Donate at least $500 for Ban Immunity

What you said is invalid though, this guy attempted to reach out to the merchant for over a year and was consistently ignored/blocked, he was unable to bring his claim against the merchant in court because he thought the merchant had gone out of business(Bluesky hack and the complete rebrand to Won_gold), he only found out that the merchant had completely rebranded, not gone out of business on Sythe recently and filed that report immediately.

That report contains more than enough evidence to reasonably argue that he was unable to bring the case to the court because he thought that the merchant had gone out of business/ universally defaulted on all debts owed.

That report is valid and should of been ruled in the OP's favor, I got all that evidence before it was hidden by staff and I've looked over this case literally over 20 times, that is a valid report, there is no past ruling or justification to toss that report out on, your implying you have grounds in the "common law" to dismiss that case due to its age - I'd argue that the circumstances of the case prevented the claimant from resolving the matter in court(Sythe) due to the above mentioned reasons.

Your argument is literally "Company's would keep skeletons to hold over other company's for long periods than use them" while this case is nothing like that - This case is where a consumer sold a very large sum of gold upwards of $12,000 - Attempted to reach out for over a year to resolve the problem with the merchant - The merchant got hacked/ all information the consumer had showed/implied the merchant had universally gone out of business/vanished (What a complete rebranding is designed to do) - and only brought the case back against the merchant because he discovered that the merchant had just hidden their identity after a major hack and rebranded.

That is not a skeleton being held over commerce for a long period, that's a legitimate complaint with supporting reasoning to justify why the complaint was filed so long after the incident.

 

I think that the burden of proof should remain the same for all claims regardless of the age, if one of my customers had a 5 year old dispute with a transaction and could provide all accompanying evidence that met sythe standards as if it happened yesterday, I firmly believe the case should be considered on a case-by case basis.

Lets just consider this specific situation;

A consumer reaches out to Bluesky, He sells a over $12,000 in gold to him, Bluesky loses/misspends the payment and avoids answering the consumer for over a year/blocks him when the consumer attempts to reach out, Strike one.

Bluesky is then hacked, a major scandal occurs and a entire rebrand is needed to salvage the destroyed reputation, lets just remember that it was BLUESKY that was hacked, NOTHING to do with the consumer so its blueskys liability/issue, Strike two.

Fast forward 5 years, the consumer believes that bluesky is completely gone, he was hacked, all debts were defaulted on, the name bluesky is dead, there is nothing tying won_gold and bluesky together, the consumer believes that bluesky(merchant) defaulted on all debts/went out of business, the consumer then learns that 5 years after the fact, Bluesky didn't go under and didn't default, they just completely rebranded, the consumer reaches out to his old evidence and collects it and files a PERFECTLY LEGITMATE REPORT, against a merchant he fully believed had gone under. Strike Three.

I think there should be a case-by case stance as to what warrants a to old case, Ill give you an example where a to old case was considered by Sythe staff, Rael V Bus369 - I had to produce evidence contrary's to Rael's that was over a year old if I recall correctly, while 1 year is not 5 - There was no "holding off" in terms of Rael bringing the case against me - He immediately contacted staff infact if I recall right, it just took over a year for me to finally be told I had to produce evidence against a long standing claim, Had Rael held off reporting that and came back a year later and said "oh NOW he owes me this" then I could of seen that case being dismissed.

If there is something in a case to suggest a claimant held off on bringing evidence for a scam report and held off on filing it, I would fully support your decision in not accepting that as a valid claim, but the opposite is true in this case and there is an arsenal of supporting evidence of the bluesky hack as to why the claim was held off so long.

I think you should strongly reconsider reopening that case to at the minimum a staff vote and discussion.

 

Do you ever stop?

didnt read btw

 

@Ss1212 If there is a case you filed pre this first filing please contact @Sythe with it as I may be wrong but;

In the report a span of over 1 year of attempting to contact the merchant occurred, everything from the merchant giving the consumer a fake Chinese phone number of a supposed bank to blocking him occurred, this would suggest (to me) that no case was ever filed during that period because the consumer retained hope the merchant would fix things during that (1) year period which the merchant(Won_gold) failed to do.

After the bluesky hack - The consumer assumed the merchant again, defaulted/went out of business so there would be no need to bring a case against a merchant that no longer exists - Particularly for such a large sum that you believe you'd never get back anyway.

That provides the justification of the consumer holding off on filing a report until now, you can even see in the report that's the case that the consumer just realized that Won_gold(bluesky) was still in business.

Here's the report if u need it(current one);
won_gold_gold SCAMMED for over 10k!


"I know you guys prefer screen shots but it's very hard to do since the copy of this conversation is in video format

Before won_gold_gold used that skype name they operated under multiple other names such as bluesky
Here is a video of my conversation with this company BEFORE the bluesky hack. They had problems sending me the money they owed and weren't putting much effort into helping me and then after their skype was hacked I lost contact until I eventually found them again on a skype something like won card and then they switched to won_gold_gold. It is confirmed that bluesky is the same company as won_gold_gold because as you can see in my previous post they know what I'm talking about when we discuss a missing 12k and they also had all of my bank info still. They initially did have intentions of paying as you can see in the bank transfers they tried to send me the money twice and it was sent back to them by their bank both times. Maybe after the hack they decide to put some of the loss on me and scam me?"


Quote from the report - Fully supports precisely what I believe occurred.

 

What is the common law doctrine of laches?
The essential element of laches is an unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing the claim; because laches is an equitable defense, it is ordinarily applied only to claims for equitable relief (such as injunctions).

You suggest that the fact a consumer was unaware a merchant had completely wiped their previous name/brand from the face of the planet and completely rebuilt a new reputation "Unreasonable" ? You classify that as being unreasonable and that invalidates his claim?

Please tell me your joking.

That case is valid - At least have the decency to allow a staff vote on it, if it goes in Won_gold's favor than the matter is laid to rest, if it goes against him than frankly he deserves it, he likely made a fortune back then off getting a free $12,000 in capital, god only knows how much this sum truly made him.

 

He didn't know Bluesky became Won_gold, What did you expect him to do? Report thin air? Where at? There's no point reporting someone who you believe as a consumer is out of business/gone.

Think about this from the consumer side...

 

Wrong, just send nudes to the admins for favours.

 

"If a debt collector contacts you about an old, time-barred debt, be very careful in what you say to the bill collector. If you say or sign anything that might be considered an acknowledgement of the validity of the debt (meaning, you agree that you owe that debt even if the statute of limitations to sue has expired), then you may have revived, waived, or extended the statute of limitations. Or, if you make an agreement with that bill collector to pay the old debt, then you also may revive, waive or extend the statute of limitations. For more information, read Nolo's article What Should You Do if a Collector Tries to Collect a Time-Barred Debt?"



Also if the point of a statute of limitations is to prevent the bulwark provided by the courts from being turned into a weapon, wouldn't it be better to look at it on a case-by-case basis rather than dismissing any case that's not brought forward in a timely manner? Paying a 10k debt will not cripple won gold

 

I understand what the law is and why it is that way, I just don't understand why you're choosing to use it to rule on this case. One of the benefits of trading online is that almost everything is that just about everything is explicitly in writing. While won_gold probably has tens of thousands of transactions since the incident, it should still be possible to provide proof if the debt was forgiven (not that there's any reason to believe it was forgiven in the first place)

I don't think that you guys are biased towards the big guy like others seem to suggest, because you left the thread title and didn't bury it, but I think defaulting to common law is the wrong ruling on this particular case, especially when there is/could be admission of guilt from a worker.

 

Make a rule about old reports/disputes then.

I think the biggest issue with this situation is that your establishing precedence over a stupid large sum of money to most people ($12,000) without any other precedence and your not forcing Won_gold to repay what he should have to.

He likely made a fortune off that - $12,000 in capital back then could of had you any website and any support/gold flow u wanted - He very well may of turned that $12,000 he scammed into 6 figures, think about how much that could of fundamentally altered the market today - He is renowned as one of the top gold sellers - How much of his fortune was made because of this scam? We wont ever know.

If your going to establish precedence u should at least make the dude who scammed $12k at least have a TWC or repay SOMETHING and moving forward have a rule for old disputes/issues, it makes me want to physically throw up watching someone have evidence of a $12,000 scam and you wont do anything about it.

 

There's usually no precedent for establishing precedent xd

 

There's sometimes other precedence that is at least somewhat "related" to another precedence being set, this "This case is to old to be considered on sythe.org" is completely out of nowhere, I cant even recall a case that you could reference that could be "like" this one.

That's what I meant, what I said was a bit confusing.

 

Would you hear the case if another court ruled against Won_gold?

What if Osbot/pb/tribot(whoever) banned him for scamming, if he got reported here for being banned offsite for scamming, would you uphold the current rules for off-site bans?

Quite the quandary in terms of the rules complexity's.