New lawsuit accuses PWCC of massive shill bidding

[raulus]

Favorite passage so far:

The frequency with which other bidders matched or closely approached Alt’s maximum bids was especially unlikely in legitimate auctions because, during that time period, Alt had idiosyncratic incentives to acquire inventory to jump start its own marketplace, which led Alt to submit maximum bids that it considered abnormally high.

Translation:

We were doing stupid stuff and bidding like drunken sailors because we had our own monetary reasons for wanting to rip other people off ourselves. The fact that we weren't winning everything hands down with our stupid bids is a clear sign that the fix was in!

[Peter_Spaeth]

4. Alt also came to learn that PWCC solicited, assisted or facilitated bid
manipulation by a group of individuals who fraudulently and collusively bid up items in PWCC
auctions. PWCC sought bids from the members of this group, and did not enforce PWCC’s
stated policies, such as its policy that non-payment for items won in an auction would result in a
ban from participation. PWCC’s deliberate actions and/or inaction fostered a corrupt auction
market culture where fraudulent or unethical conduct did not result in any consequences.

[Peter_Spaeth]

22. Alt was informed that PWCC, including its CEO and another senior
executive, had access to maximum bids submitted by Alt and others despite PWCC’s
representation that maximum bids were “private and … only viewable by the client that
submitted the bid.”
23. Alt was also informed that PWCC, which “financially pre-qualified”
bidders for its premier auctions, flagged to its personnel when high net-worth bidders such as Alt
were bidders in PWCC auctions, and, on many such occasions, arranged, and/or solicited shill
bids to drive up the auction price. Alt learned that PWCC’s senior executives communicated
within PWCC that a high net-worth bidder’s participation in auction bidding presented a golden
opportunity to set a new record comp or sales price.
24. Alt was informed that PWCC arranged or solicited shill bids from both
internal and external sources. Alt learned that certain accounts that submitted bids in (but did not
win) PWCC auctions had identifiers indicating that the bids came from within PWCC, despite
PWCC’s representation that “[a]ll employees are prohibited from bidding on PWCC Auction
items.”

It will be VERY interesting to see who Alt's source is (or sources).

[Eric72]

A Josh Allen card sold for more than a quarter million dollars.

Damn, those were crazy times.

[jingram058]

Yet another reason for the inflation that has prevailed in "the hobby". Shenanigans like this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

2016 revisited.

34. Alt also learned that PWCC solicited, assisted or facilitated bid
manipulation by others in connection with auctions on PWCC’s platform. In particular, PWCC
was aware of, and solicited bids from, a group of approximately six individuals (“Group 1”) who
fraudulently and collusively bid up items in PWCC auctions, including items that members of
Group 1 had put up for auction, notwithstanding PWCC’s representation that PWCC clients
could not bid, individually or collusively, on their own items.
35. In some instances, a member of Group 1 submitted the winning bid in a
PWCC auction, but did not consummate the transaction by paying the purchase price. PWCC’s
stated policy was that non-payment would result in a ban from participation in PWCC auctions.
PWCC, however, took no action and facilitated continued bid manipulation by members of
Group 1 by allowing such members to continue to participate in its auctions despite nonpayment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Yet another reason for the inflation that has prevailed in "the hobby". Shenanigans like this.

So Alt alleges:
49. In addition, the fraudulent conduct by PWCC and the individuals with
whom it was complicit drove up comparable prices across the broader trading card market. Most
buyers and sellers (including Alt) relied on recent “comps” to determine trading card values.
During the relevant timeframe, PWCC was one of the biggest players in the auction space, and
PWCC comps were anchoring prices, influencing expectations, and driving market momentum.
Alt estimates that PWCC’s fraudulent conduct inflated market-wide trading card prices by over
40 percent.

[ClementeFanOh]

"Presented without comment"- except for the FIVE comments after it. Some
people just can't help themselves...

Trent King

net54- the place where some people think that verbosity equates to quality

[bcbgcbrcb]

Of course, this is the only place where this type of conduct went on during 2021, right?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by raulus

Favorite passage so far:

The frequency with which other bidders matched or closely approached Alt’s maximum bids was especially unlikely in legitimate auctions because, during that time period, Alt had idiosyncratic incentives to acquire inventory to jump start its own marketplace, which led Alt to submit maximum bids that it considered abnormally high.

Translation:

We were doing stupid stuff and bidding like drunken sailors because we had our own monetary reasons for wanting to rip other people off ourselves. The fact that we weren't winning everything hands down with our stupid bids is a clear sign that the fix was in!

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by raulus

Favorite passage so far:

The frequency with which other bidders matched or closely approached Alt’s maximum bids was especially unlikely in legitimate auctions because, during that time period, Alt had idiosyncratic incentives to acquire inventory to jump start its own marketplace, which led Alt to submit maximum bids that it considered abnormally high.

Translation:

We were doing stupid stuff and bidding like drunken sailors because we had our own monetary reasons for wanting to rip other people off ourselves. The fact that we weren't winning everything hands down with our stupid bids is a clear sign that the fix was in!

Precisely!

Originally Posted by jayshum

Isn't this a civil case instead of criminal?

Which is why I think this should be a criminal case or no case at all. I can't sympathize with the idiots at Alt, but shill bidding is a criminal offense. So that's the way it should be tried.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Precisely!



Which is why I think this should be a criminal case or no case at all. I can't sympathize with the idiots at Alt, but shill bidding is a criminal offense. So that's the way it should be tried.

Lots of crimes can also be the basis for private civil fraud or other causes of action, I don't follow your logic. Two completely separate animals.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Two completely separate animals.

Yes, but I don't think that should be the case. I don't like this business of civil liability if there's no criminal conviction. I don't like it at all. It's opened the door for all kinds of abuses, all kinds of shysters, all kinds of legal shenanigans.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes, but I don't think that should be the case. I don't like this business of civil liability if there's no criminal conviction. I don't like it at all. It's opened the door for all kinds of abuses, all kinds of shysters, all kinds of legal shenanigans.

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

Actually I think we had that very discussion, with Baltic taking the position OJ was actually innocent because he had not been convicted.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

Well I for one am bloody sick and tired of paying ever higher insurance premiums to finance outrageous jury awards and the mansions of the shysters who filed the suits!

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

INNOCENT! Case closed.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Actually I think we had that very discussion, with Baltic taking the position OJ was actually innocent because he had not been convicted.

You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like? It's not only the cornerstone of our legal system but is a fundamental bulwark against the overarching power of the State. Without that fundamental bulwark any and all of us could and would be put away simply because we hold "inconvenient" political views. See the Soviet Union. My own uncle was taken to Siberia where he perished.

Any lawyer who doesn't embrace the principal of INNOCENT until proven guilty wholeheartedly without any ifs, ands or buts should be disbarred immediately.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Well I for one am bloody sick and tired of paying ever higher insurance premiums to finance outrageous jury awards and the mansions of the shysters who filed the suits!



INNOCENT! Case closed.



You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like? It's not only the cornerstone of our legal system but is a fundamental bulwark against the overarching power of the State. Without that fundamental bulwark any and all of us could and would be put away simply because we hold "inconvenient" political views. See the Soviet Union. My own uncle was taken to Siberia where he perished.

Any lawyer who doesn't embrace the principal of INNOCENT until proven guilty wholeheartedly without any ifs, ands or buts should be disbarred immediately.

SMH. I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though. You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like?

[Mark visualizes Baltic Fox screaming these words at Commissioner Landis after he banned confessed (but declared not guilty in court) conspirators Cicotte, Williams, et al, for throwing games for money.]