PWCC Statement on Recent Card Trimming Concerns

[Leon]

There was no material misrepresentation and no fraud unless the trimmer said he didn't do it. Trimming a card isn't illegal. Sending a trimmed card through the mail isn't illegal. You can quit now.

I am not condoning any of this mess I am just not sensing the strong case you think there is UNLESS there is some paper trail evidence that comes about. I expect there very well could be. But you are the lawyer. I guess we will see. I hope heads do roll for whomever is committing fraud. And I think this whole debacle sucks and is bad for the hobby short term and good for it long term.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It is illegal to use the mail or wires to commit fraud. Selling something while intentionally misrepresenting or concealing a material fact is fraud. Doing it repeatedly is a scheme to defraud. I can't do this over and over. If you think you know the law better than I do, that's fine, I really don't care at this point honestly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

There was no material misrepresentation and no fraud unless the trimmer said he didn't do it. Trimming a card isn't illegal. Sending a trimmed card through the mail isn't illegal. You can quit now.

I am not condoning any of this mess I am just not sensing the strong case you think there is UNLESS there is some paper trail evidence that comes about. I expect there very well could be. But you are the lawyer. I guess we will see. I hope heads do roll for whomever is committing fraud. And I think this whole debacle sucks and is bad for the hobby short term and good for it long term.

I'm done. You're not listening and or you don't understand. I'm not debating the law with non-lawyers any more. If you think you know the law better than I do, God bless.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm done. You're not listening and or you don't understand. I'm not debating the law with non-lawyers any more. If you think you know the law better than I do, God bless.

You keep directing us to these Codes. We're not lawyers, but we're not stupid either. The act to which these Codes applies has to be illegal. We're just questioning if the act (doctoring) is legal or not?

We're not question the morality of it, just the legality of it.

In other words, at what point does it become an illegal activity? It is illegal to trim a card? Is it illegal to send that card in for grading? If it receives a numeric grade, is it illegal to sell it? At which point, which one of these steps, does it become illegal and how?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You keep directing us to these Codes. We're not lawyers, but we're not stupid either. The act to which these Codes applies has to be illegal. We're just questioning if the act (doctoring) is legal or not?

We're not question the morality of it, just the legality of it.

In other words, at what point does it become an illegal activity? It is illegal to trim a card? Is it illegal to send that card in for grading? If it receives a numeric grade, is it illegal to sell it. At which point, which one of these steps, does it become illegal and how?

Last time. It's not the doctoring itself, it's the fraudulent selling of a doctored card, or participating in a scheme to do so, using the mail and or the wires. Fraud is the knowing misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Last time. It's not the doctoring itself, it's the fraudulent selling of a doctored card, using the mail and or the wires to do so. Fraud is the knowing misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.

where, as alluded to before, fraudulent is this:

Legal Definition of Scheme Or Artifice To Defraud
www.lectlaw.com/def2/s003.htm
SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD. A scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 18 USC; Any plan or course of action intended to deceive others, and to obtain, by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money or property from persons so deceived.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by griffon512

where, as alluded to before, fraudulent is this:

Legal Definition of Scheme Or Artifice To Defraud
www.lectlaw.com/def2/s003.htm
SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD. A scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 18 USC; Any plan or course of action intended to deceive others, and to obtain, by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money or property from persons so deceived.

Understood. But some could argue that it's not fraud if it improved the condition of the card as some truly believe. See my example above. If I re-wire a house because it has old, faulty wiring and then sell the house, do I have to disclose that it was re-wired? Do I have to disclose other upgrades? Do you not see where I'm coming from?

I guess what I'm saying is that Moser, Brent or whoever could argue that the customer wasn't deceived, but instead they were done a favor by improving the condition of the card.

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Understood. But some could argue that it's not fraud if it improved the condition of the card as some truly believe. See my example above. If I re-wire a house because it has old, faulty wiring and then sell the house, do I have to disclose that it was re-wired? Do I have to disclose other upgrades? Do you not see where I'm coming from?

I guess what I'm saying is that Moser, Brent or whoever could argue that the customer wasn't deceived, but instead they were done a favor by improving the condition of the card.

if it comes to it, they can argue whatever they want...a spade is still a spade...or at least it should be if shown to be

re: this: "could argue that the customer wasn't deceived, but instead they were done a favor by improving the condition of the card."

"deception" and "favor" are not mutually exclusive, nor does the law say they have to be to show fraud i would imagine. in other words, if an act is fraudulent whether it is determined to be beneficial does not make it something other than fraud...that would be my layman's assumption at least.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Last time. It's not the doctoring itself, it's the fraudulent selling of a doctored card, using the mail and or the wires to do so. Fraud is the knowing misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.

So, by your answer, if its sold using mail or wire it's illegal, but if they sold them it shows it wouldn't be illegal? Yeah, that makes sense.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So, by your answer, if its sold using mail or wire it's illegal, but if they sold them it shows it wouldn't be illegal? Yeah, that makes sense.

He got you there, Pete!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So, by your answer, if its sold using mail or wire it's illegal, but if they sold them it shows it wouldn't be illegal? Yeah, that makes sense.

I didn't draft the statutes, David, they are what they are. There are jurisdictional limitations on the reach of federal law. Other laws might apply to your situation.

[calvindog]

What Peter is trying to say is that federal mail and wire fraud statutes don’t cover the entirety of all criminal fraud statutes.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So, by your answer, if its sold using mail or wire it's illegal, but if they sold them it shows it wouldn't be illegal? Yeah, that makes sense.

Laws like that are actually common. The legislators figure the people that can sell through the mail have 1000s of more potential customers that someone that has to have someone show up at a show. So they are trying to catch the bigger players. Not saying there are loopholes are that it isnt silly but thats the justification of that conflict...

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Last time. It's not the doctoring itself, it's the fraudulent selling of a doctored card, or participating in a scheme to do so, using the mail and or the wires. Fraud is the knowing misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.

How many times do you have to spell it out? It's like 3rd grade here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

How many times do you have to spell it out? It's like 3rd grade here.

I know. This is truly not a very difficult concept to grasp.

[Kenny Cole]

Failing to disclose a material fact is fraud by non-disclosure, also known as fraudulent concealment. You don't have to affirmatively lie by saying something that isn't the truth. Failing to speak may also be fraud. I think that may be part of the disconnect.

If you trim a card, get it by the graders (which seems to be much easier that I had previously thought it might be) and either consign it to be sold or sell it directly yourself as worth whatever numerical grade it was given, that is fraud. The numerical grade is a material fact upon which the buyer based their decision to pay $XXX.00 for it upon. If you trimmed it (or knew it was trimmed) you have committed fraud by non-disclosure because you knew it didn't deserve a numerical grade. You have a duty to disclose that, plain and simple. Every time. If you use the mails or wires as part of your selling scheme, you get to look at mail or wire fraud.

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by Leon

There was no material misrepresentation and no fraud unless the trimmer said he didn't do it. Trimming a card isn't illegal. Sending a trimmed card through the mail isn't illegal. You can quit now.

I am not condoning any of this mess I am just not sensing the strong case you think there is UNLESS there is some paper trail evidence that comes about. I expect there very well could be. But you are the lawyer. I guess we will see. I hope heads do roll for whomever is committing fraud. And I think this whole debacle sucks and is bad for the hobby short term and good for it long term.

for us non-lawyers the following two links explain peter's point:

1) very simple (look at questions 47-50): https://quizlet.com/56869821/chapter-13-flash-cards/

2) more comprehensive if one is looking for a greater understanding: https://guide.iacrc.org/the-basics-o...investigators/