Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[Peter_Spaeth]

David -- I know you enjoy being a contrarian, but the bottom line is that obviously Larry was representing these as having come directly from Topps, when they did not, they were franken-cards that he assembled himself. And obviously the reason he did it is that people for whatever reason are willing to pay more thinking they had come directly from Topps. So it's fraud. Is it the biggest fraud in history, no, it barely registers probably. But still, I think you are off base here.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Larry was representing these as having come directly from Topps, when they did not

Not a contrarian, just a realist. You're right, he was representing them as having come from Topps (as T206Collector also pointed out as I was typing this). I'm not arguing that fact. I'm arguing whether or not it's illegal to do so. The card itself has no trademark or copyright, so what is he really infringing upon here?

Tell, you what. If you think it's illegal, why don't you do the hobby a big favor and report it? I'll even save you some time. Larry lives (or I believe he did at one time) in Buffalo, NY. You can email the Buffalo police department at tips@bpdny.org or call them directly at (716) 847-2255. Please report back and let the board know what they say.

I keep repeating myself but obviously some don't get it. I think what Larry did was totally unethical. I'm not defending him, I'm sharing my opinion of what I believe to be true (whether or not it's a crime - that was the original question which I responded to). But, again, here's your chance to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

[Leon]

He isn't infringing (or at least that part I am not sure of) but he is committing fraud. Fraud is illegal and is a crime. As far as getting an authority very involved for what amounts to a few Happy Meals, I agree. It probably won't happen. But don't think for a second what he did wasn't criminal. It was. It is black and white and not any gray.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not a contrarian, just a realist. You're right, he was representing them as having come from Topps (as T206Collector also pointed out as I was typing this). I'm not arguing that fact. I'm arguing whether or not it's illegal to do so. The card itself has no trademark or copyright, so what is he really infringing upon here?

Tell, you what. If you think it's illegal, why don't you do the hobby a big favor and report it? I'll even save you some time. Larry lives (or I believe he did at one time) in Buffalo, NY. You can email the Buffalo police department at tips@bpdny.org or call them directly at (716) 847-2255. Please report back and let the board know what they say.

I keep repeating myself but obviously some don't get it. I think what Larry did was totally unethical. I'm not defending him, I'm sharing my opinion of what I believe to be true (whether or not it's a crime - that was the original question which I responded to). But, again, here's your chance to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

[JohnP0621]

His whole story stinks. He claims it was his Brother that listed the cards on EBay yet in June 2017 he is trying to sell them on Net 54 to a member. Unless it was also his Brother that made him do it.
Sorry I don't buy his BS story.


John P

[tab]

if you have purchased a topps 206 "buyback" in the last several years there is a BIG chance that it is from the OP and not from topps. People buy and sell cards all the time. They may have changed hands several times. There would be no way to tell at this point. So unless you bought from him directly it's not going to make things right for lots of people in the hobby. Over such a long period of times I'm sure there are hundreds. Just my 2 cents

[T206Collector]

Using an old English "F" stamp on the back of a T206 card is a closer case. No law against that. But context is everything. If he said "I stamped this card myself" or "this stamp came from the desk of F Scott Fitzgerald" do you really think his legal culpability is the same?

[Dewey]

Now the thread has turned into Bleak House.

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not a contrarian, just a realist. You're right, he was representing them as having come from Topps (as T206Collector also pointed out as I was typing this). I'm not arguing that fact. I'm arguing whether or not it's illegal to do so. The card itself has no trademark or copyright, so what is he really infringing upon here?

Tell, you what. If you think it's illegal, why don't you do the hobby a big favor and report it? I'll even save you some time. Larry lives (or I believe he did at one time) in Buffalo, NY. You can email the Buffalo police department at tips@bpdny.org or call them directly at (716) 847-2255. Please report back and let the board know what they say.

I keep repeating myself but obviously some don't get it. I think what Larry did was totally unethical. I'm not defending him, I'm sharing my opinion of what I believe to be true (whether or not it's a crime - that was the original question which I responded to). But, again, here's your chance to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

I think in this case it would be wise to not be trying to play devils advocate or LA Law, and even appearing to take his side or trying to argue semantics of what is legal or unethical is not the point. The fact that you are even trying to stay on the other side of the line is what is interesting, and if I was a collector or dealer and read your rhetoric I would not have any dealings with you now or in the future.

What he did was fraud which is illegal and punishable by law - period. Not too hard to understand. Not a matter of did Topps copyright it or trademark it for it to be fraud. Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period. Not sure what there is to be confused about on this one.

KC

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KendallCat

I think in this case it would be wise to not be trying to play devils advocate or LA Law, and even appearing to take his side or trying to argue semantics of what is legal or unethical is not the point. The fact that you are even trying to stay on the other side of the line is what is interesting, and if I was a collector or dealer and read your rhetoric I would not have any dealings with you now or in the future.

What he did was fraud which is illegal and punishable by law - period. Not too hard to understand. Not a matter of did Topps copyright it or trademark it for it to be fraud. Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period. Not sure what there is to be confused about on this one.

KC

I wouldn't come down on David. He was clear that he was not defending Larry in any way. I think, rather, he was exploring some ideas and provoking discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

[ALR-bishop]

+ 1

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I wouldn't come down on David. He was clear that he was not defending Larry in any way. I think, rather, he was exploring some ideas and provoking discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

Peter - I don't think I am coming down on him, but my friendly advice is when someone commits fraud, deceives a bunch of people out of money, it crosses state lines... that is a criminal act. To argue that it is not copyrighted by Topps as a way out does not make sense since that is not the main crime. The crime is that this person took hard earned money from a bunch of people by deceiving and cheating them, and whether you think you are right for standing up for them and arguing the merits of the law it is not a good look. People will associate him with this guy whether it is correct to do so or not, and I think the smart play would be to not be on the side of the "T206 buybacks guy" or appear to be on his side. Just my two cents - your mileage may vary.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I didn't read David as being on his side at all. He clearly said in his opinion what Larry did was obviously unethical. Rather, I read him as thinking (incorrectly in my view, but whatever) about the legal ramifications of Larry's conduct, more as an academic exercise than any defense of Larry.

[Leon]

FYI, Larry admitted to me yesterday that he did 75-80 of these. That is around 10x what he had admitted to me on the 2 previous calls. Not sure if I want to speak with him again. And yes, the MO was at least partly, "no one will ever think to look for these measly amounts". Another just brought to my attention...



http://jvscauctions.com/LotDetail.as...ntoryid=37005#

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T2...p2047675.l2557


.

[the-illini]

With ~80 of these, at $15 profit per card (hypothetically) you are over 1k in money made off of scamming people.

Not on par with a Mastro-shill bid scandal but its not inconsequential either.

Originally Posted by Leon

FYI, Larry admitted to me yesterday that he did 75-80 of these. That is around 10x what he had admitted to me on the 2 previous calls. Not sure if I want to speak with him again. And yes, the MO was at least partly, "no one will ever think to look for these measly amounts". Another just brought to my attention...



http://jvscauctions.com/LotDetail.as...ntoryid=37005#

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T2...p2047675.l2557


.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

FYI, Larry admitted to me yesterday that he did 75-80 of these. That is around 10x what he had admitted to me on the 2 previous calls. Not sure if I want to speak with him again. And yes, the MO was at least partly, "no one will ever think to look for these measly amounts". Another just brought to my attention...



http://jvscauctions.com/LotDetail.as...ntoryid=37005#

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T2...p2047675.l2557


.

If you do talk to him again, the number may keep going up.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Leon

FYI, Larry admitted to me yesterday that he did 75-80 of these. That is around 10x what he had admitted to me on the 2 previous calls. Not sure if I want to speak with him again. And yes, the MO was at least partly, "no one will ever think to look for these measly amounts". Another just brought to my attention...



http://jvscauctions.com/LotDetail.as...ntoryid=37005#

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T2...p2047675.l2557


.

I find it very hard to believe that Larry's latest admission is remotely close to what the reality is. He was identified by Jantz in 2009 doing this. So he only did 10+ of these a year if Sept of 2009 was the first time he did this? I am sure the number is significantly higher than 75-80. I really do not see him as remorseful as much as scared.

And while it is great that buyers who are on Net54 and now aware of this will have an opportunity to send these fakes back to Larry for a refund, there are probably many others who don't know they are sitting on a Lharri special.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by KendallCat

if I was a collector or dealer and read your rhetoric I would not have any dealings with you now or in the future.

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.

Originally Posted by KendallCat

Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period.

Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

[Marchillo]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

I disagree with your opinion on this matter, although I get where you are coming from with it. But I agree I don't know why people would be upset with you. All your previous posts on the matter are clear as day. You present a logical argument but still find what the OP did as offensive as how other respondents feel.

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

David - you might want to switch to decaf and drop the internet tough guy schtick, or maybe don't be so sensitive - your call. Just letting you know puffing your chest out is not impressing anyone but have at it.

Your integrity was not called into question(maybe your common sense on this matter trying to decipher law vs ethics), and everyone can read what I posted - "I would not chose to deal with or have dealings with someone whose Pov was one that still doubles down on trying to explore the nuances of what is fraud, what is illegal, what is unethical... pretty sure in this case it is clear cut that what he did was fraud and was carried out over among time and with 80+ people.

If someone makes fake Jordan rookies and sells them as legit 86 Fleer cards and makes money off of them is that fraud and illegal or just unethical so let them have at it. Need to clean the language up around here, or at least make it interesting for everyone to read

KC

[frankbmd]

It's pretty clear that this activity began sometime after 2002 and before 2009.

Is there a more specific date when this all began?

Someone has to know.

[RedsFan1941]

Is there a way to tell a legit Topps t206 from the ones this guy created?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by KendallCat

If someone makes fake Jordan rookies and sells them as legit 86 Fleer cards and makes money off of them is that fraud and illegal or just unethical so let them have at it. Need to clean the language up around here, or at least make it interesting for everyone to read

KC

In your example, the one making the fake Jordans is representing them as real Fleer Jordans - a real Fleer product - a counterfeit. My point was that these were never a Topps product to begin with. Thats the major difference. Even BVG doesn't acknowledge them as a Topps product. Look at the picture below. Where does it mention that it's a Topps product on the flip? Ask yourself why not? Even Topps don't acknowledge them as a Topps product. Its a novelty item that Topps fabricated and put their name on.



Now, maybe Topps might have something to say about Larry using the Topps name, I don't know. But as far as the actual fabrication of the cards, it's not illegal no matter how much you want to believe it is.

If I want to put raw T206s in plastic screw downs and write "Donruss" on the holder and sell them like that it's not illegal. Again, maybe Donruss might have something to say about using their name and it's surely misleading and unethical, but not illegal. People are letting their emotions and hobby passion get in the way of reasoning.

All that said, what he did was wrong and Leon did the right thing by bringing it to the boards attention and banning him. By the way, I thought I read that someone made Topps aware of the situation. I'm just curious as to their response.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Even Topps don't acknowledge them as a Topps product. Its a novelty item that Topps fabricated and put their name on. . . . Now, maybe Topps might have something to say about Larry using the Topps name, I don't know. But as far as the actual fabrication of the cards, it's not illegal no matter how much you want to believe it is.

I couldn't disagree with you more on the law or your facts. On the facts, to say Topps doesn't acknowledge these as their product ignores the word "Topps" on the top of the cardboard frame and that these were sold as promotional inserts to drive customers to their product. You make counterfeit inserts, you don't think Topps' business is hurt by that? People would buy fewer Topps packs than they would because of the counterfeiting. Pointing out that grading companies may not authenticate or grade the holder is besides the point. People collect these for what Topps says they are. This is an indisputable fact.

The law is clear as day, and has been cited by many folks on here accurately and correctly. He may not get sued in civil court by Topps or his unwitting customers, and the FBI and local police may not charge him in criminal court. But, the lack of formal process here doesn't make the conduct legal.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

One example would suffice, because in my decades of practicing law, knowingly misrepresenting an item for sale with intent to deceive is as pure an example of FRAUD as there is. Now of course there are exceptions and defenses: if I know you're lying, I can't rely on your misrepresentation, for example. But Larry misrepresented his franken-cards as originating from Topps, knowing he was lying, and intending to deceive people into paying more than if he had said for sale is a franken-card I put together myself. It's an open and shut case as far as I can see.

And to respond to your red herring, it probably wasn't illegal to assemble the cards. But so what. Selling them in interstate commerce via a misrepresentation was illegal.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One example would suffice, because in my decades of practicing law, knowingly misrepresenting an item for sale with intent to deceive is as pure an example of FRAUD as there is.

Ok, here you go. Keith told me I should switch to decaf. I tried that years ago, but I just didn't like it. Anyway his suggestion reminded me of what I'm about to tell you.
There is a convenience store by my house called Timewise (it's a chain store in South Texas). They serve a brand of coffee called Roasted Bean Coffee Company. I really like this particular coffee. A few weeks ago, I stopped in one morning as I do every weekday morning, and got a cup of coffee. While I was waiting in line I took a sip and something was different. When I got up to the register I asked the cashier about it. She said that they ran out of the Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee and were using another brand (Folgers, I think) until they got theirs back in stock. But wait. All the signage said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. Even the coffed cup itself said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. They didn't indicate that the product was not what it was advertised to be, I had to ask.

So, in response to Keith's statement "Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period." I have to ask, since Timewise represented Folgers coffee as Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee for financial gain, is it fraud and illegal as he clearly states? Please tell me where I can report such illegal activity.

I realize we're talking coffee vs baseball cards, but the action and intent were the same - to replace a product with something else in attempt to mislead the buyer.

And as truly petty as that may sound (and no, it really didn't bother me), what's the real difference in that and what Larry did, other than the fact that Larry did it over and over? Both were misrepresented products for financial gain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, arguably the difference in your example is that the misrepresented fact was not material to the buyer. But if it was material -- for example let's say they advertised some super premium expensive brand of coffee but instead without telling you substituted some cheap generic junk and you paid the premium prce -- then yeah that would be fraud too. Here, Larry represented his cards were something they were not, and for whatever reason, that made people willing to pay more for them than had he told the truth. Knowing misrepresentation of a material fact. Fraud.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ok, here you go. Keith told me I should switch to decaf. I tried that years ago, but I just didn't like it. Anyway his suggestion reminded me of what I'm about to tell you.
There is a convenience store by my house called Timewise (it's a chain store in South Texas). They serve a brand of coffee called Roasted Bean Coffee Company. I really like this particular coffee. A few weeks ago, I stopped in one morning as I do every weekday morning, and got a cup of coffee. While I was waiting in line I took a sip and something was different. When I got up to the register I asked the cashier about it. She said that they ran out of the Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee and were using another brand (Folgers, I think) until they got theirs back in stock. But wait. All the signage said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. Even the coffed cup itself said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. They didn't indicate that the product was not what it was advertised to be, I had to ask.

So, in response to Keith's statement "Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period." I have to ask, since Timewise represented Folgers coffee as Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee for financial gain, is it fraud and illegal as he clearly states? Please tell me where I can report such illegal activity.

I definitely understand the argument being made, and have no legal background, but I do see a major difference in your analogy. You asked prior to consummating the transaction and could have changed your mind. This opportunity to rescind was not present in the frankencard deal.

Mark