Greetings!

July 19, 2004 2:23 AM

Anatomy of a 419 Scam.A detailed blow-by-blow account of how an otherwise intelligent and ordinary human being is suckered into losing a grand of his own money.
posted by Blue Stone (49 comments total)

'Otherwise Intelligent'? Hardly. Unfortunate though it is, any weird correspondence from banks overseas should be presumed fake until proven otherwise. This stuff has been so well documented already I can't belive that they still get away with it. Grammatical errors in the emails give it away.

Poor guy. I hope he got money for his story. He will, however, be able to feast for years on the revenge fantasies of what he would do to those guys if he ever got his hands on them.

Let this be a lesson etc.
posted by Bdave at 3:06 AM on July 19, 2004

You would have to be pretty stupid and greedy to fall for it. I think the article is way too sympathetic towards him.
posted by reklaw at 3:47 AM on July 19, 2004

I can't see what line of reasoning could have been taken to conclude that this person must be stupid and greedy.
posted by ed\26h at 4:28 AM on July 19, 2004

They're called "cons"

That's short for "confidence"

The trick -- you take the mark in, pretending that he's on your side -- that he can be confident in you, as you commit a crime. The hook is the money. The barb on the hook is "If you report this to the police, we *both* go to jail."

I don't have that much sympathy for victims of 419 and other such confidence scams. They went into the deal thinking they could get rich by stealing from someone else -- and they got burned.

A truism amongst the grifters is thus: "You cannot con an honest man"
posted by eriko at 5:01 AM on July 19, 2004

The idea that you cannot con an honest man is no more a truism amongst grifters as it is amongst anyone else. Even if it were true it would be relying on a blatant fallacy in an attempt to justify immoral behaviour.
posted by ed\26h at 6:03 AM on July 19, 2004

A detailed blow-by-blow account of how an otherwise intelligent and ordinary human being is suckered into losing a grand

Greed.
posted by the fire you left me at 6:38 AM on July 19, 2004

Was that an arbitrary guess, a reasoned conclusion or something else entirely?
posted by ed\26h at 6:43 AM on July 19, 2004

I've never received a 419 offer as well–put-together as this one.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 6:48 AM on July 19, 2004

Can anyone find a single shred of evidence to support the claim that the victim of this con was "otherwise intelligent"? I have trouble believing that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would fall for this, even if the Nigerian bank scams weren't already widely publicized.
posted by rcade at 6:51 AM on July 19, 2004

Their is no easy road to riches.
posted by cmacleod at 6:52 AM on July 19, 2004

A handy rule of thumb: be suspicious of any written offer rife with spelling errors in words that should be familiar to bankers: "international boarders";"died in testate".

Second, the tone of this entreaty:

I do not want you contacting me through my official phone lines nor do I want you contacting me through my official email account... Do not betray my confidence.

...has got to set off alarm bells in any reasonably aware person. The guy deserved what he got.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 7:16 AM on July 19, 2004

You would have to be pretty stupid and greedy to fall for it.
I don't have that much sympathy for victims of 419 and other such confidence scams.

Ah, yes. Blame the victim. Classy.
"Never would have happened if he wasn't so gullible." == "Never would have happened if she didn't dress so provacatively."
posted by ChasFile at 7:23 AM on July 19, 2004

Slightly off-topic question: There's a Western Union booth at the local grocery store that has a poster advertising the fastest way to wire funds to Nigeria. Anybody else seen one of these?
posted by cdavis at 7:29 AM on July 19, 2004

"Never would have happened if he wasn't so gullible." == "Never would have happened if she didn't dress so provacatively."

That is wrong is so many ways.
posted by majcher at 7:31 AM on July 19, 2004

[This] has got to set off alarm bells in any reasonably aware person. The guy deserved what he got.

And the idea that he "deserved what he got" as got to set off alarm bells in any person aware of reason.
posted by ed\26h at 7:36 AM on July 19, 2004

For those who are defending this guy, do you realize that he attempted to defraud a bank? That is, if this bank were actually real (!), he would have been committing a crime. I feel sorry that greed overtook clear thinking, but that doesn't make this victim completely blameless.
posted by gwint at 7:47 AM on July 19, 2004

Oh dg, how could you be so gullible?
posted by jonson at 7:49 AM on July 19, 2004

Gwint: There is no reason to assume that greed is the only explanation for this man's behaviour. Whether or not this man attempted to defraud in no way justifies the scam itself. (I realise you have not asserted this as such but some seem to believe it.)

It's worth noting that the very fact that a (theoretical) bank is slack enough to be defraud-able would be justification enough for attempting to do so for some who have commented on this issue, and wish to remain consistent; but I digress.
posted by ed\26h at 8:00 AM on July 19, 2004

What about thinking of it this way: A guy comes up to you in an alley and says that with your help he knows of a way to break into the neighbourhood corner store. He just needs $100 to buy some tools. You give him the money and he disappears. Are you a victim? Should people feel sorry for you?
posted by Turtles all the way down at 8:29 AM on July 19, 2004

I can't see what line of reasoning could have been taken to conclude that this person must be stupid and greedy.

Greedy because he took part in a 419 scam.

Stupid because he was the mark.

What other explanation besides greed do you need to explain the desire to receive funds not owed to you? He knowingly took part in an illegal activity. He's not a victim (other than of his own stupidity). He should be thankful a real bank wasn't actually involved, otherwise he could be arrested for conspiracy.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:30 AM on July 19, 2004

Turtles: Whether one should feel sorry for the man is not something I have speculated about; merely that the scammer was not justified in his actions. And yes, in such a situation you would be a victim.

Ghost: Taking part in a 419 scam does not necessitate greed. Being the subject of a scam does not necessitate stupidity.

He may have wanted to money to give to Great Ormond Street Hospital for all anyone knows. Whether he should be thankful for anything or not does not affect the fact that the scammer acted wrongly towards him. This man was the victim of a scam and that fact simply will not change whatever his motivations or the circumstances surrounding it.
posted by ed\26h at 8:43 AM on July 19, 2004

Are you being deliberately dense here, ed/26h?

Taking part in a 419 scam does not necessitate greed.

Yes it does, by definition. Any attempt to gain money that you know does not belong to you involves greed (excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth). Whatever your intentions may be for using said wealth once gained, the attempt to gain undue wealth IS greed.

Being the subject of a scam does not necessitate stupidity.

Yes it does, again by definition. A scam is a fraudulent scheme*, an attempt to cheat or defraud another. In order to become a victim of a scam, the con must outsmart the mark. Were the mark smarter than the scammer, he would have recognized the scheme as a scam and not gotten involved.

419 fraud relies on the greed and stupidity of its targets. I do not feel the least sorry about someone who willfully engages in the attempt to defraud someone else of money, only to lose their own money instead.

*Also note, it is not necessary to be greedy to fall victim to every scam. A con artist posing as a charity, for example, actually takes advantage of the mark's lack of greed. The nature of the 419 fraud does require both greed and stupidity, but most other scams only require the stupidity part. And yes, it is stupid to fall victim to a charity scam, because it's easy to avoid them.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:12 AM on July 19, 2004

Wow ed\26h, are you really saying that its ok to steal from people if you're giving the proceeds to charity?
posted by biffa at 9:20 AM on July 19, 2004

biffa: No I am not.

Ghost: Insulting me isn't going to resolve the issue. To assert that taking part in a 419 scam necessitates greed because greed is a necessary prerequisite of taking part in a 419 scam - or - to assert that being the subject of a scam necessitates stupidity because a prerequisite of falling victim to a scam is stupidity, begs the question rather blatantly.
posted by ed\26h at 9:27 AM on July 19, 2004

hmm the simon williams in the article stays on the edge of edinburgh in the calders...thats were there a loyalist drug gang set up shop recently...
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:33 AM on July 19, 2004

ed\26h: I don't agree with your view of the subject under discussion, but kudos for the (rarely seen) correct use of the phrase "begging the question"!
posted by Turtles all the way down at 9:45 AM on July 19, 2004

ed\26h: Then what are you saying? Cos that's certainly what it looks like you said. Additionally perhaps there is a greed/stupidity index that needs to be applied to this equation, i.e. with regard to one overcoming any sense this bloke may have had but I don't think you've yet come up with any real alternatives to greed as this guy's motivation.
posted by biffa at 9:58 AM on July 19, 2004

::sigh:: ed/26h, I wasn't insulting you. It was a serious question.

The 419 scam requires its targets to be greedy (desire undeserved wealth so much, you're willing to break the law to get it), and to be stupid (or at least dumb enough not to realize that you're the target).

Put it another way. How can you explain this person's actions as generous and intelligent?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:13 AM on July 19, 2004

Doth protest too much, methinks.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 AM on July 19, 2004

Biffa: I am saying that irrespective of this man's motives the scammers were acting wrongly towards him. Earlier I suggested that philanthropy could explain this man's behavior; however I mentioned nothing about this being a justification for it.

Ghost: You seem to have simply begged the question in exactly the same way that you did in your previous post. Furthermore, the idea that actions can either be generous and intelligent or greedy and stupid is a false dilemma.
posted by ed\26h at 10:39 AM on July 19, 2004

ed\26h: this guy was being a greedy fool, and he got scammed. No amount of debate-society sophistry can change that -- just accept that you've painted yourself into a corner, and move on.
posted by reklaw at 10:56 AM on July 19, 2004

What that effectively amounts to, reklaw, is the tautology: "I am right and you are wrong". It is not useful.

P.S: I do not know what "debate-society sophistry" is.
posted by ed\26h at 11:07 AM on July 19, 2004

Can we agree on the following?

1. The scammer is unethical because he is trying to trick someone out of their money.

2. The scammer is either intelligent, because he came up with what some here judge to be an effective and convincing scheme to defraud people, or he may not be that intelligent, because other people (including me) think they would have seen though the scheme if it had been presented to them.

3. The victim must be unethical, because his only motivation for participating in the scheme was to acquire money that wasn't his.

4. The victim might be intelligent (anyone would have fallen for such a clever scheme) or he might be an idiot (anyone could have seen through the scheme), but that has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of his participation in the venture.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 11:08 AM on July 19, 2004

Turtles: Basically, yes, I accept those four premises.
posted by ed\26h at 11:18 AM on July 19, 2004

ed\26h: "debate-society sophistry", in my definition, is when you go on and on about fallacies, lines of reasoning, begging the question, premises, false dilemmas, and so forth, all the while ignoring the freakin' obvious. It is a way of arguing that I thoroughly dislike: just honestly state what you believe, instead of using rhetorical tricks to try to dodge other people's points.
posted by reklaw at 11:52 AM on July 19, 2004

Well I hope the irony isn't lost on you.
posted by ed\26h at 12:03 PM on July 19, 2004

ed\26h, you'd call the mark unethical "for participating in the scheme ... to acquire money that wasn't his" but not greedy from his "attempt to gain money that ... does not belong to" him? That's a mighty fine hair to split, if it can be done at all. And I would suggest that an intelligent person falling for a clever scheme is less intelligent relative to the person running the scam.

You can go on thinking this guy is a generous genius victimized by forces beyond his control... to me he'll remain a sucker who coveted something he didn't earn but instead got what he did deserve.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:46 PM on July 19, 2004

It is simply not safe to conclude that acting in an unethical way in order to obtain money necessarily entails greed. For instance the concept of Robin Hood required acting in an unethical way in order to obtain money but it would be somewhat odd to think of Robin Hood as greedy.

To say that I think this man is a generous genius victimized by forces beyond his control is a straw man argument, you have attempted to distort my assertions in order to render them more easily refutable. For what it's worth, I think he may well be a greedy man who is bit stupid; but my suppositions on the subject are quite irrelevant what the truth actually is.
posted by ed\26h at 1:06 PM on July 19, 2004

For instance the concept of Robin Hood required acting in an unethical way in order to obtain money but it would be somewhat odd to think of Robin Hood as greedy.

Oh, come on! That's just way beyond splitting theoretical hairs. They guy wanted the money for himself. reklaw's right, dude. You're not arguing any points that are relevant in the real world. The guy was greedy, and he got conned. A lot of people don't feel sorry for him. Accept it.
posted by mkultra at 1:39 PM on July 19, 2004

It is simply not safe to conclude that acting in an unethical way in order to obtain money necessarily entails greed.

oh my god, ed. What the hell does greed entail, then? Upon reading this sentence, I thought to myself, "acting in an unethical way in order to obtain money' is a pretty good definition of greed." So I decided to check out what the dictionary had to say:

greed n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: “Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed” (Henry Fawcett).

Regardless of his motivation and regardless of the money's final destination, Robin Hood had an excessive desire to acquire and possess more than what he needed or deserved. As did the victim in this case. Hence we may call both of them greedy, as silly as it does sound in Robin Hood's case. QE F'n D.

I admire both your persistence and your ability to point out the logical fallacies in other people's argument while ignoring the content and overall thrust of their criticisms. However, its time to hang it up. Perhaps you are right, technically speaking, I don't know. However out here in the real world we are forced to make assumptions about people every day, and often when there is a dearth of evidence. Perhaps in a court of law or formal debate it would be difficult to prove he was greedy. But few would argue that its an unsafe assumption.

The dude was greedy, and he got burned. Happens every day. Maybe he wanted for charity. Maybe he's Robin Hood. But then again maybe he was just being greedy. You're right, there is no hard evidence in either direction, but in the giagantic probability distribution that is emotional attribution and human interaction, where would you put your money?

Oh, and since you are so well versed in the practice and praxis of debate styles and errors, what's the one called when you attack the minuitae and trivia of an argument rather than addressing it directly, as in "Your comma use was improper, therefore your argument is incorrect?"
posted by ChasFile at 1:41 PM on July 19, 2004

I'm surely committing some kind of logical fallacy, but I have to say that you're being a pinhead, Ed. But thank you for giving a fair hearing to the notion that this scam dupe might be a Mensa member who wanted the $8 million to give to Little Sisters of the Poor.
posted by rcade at 2:23 PM on July 19, 2004

ChasFile: While I would not want to enter into a discussion on the etymology of the term "greed", I would be happy to accept that our subject was necessarily greedy if we also accept that Robin Hood was greedy. But yes, to label him (Hood) as such would seem silly to say the least. I am not terribly comfortable with the idea that there is a "real world" where fallacious reasoning is an acceptable path to a sound conclusion, but, ironically, that is something I would have to inductively conclude. If I were to see a man standing over the corpse of a freshly slain victim, bloody knife in hand, the chance that our subject murdered our victim is, I imagine, greater than half, but I would not feel happy convicting him on such evidence alone; whether few would argue one way or another is quite irrelevant. I would be interested to know how you have arrived at your "gigantic probability distribution" statistic besides the means of pure intuition. Moving on though, what you're describing, I think, would be the style over substance fallacy; whereby it is asserted that the way in which an argument or holder of that argument is presented or appears affects the truth of that argument.

Rcade: Yes, you would be committing the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. And then you straw manned my argument, so you get a two-in-one bonus for that.
posted by ed\26h at 1:45 AM on July 20, 2004

OK, ed, would you agree he's desirous of wealth (intentions regarding same unknown) to such a degree that he was willing to break the law, and was outwitted by a con artist or group of con artists?

You're arguing shades of meaning, my friend. You can argue it could be crimson or scarlet, but it's still red.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:52 AM on July 20, 2004

It maybe technically accurate to say that he desires wealth to such a degree that he was willing to break to law, however, to describe someone like Robin Hood in such a way would be misleading, as I'm sure you can see; therefore it is possibly a misleading description of this man as well. I have no reason to doubt that he has been outwitted by said con-artist(s).

I'm afraid I don't really know what is meant by the shades-of-red statement.
posted by ed\26h at 6:51 AM on July 20, 2004

While I would not want to enter into a discussion on the etymology of the term "greed", I would be happy to accept that our subject was necessarily greedy if we also accept that Robin Hood was greedy. But yes, to label him (Hood) as such would seem silly to say the least. I am not terribly comfortable with the idea that there is a "real world" where fallacious reasoning is an acceptable path to a sound conclusion, but, ironically, that is something I would have to inductively conclude.

A simple, "You know what, you were right; I stand corrected and will cease my pedantic ministrations," would have sufficed

I would be interested to know how you have arrived at your "gigantic probability distribution" statistic besides the means of pure intuition

As I said, every day we humans, as social animals, are required to make judgements about the intentions of others based upon the incomplete data offered as clues to those intentions by their actions. For instance, if someone sticks their hand out at me, I don't know for sure if they are trying to grope me, rob me, or what. However, because of my social training, heuristics, and yes, intuition, I intuit that he wants to shake my hand and extend mine in return. If you plot, for instance, the intention on one axis and the interpretation on the other, you get a probability distribution describing the likelihood of correct communication. For a handshake, this correlation is very, very high. Take some of the more ambiguous signals we send eachother (of wich there is a plethora) and this distribution becomes increasingly undulating.

How do I know this? I took psych 101.

It maybe technically accurate to say that he desires wealth to such a degree that he was willing to break to law, however, to describe someone like Robin Hood in such a way would be misleading, as I'm sure you can see; therefore it is possibly a misleading description of this man as well.

YES! It may possibly be a missleading description of this man as well, but in all probability it is not! End of story! I am so done with this thread.
posted by ChasFile at 8:49 AM on July 20, 2004

ed, do you say toMAYto or toMAHto? Do you believe those two words describe two different plants? The shades-of-red statement is meant to indicate that, even if there may be a technical difference (which I am not willing to concede), there is no practical difference here.

I have spent many a sleepless night wondering how I am going to provide college for my children and the life I want to provide them. I consider myself a good man who has always tried to live life the "right way" believing that what I give and the effort I put forth will determine the direct and exact proportion of what I will recieve. Who is to say this is not it?

This is the closest indicator of motive, direct from his words. Why does he want this money? One, to help put his kids through college. Two, to provide them the life he wants. Three, he thinks he deserves it. Note he's not looking to feed or house or clothe his kids, or pay for medical care. We can assume their basic needs are being met (one does not spend sleepless nights worrying about paying for college when there's no milk or bread in the house). As laudable as paying for college may be, it's not a prerequisite for survival. As well, it ignores scholarships, bursaries, loans, and the earning potential of the prospective students themselves. He is not facing a life-and-death situation, nor is he facing an either-or situation (either he gets this windfall or his kids cannot go to college). This is not a desperate situation. Providing a better life is also laudable, but again it's not life-threatening. Believing he deserves it is also not a life-threatening situation.

His motives, therefore, are of undue gain for personal or familial benefit. The comparison to the Robin Hood myth (and that should not be forgotten - Robin Hood is a myth) is not apt for several reasons. In the Robin Hood legends, the outlaw knowingly commits his crimes in order to benefit others other than himself, and to the detriment of those who have gained undue benefit themselves. It's a "balancing of the cosmic scales", so to speak.

What is our friend doing here? Which entity, possessing undue wealth, is he looking to harm? In his own words (Therefore I ask myself how anyone could be harmed by pursueing [sic] what you suggest?), there is no-one.

We can look upon the fictional Robin Hood's actions as being without greed not simply because he's stealing from the rich to give to the poor, but because the rich in question are individuals who have unlawfully come into possession of their wealth, and the poor does not include himself, his family, or his followers. Robin Hood did not seek to turn the poor into the rich, but to redress an imbalance.

In this real-world case, the rich in question are in lawful possession of their wealth, and the "poor" (if that is a fair descriptor of someone at least capable of maintaining a reasonable standard of living) is his family and himself. It is not misleading, therefore, to say his motives include greed, as by his own admission he admits that he wants this money that he will knowingly break the law to do so.

(His accomplice even states: What I wish to relate to you will smack of unethical practice… United Asset Management Company has no single idea of what's the history or nature of the deposit. They are simply awaiting instructions to release the deposit to any party that comes forward... you with the same very name as the original depositor would easily pass as the beneficiary with right to claim., so he cannot claim ignorance of the fraudulent activities involved.)

So he was outsmarted in his attempt to acquire undue wealth. Greedy and stupid, in his own words. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not absolutely beyond all doubt. Offer some amount of reasonable doubt, or admit that the preponderance of evidence (including the man's own statements) would lead a reasonable person to conclude greed as a motivating factor, and stupidity (in comparison with the perpetrators of the fraud) as an enabling factor.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:13 AM on July 20, 2004

ChasFile: Becoming animated and offensive isn't terribly helpful in getting across your point. I did not post the statement which you suggest as it in no way represents an accurate summary of what I did post nor what I believe to be the truth; you have attempted to distort my assertions in order to render them more easily refutable.

I have said nothing to suggest that I do not believe that if someone extends their hand, it is probable that they want to shake yours, nor that I do not believe it is probable this man was being greedy; however, as I said earlier: If I were to see a man standing over the corpse of a freshly slain victim, bloody knife in hand, the chance that our subject murdered our victim is, I imagine, greater than half, but I would not feel happy convicting him on such evidence.

It may possibly be a misleading description of this man as well, but in all probability it is not.

This (if we omit the word "all") has been my assertion since my primary post.
posted by ed\26h at 9:26 AM on July 20, 2004

PedanticFilter.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:52 AM on July 20, 2004

How about if the man with the knife then gave a confession, giving his motivations for the killing and admitting he had done it, detailing how we went about it, listing all the factors which led up to it and backing himself up with documentary evidence. Which is equivalent to what the greedy fuckwit has done in this article.
posted by biffa at 11:03 AM on July 20, 2004