PWCC Statement on Recent Card Trimming Concerns

[marcdelpercio]

I will preface to say I am not a lawyer, though I do hang around some pretty good ones quite often.

The best analogy I can come up with is rolling back the odometer on a car, which is a felony. Obviously, the car is still authentic and in many ways materially the same. However, it has been altered in a way to make it appear to be in a much more pristine condition and have less wear than is actually the case. When buying a vehicle, the purchaser must receive a written declaration of the accurate mileage.

Imagine a scenario where a person purchases a vehicle with 100k miles, rolls back the odometer to 10k, and details the rest of the car to make it appear in significantly better condition. Then this person takes said vehicle to a "professional" mechanic or vehicle inspector who certifies that it does, in fact, only have 10k miles on it and is otherwise unaltered. Then this vehicle is sold for multiples of what it otherwise would be, based on the representation of mileage and condition.

Is this not fundamentally what is happening here? And, if not, please explain your reasoning.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Same concept IMO and well reasoned. Only difference is that here it's done over and over and over and over again and involves use of the mail and wires.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Same concept IMO and well reasoned. Only difference is that here it's done over and over and over and over again and involves use of the mail and wires.

Glad that you agree with that analogy. I like it too. So, let's build on that. Let's say the person that rolled back the odometer (we'll assume it's the owner of the car) runs the car through an auto auction. We'll call the owner of the car Moser and we'll call the auction company Brent's Auto Auction. Is the auction company legally responsible for the misrepresented car?

I already know the answer. I have a lot of experience auctioning pre-owned vehicles. I did this for many years. My old eBay username is pre-ownedautos. I was offered a lot of money for the sale of that ID. I declined. So, let's hear your answer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Glad that you agree with that analogy. I like it too. So, let's build on that. Let's say the person that rolled back the odometer (we'll assume it's the owner of the car) runs the car through an auto auction. We'll call the owner of the car Moser and we'll call the auction company Brent's Auto Auction. Is the auction company legally responsible for the misrepresented car?

I already know the answer. I have a lot of experience auctioning pre-owned vehicles. I did this for many years. My old eBay username is pre-ownedautos. I was offered a lot of money for the sale of that ID. I declined. So, let's hear your answer.

Does the auction company have a 15 year relationship with the owner where it has been knowingly participating in the fraud for 100s or 1000s of vehicles, and in each case has seen the odometer before it got rolled back?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Does the auction company have a 15 year relationship with the owner where it has been knowingly participating in the fraud for 100s or 1000s of vehicles, and in each case has seen the odometer before it got rolled back?

Edited. Misread your question.

The owner has a 15 year relationship with the consignor selling multiple vehicles for him over the years. He knew the consignor had a criminal past, served some prison time, was just a shady guy in general, but didn't know about the odometer roll back even though he suspected it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Edited. Misread your question.

The owner has a 15 year relationship with the consignor selling multiple vehicles for him over the years. He knew the consignor had a criminal past, served some prison time, was just a shady guy in general, but didn't know about the odometer roll back even though he suspected it.

Then I object to the analogy as completely inaccurate. Brent saw the before and after cards, remember? He auctioned both. He sold cards in one grade to Moser and received them back from PSA or him in higher grades. 100s or 1000s of times. Among massive other evidence.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Brent saw the before and after cards, remember?

Do you think Brent personally looks at each and every card that PWCC consigns? Really? Who knew it was a one man operation.? Gee, I always figured he had workers that did that kind of stuff for him - receiving consignments, scanning, creating listings, shipping, etc.

[bounce]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Edited. Misread your question.

The owner has a 15 year relationship with the consignor selling multiple vehicles for him over the years. He knew the consignor had a criminal past, served some prison time, was just a shady guy in general, but didn't know about the odometer roll back even though he suspected it.

Peter - is there not also a "had reason to know and/or should have known" component if you're a seller? Doesn't make you the criminal, but does give you the liability for loss?

As you note, though, they sold them once, got them back and sold them again. The question of criminality of this will certainly be influenced by who sent them in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bounce

Peter - is there not also a "had reason to know and/or should have known" component if you're a seller? Doesn't make you the criminal, but does give you the liability for loss?

As you note, though, they sold them once, got them back and sold them again. The question of criminality of this will certainly be influenced by who sent them in.

That surely can be a basis for civil fraud liability. I really don't know in the context of mail and wire fraud, I doubt it but I would defer on that.

[brianp-beme]

My ebay ID is used-cards. So far no one has offered me any money for my ID, but because of this quagmire and now the auto analogy, maybe there is a windfall for me in the future

Brian

[Snapolit1]

I had a high end card last year that I wanted to cross over to PSA. It was a SGC 30. PSA put it in a holder and marked it PSA 4.5.

Have I committed mail fraud if I don't disclose to to my buyer that the other leading card grading company offered me their professional opinion that the card is of a significantly lower quality than PSA?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I had a high end card last year that I wanted to cross over to PSA. It was a SGC 30. PSA put it in a holder and marked it PSA 4.5.

Have I committed mail fraud if I don't disclose to to my buyer that the other leading card grading company offered me their professional opinion that the card is of a significantly lower quality than PSA?

A. There is no mention of intentional alteration in your scenario

B. Thus, it is not an "apples to apples" comparison. All it accomplishes is to further demonstrate PSA's ineptitude.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I had a high end card last year that I wanted to cross over to PSA. It was a SGC 30. PSA put it in a holder and marked it PSA 4.5.

Have I committed mail fraud if I don't disclose to to my buyer that the other leading card grading company offered me their professional opinion that the card is of a significantly lower quality than PSA?

We've discussed before whether there is an obligation to disclose grading history. I wouldn't know how to find it. I think generally not unless you are asked and lie, if no alteration involved in the bump, but as I recall there were some good points made on the other side.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I had a high end card last year that I wanted to cross over to PSA. It was a SGC 30. PSA put it in a holder and marked it PSA 4.5.

Have I committed mail fraud if I don't disclose to to my buyer that the other leading card grading company offered me their professional opinion that the card is of a significantly lower quality than PSA?

Assuming you were the person who submitted the card for the crossover, and then subsequently sold it, no. If though you sold/loaned the card to someone else and it was that person who had it crossed over, upon your subsequent sale of the card you probably would have a duty to make the disclosure if (1) the person who crossed it over was a known card doctor or (2) the card looked different to you after it was crossed over.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Glad that you agree with that analogy. I like it too. So, let's build on that. Let's say the person that rolled back the odometer (we'll assume it's the owner of the car) runs the car through an auto auction. We'll call the owner of the car Moser and we'll call the auction company Brent's Auto Auction. Is the auction company legally responsible for the misrepresented car?

I already know the answer. I have a lot of experience auctioning pre-owned vehicles. I did this for many years. My old eBay username is pre-ownedautos. I was offered a lot of money for the sale of that ID. I declined. So, let's hear your answer.

Just want to be certain I have all the facts. In your example, is it the case that Brent's Auto Auction did not at a prior time (1) sell the car to Moser with an odometer reading significantly greater than it now has, or (2) (i) have reason to know Moser's business model was to roll back car odometers or (ii) refer Moser to a company that rolls back odometers and recommend Moser engage their services?

Assuming the answers to these questions are all no, unless there is some statutory law that pertains to automobile auctions that imposes strict liability on the auctioneer that the odometer reading is accurate, I would think the auction company would not be responsible for the misrepresented car.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I will preface to say I am not a lawyer, though I do hang around some pretty good ones quite often.

The best analogy I can come up with is rolling back the odometer on a car, which is a felony. Obviously, the car is still authentic and in many ways materially the same. However, it has been altered in a way to make it appear to be in a much more pristine condition and have less wear than is actually the case. When buying a vehicle, the purchaser must receive a written declaration of the accurate mileage.

Imagine a scenario where a person purchases a vehicle with 100k miles, rolls back the odometer to 10k, and details the rest of the car to make it appear in significantly better condition. Then this person takes said vehicle to a "professional" mechanic or vehicle inspector who certifies that it does, in fact, only have 10k miles on it and is otherwise unaltered. Then this vehicle is sold for multiples of what it otherwise would be, based on the representation of mileage and condition.

Is this not fundamentally what is happening here? And, if not, please explain your reasoning.

I actually know a lot about odometer tampering. When I was a 22 year-old college student in 1997 I was the youngest juror on a federal case where 11 defendants were on trial. Think sports cards can be sleazy?! Through this ring it was estimated that 60-70% of all used cars in Baltimore had been altered. The amount of effort it took to cover their tracks was mind-boggling and several office workers had been paid off to facilitate the scheme. It took 3 months and was one heck of an interesting summer job that I hadn't expected. The comparison to our industry is a very, very good one.