamet’s wife and Ricky Jay in a minor role. (As opposed to The Spanish Prisoner, which is the fairly bad David Mamet film about confidence scams starring Mamet’s wife (different wife) and Ricky Jay in a minor role.)
According to this site, the victim is shown a bag or briefcase with the loot, is coerced into putting her own money in with this money, then given the bag to carry. But the bag has been switched with an empty one. The other two disappear parking the car or other.
Yeah, watch out for the pigeon drop. Even though you never think that you could fall victim to it, before you know it, all your money is gone.
For more cons like this, check out the On-Line Encyclopedia of Scams, Swindles, and Shams.
i only half understand.
could someone please explain how it would work on tv (like write a dialogue with the pigeon drop scheme)
For a fascinating account of con artists (and they truly were artists in many ways) and their well known scams, including the pidgeon drop, get the book “The Big Con” by David Maurer. Part linguistic study, part sociology, it has served as a guide to many movies including “The Spanish Prisoner,” “House of Games,” “The Sting,” and the old “Mission:Impossible” series.
Like it goes in House of Games: “A” and “B” and the victim (“V”) find $80k cash that “may” be part of a drug drop or may have been stolen. As they all discuss this, A and B suggest that it may be best to sit on the hot cash for a while and let it cool, perhaps 2 months, before splitting.
B agrees to hold the money and he will put up $10k good faith money for A and V to hold. After two months, B would get his good-faith $$ back when they split the $80k.
V thinks that $10k as good faith money is insuficient, and agrees to put up $30k as good faith money, if V holds the cash. The briefcase is then sealed for V to hold for 2 months. They will all break the seal in two months and split the cash.
So in the end, A and B are holding V’s good faith money and V is holding the sealed breafcase. However, V is holding a duplicate, sealed briefcase holding nothing but empty paper. Later, when V can’t find A and B, he breaks the seal and finds he’s been taken.
Has noone ever seen “The Sting?”
Although it is a variation on the trick, the film opens with an example of the scam.
It’s funny you should mention it. I just saw it last night for the first time. I loved that scam in the first scene.
Zev Steinhardt
Bob is walking down the street, minding his own business, when he sees the abandoned briefcase at the bus stop. He’s curious, and his curiousity increases when he sees another fellow, a bit closer than he is, also notice the case and stop to check on it. He’s curious, and comes over while the guy fiddles with the latch. The case pops open, and Bob’s heart skips a beat when he sees it’s full of cash.
The other fellow seems equally stunned. “Can you believe it? I just found this here!” Bob is a bit annoyed that the other fellow seems to be claiming the credit, and is quick to point out that they got there about the same time.
They exchange names, and Bob learns his new buddy is Pete. Pete wonders what they should do… return the money? They look in the briefcase – there doesn’t seem to be any identification or way of determining whose it is. They’re interrupted by the arrival of a third man, who snaps off a nod at Pete as he’s walking by. They seem to know each other, but only slightly.
Pete respectfully says, “Uh… Mr. Dumont… look what I found!”
Mr. Dumont looks at the money, and extracts a confession from Pete that both he and Bob did get there at about the same time, and should really share in the money… “…if you’re allowed to keep it.” He takes charge, reaching in and counting the money, discovering it’s exactly $10,000. “I happen to know the law. If you find money, you can keep it, as long as there’s no way to discover who’s it was, and if the owner doesn’t claim it.”
They agree to watch the want ads for ten days, and check with the police, and if no one reports the money gone, they can split it.
Pete immediately pipes up and says he’ll keep the money… and Bob can see a vision of his new-found riches just dribbling away. “Wait a sec,” he says. “Why should Pete keep the money? Why don’t I keep it and check with the police?” Mr. Dumont takes Bob’s side, but Pete protests that Bob could just take the money and not do anything. Mr. Dumont thinks that’s a fair point, and tells Bob that it’s only right if Bob puts up some of his own money as a guarantee of good faith. After all, he’s getting to keep the full $10,000. If someone claims it, then Pete will have to give up Bob’s good-faith money.
Bob, who can’t believe his good fortune, quixkly consents to giving up $2,500 of his own to Pete. After all, he thinks, he just got $10,000 - and if this pair thinks he’s going to wait a week and check with the police, they’re crazy. He just paid $2,500 for a briefcase with $10,000 in it.
After he gets home and opens the briefcase again to discover some old newspapers, he realizes that he’s been tricked. At some point, right under his nose, the pair swapped cases or money… and left him with out $2,500.
- Rick
Bricker, you do that so well! Do you perchance sometimes go by the nickname Mr. Dumont? 
The one thing I would say about Bricker’s version is that the victim seems to think he’s “getting over” on the other two by supposedly getting the better end of the deal (until he finds out he’s been had). All the descriptions of actual pigeon drops that I’ve ever read about have always depended on the fact that the mark thinks he (or she, since I think more women than men are victims of this scam) is doing the right thing by putting up his own money as a good-faith gesture; he is not doing it because he thinks the other two are stupid enough to entrust him with thousands of dollars for only a small amount as a guarantee.
NYPD Blue had an episode dealing with this con a few years back. In it, Detective Russell pretended to be a wheelchair-bound person who fell for the scam until it had been carried through, whereupon the police swarmed in.
From boohowdoy’s link
Now I really don’t get this one. How do the scammer benefit at all from this?
I would imagine that a sentence was left out where the scammer gives you (the victim) his money while you give him yours. Presumably you would see no problem in doing this because he’s giving you a large sum of money while you are giving him the relatively small amount that you just withdrew from the bank.
Well that’s dumb. And I still don’t get it. Why would you “trade” your money? And is the victim opening an account for the scammer, because I’m pretty sure you can’t do that? Or is the victim putting it in his own account?
My turn to try:
When he shows you his packet, it has money. Then you put your money with it to prove you are going to deposit both.
It is at this point the grifter “demonstrates” a safe way to carry or hide the now combined money on your body by doing it on his own body, but when the grifter retrives the money after demonstrating on himself, it is a different packet, one without any money. While you think you are leaving with money, you aren’t. He still has it stashed on his body.
As for opening a bank account for someone else. The grifter is working on the idea that this is the last thing on your mind. He really could care less if you open a bank account because you have no money.
TV
A great example of the Pigeon Drop is in the flick The Flim-Flam Man, starring George C. Scott, Michael Sarazin and Sue Lyon. Several scams are illustrated; in the pidgeon drop one, Slim Pickens (“with a belly full of beer and a wallet full of money”) plays the patsy. A fun movie and an education to the gullible.
Ooooookay–now I get it. Just a couple more ?s
But you can’t open a bank account in someone else’s name without them there. Even I know that, so I wouldn’t even try to do it. I mean, I’m quite gullible, but even I would start getting suspicious if someone asked me to deposit money for him, with him not present. How dumb are the people who fall for this one?
Adding a little more the description of the pigeon drop, when we do “street smart” training for our students (it’s a college in NYC), we usually use an example where the “found” valuable is NOT cash. While it is often done with cash, some of the scam artists use something that is of value, and all of a piece, as it were. (This might be because too many potential victims just proposed to split up the cash!)
Also, the sums of money discussed here have been pretty large – this scam also works with smaller amounts. Not too many of our students have $2000 ready cash, but they might have, say, $200. Sometimes the found object is what appears to be a valuable piece of jewelry, or a watch – something that can’t readily be split 2 ways. The third person often presents him/herself as some sort of expert, so that the victim is assured that the object is in fact of great value.
It is amazing to me how many of our students become victims of this scam each year, despite the efforts we go to in explaining this con.