Stolen CC.com in my posession - Escrow.com, Netsol and FBI involved

[fab]

Thanks John, lessen learned, when purchasing a domain of significant value, attain as much information as possible about him.

I just wonder why people don't actually sign legal contracts. I did this once on a small purchase. I would assume it would be quite simple hiring a lawyer from different states, or eaven overseas.

 

[domaingenius]

T

Your domain names are only as secure as your email. If your email is compromised or hacked then, yes, your domain names can be stolen.

This is exactly why I so very much like Fabulous.com as they set levels of security on top of simple emails and only you will know what those are !!
I am surprised that GoDaddy and others dont introduce system like Fabulous as well.

DG

 

[DNQuest.com]

Wouldn't using an escrow service means that the buyer and seller has to have some form of authentic financial account that could be traced to an owner of that account? I know anything can be forged, but money is almost always traceable if you try hard enough.

 

[Dave Zan]

I just wonder why people don't actually sign legal contracts. I did this once on a small purchase. I would assume it would be quite simple hiring a lawyer from different states, or eaven overseas.

Ignorance?

Laziness?

Unrealistic expectations?

Take your pick.

 

[jberryhill]

Wouldn't using an escrow service means that the buyer and seller has to have some form of authentic financial account that could be traced to an owner of that account? I know anything can be forged, but money is almost always traceable if you try hard enough.

Yeah... to a bank in Turkmenistan.

Have a nice trip.

 

[Focus]

Don't get your head cut off & bring bottled water.

 

[BobDiGiTaL]

If you are involved in ANY deal that seems "to good to be true" just remember, most times it is and there is a reason you feel that way so don't ignore your instincts.

This is wise advice, indeed.

 

[Restecpa]

And if NSI is investigating a crime, how much information do you want them to give out to random people who call and ask them about it.

How does NSI know that the whole claim about "buying" the domain name is not itself some sort of spoof to launder the stolen name.

Hi John. Let's say that's true, and they indeed were investigating a possibility of a crime and didn't want to disclose the sensible information to a possible "thief". If that were the case, then why would they agree to transfer the domain to him afterwards? That's one thing you don't do, when goods are under suspicion of a theft...

Here's the part I'm referring to:

I called netsol to see whats up with the domain, ask if it's stolen, and the rep assured me that everything was fine with the domain, and the lock was there simply because of protection for the account. The rep then offered to merge the account in which the CC.com was and my account, and then she did.

In short: after assuring him that locked status is nothing to worry about, she agreed to transfer the domain, which she did. Now if they only said that because they were in the middle of an investigation and didn't want to share this information with him, then they surely wouldn't agree to hand him the domain right afterwards, would they?

If we can agree on that (?), then I believe we can also agree on the fact that Netsol failed to do what they should have (and was in their power) to protect both the previous owner as well as the buyer. Not only that, but they actually did worse than they would by not replying to bdjuf's inquiry at all, as by doing so, they actually gave him a green light to buy. Now I agree that just because they said it's OK, that doesn't mean that his research should've ended right there, after all if somebody tells you it's safe to jump into the water, you still should check for yourself whether the water is deep enough, or you might end up handicapped for the rest of your life, but they should still bare some responsibility - after all they do run a business and their false information and failure to do their job subsequently cost somebody $10,000 and a lot of grief.

All this assuming that bdjuf's version is factual of course, and since we have no other info to go by anyway, nor is it up to us to do that in the first place, I believe questioning his sincerity is not what we are discussing here, but rather how this can and should legally play out, based on the scenario he gave us.

Looking forward to you reply.

 

[Dave Zan]

In short: after assuring him that locked status is nothing to worry about, she agreed to transfer the domain, which she did. Now if they only said that because they were in the middle of an investigation and didn't want to share this information with him, then they surely wouldn't agree to hand him the domain right afterwards, would they?

One possibility is the rep probably didn't know the domain name was hijacked
to begin with. But that's just speculation, of course, since we obviously don't
know what sequentially happened at NetSol that time.

While it's fine to tell a business what their responsibilities should be, they will
decide for themselves what they are or will be. However, their agreement will
indicate what their responsibilities are towards you. (or both the OP and that
domain name's registrant, in this case...)

It so happens that among them state they can take the domain name back at
any time, they're not responsible for keeping your domain login and email safe,
and you agree to hold them harmless. The OP can still sue them if he chooses
to, but it might not be worth it given the time and costs involved.

This is a $10,000-worth lesson to painfully learn the hard way.

 

[jberryhill]

Good points all, Restecpa.

One can venture any number of guesses as to why any particular NSI support rep might say or do anything.

Sometimes I believe they have a support manual, which they open at any random page and follow the instructions printed on it.

I receive so many emails that include the line: "I called NSI and they said..."

These emails which include "NSI said..." will often conclude with the most bizarre of recommendations or actions taken by NSI.

Dealing consistently with several million customers is not always simple or accurate.

 

[Restecpa]

True, with all the outsourcing and clueless students often answering the phones and emails in the IT industry, one can never be careful enough.

However, we might also have to consider the possibility that the temporary locked status indeed was just another form of theft prevention, which is offered by most other registrars as well and that they indeed did not have any prior knowledge about the domain being stolen, hence they said it isn't. They obviously should be more careful in their statements, after all just because they might not know something has been stolen, it doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been. All they should've said is that the status itself does not mean the domain has been stolen (and that they obviously have no knowledge of it being stolen, if that was the case), but they had no place assuring him that it wasn't actually stolen at the time, since they couldn't have known that for sure. Either way, this is a mess... whether Netsol should carry any legal consequences or not I really have no idea (company should however be held liable for their employees actions, right?), so I'll take Johns word for it, but it still feels sickening that things like that can happen, with no consequences to the big guys, just because of a well written TOS.

On the other note: For the last 6+ years I've been hearing nothing but bad things about NSI, and I mean NOTHING BUT BAD THINGS. So why there are still so many people with them is beyond me... I'm talking about those several millions of customers mentioned by John. Are people outside this industry really that clueless?

 

[dvdrip]

Nope. They are more clueless than you can imagine...

 

[Dave Zan]

company should however be held liable for their employees actions, right?

Depends on the circumstances, of course. But...they figured that out, too:

9. INDEMNITY. You agree to release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Network Solutions and any of our (or their) contractors, agents, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, affiliates and assigns from all liabilities, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, relating to or arising out of (a) this Agreement or the breach of your warranties, representations and obligations under this Agreement, (b) the Network Solutions services or your use of such services, including without limitation infringement or dilution by you, or someone else using our service(s) from your computer, (c) any intellectual property or other proprietary right of any person or entity, (d) a violation of any of our operating rules or policies relating to the service(s) provided, (e) any information or data you supplied to Network Solutions, including, without limitation, any misrepresentation in your application, if applicable, (f) the inclusion of meta-tags or other elements in any website created for you or by you via the Network Solutions services, or (g) any information, material, or services available on your licensed Network Solutions Web Site.

Probably one reason why many people use Network Solutions (aside from not
knowing cheaper choices exist) is the same why many people use Go Daddy:
they both give what people are willing to pay for, despite bad news that they
hear about them.

And I agree with dvdrip: they're more clueless than one can imagine. Takes a
ton of patience dealing with them, sheesh!

 

[Mr. Deleted]

True, with all the outsourcing and clueless students often answering the phones and emails in the IT industry, one can never be careful enough.

it's a wonder that hijackers don't get themself hired into netsol just to take names from there, I can just imagine the damage that one could cause working there.

 

[ernestjev]

so you still have the domain or you get your money back ?

I know netsol is a bigg asholes

 

[dnbroker77]

Update:

Netsol took the domain right out of my account today, at 4:30 pm on a Friday, Without emailing, calling or notifying me before hand.

Called to speak to the person who has been taking care of the investigation so far at NetSol, and I got his voicebox so I left him a message.

I also now have a lawyer on the case.

I will not take this lightly, I will not go down in this matter without a sound.
Every single domain resource on the internet will know this story and know not to deal with them after I am done with the situation.

 

[Restecpa]

Update:

Netsol took the domain right out of my account today, at 4:30 pm on a Friday, Without emailing, calling or notifying me before hand.

Called to speak to the person who has been taking care of the investigation so far at NetSol, and I got his voicebox so I left him a message.

I also now have a lawyer on the case.

I will not take this lightly, I will not go down in this matter without a sound.
Every single domain resource on the internet will know this story and know not to deal with them after I am done with the situation.

Good luck, I believe you chose the only right, albeit expensive course of action! I can only imagine how pissed off I would be in your situation...

PS: Please keep us posted! I want to see how it unfolds...

 

[Dave Zan]

Good luck also.

 

[simon]

thanks for the update and good luck

 

[dnbroker77]

Update:

nothing from Netsol yet
didn't return my email, or my phone calls, or anything in regards to the letter my lawyer sent

absolutely pathetic

I can't believe they are "allowed" to do this
I was also advised that it would cost me far too much money to sue them in Virgina