11 ms·

This judgement has no teeth: >Under the settlement, Brar — who operated Genius Technologies and Avangatee Services and does not admit or deny the allegations,

by ra1n85 8y ago

This judgement has no teeth: >Under the settlement, Brar — who operated Genius Technologies and Avangatee Services and does not admit or deny the allegations, according to court documents — “is permanently restrained and enjoined from advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale, or assisting in the advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale of Technical Support Services.” This guy is being made to pay 136,000 despite: “The cost to consumers ranged between several hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars,” the FTC said of the scam, which appeared to begin in 2015. This is not justice, and this judgement does not serve as a deterrent. This is grand larceny and needs to be accompanied with jail time for perpetrators.

degenerate 8y ago
Completely agree. These scum definitely need to go to jail, to send fair warning to would-be scammers that it's simply not worth the risk. >The judgment was for $7.6 million, but it was partially suspended because of Brar's inability to pay the full amount, according to the FTC. Pushover justice system, weak.
- 908087 8y ago
  The only lesson learned here is: If you're going to pull a scam like this one, be sure to spend all of the money or hide it really well before you get caught. Good job, FTC. That'll show 'em.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - drawnwren 8y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Brar was a crypto 'pioneer'.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Unless I'm mistaken, the data suggests that harsher punishments do not work as a form of deterrent. It seems inappropriate to cage someone for a non-violent offence.
  - toss1 8y ago
    perhaps for a single non-violent offenses. But for theft by deception practiced at scale? Absolutely should be jailed for a significant amount of time. I'd argue for significant amount of jail time simply for the waste and violations of law involved in needlessly ringing so many phones and violating Do Not Call laws. these people create a real cost for society, and the penalty needs to be bigger than "oh, just give back some of your criminal gains". If you think that caging someone is inappropriate or doesn't work, you can go for lashing, or something else. What would you actually suggest as a deterrent?
    - eftychis 8y ago
      I don't think the argument here is against jail time. Just that the reasoning it will work as a deterrent is flawed. Unfortunately, we/I don't have a good answer to your question what to use as a deterrent. The problem is a) people do not act rationally in a universal way b) people are bad with statistics c) arrest precision (Pr[you get arrested|you commit a crime] is not that great. (c) is subjective so let us forget about it. If the criminal was rational then they would think as follows: Pr[caught]Cost-Pr[not caught]Pr[succeed|not caught]payout >0 => commit crime. Humans are pretty bad at underestimating probability of events against them and overestimate their chance of success (people buy lottery tickets for instance). If a criminal is irrational, deterrents will not really work by definition -- you might be able to make due in a per case basis. You can view this as a different version of lottery ticket. No matter the risk of wasting your money, people are going to keep buying them. It really baffles me too. P.S. Consider now an extreme version tried in the past -- you commit even a simple crime, you are executed. First, this is a waste of resources (you could still use these individuals). In any system of law, yet in particular in a common law system, where the weight of precedence and law interpretation is much greater, every single one of us has almost surely committed a crime by some interpretation, obscure law etc. Second, as a criminal at that point you are going to escalate. The damage a single individual can cause to society on average has increased dramatically over time. Do not think about gun ownership. A man can just run over a busy intersection in their attempt to escape. To give some weight to my words, here is a personal story. My car was hit by an individual in a car a couple of years back on my way home. The driver drove the wrong way on a one way street, panicked and crushed into me. Instead of pulling over the they attempted to escape. In the process, pedestrians had to jump for their lives, while another car was hit also. That person endangered the lives of several people, damaged one more car, to avoid a DUI (my opinion from their erratic behavior and appearance). So only by luck, a possible DUI/crash did not upgrade to mass murder.
javajosh 8y ago
It sounds to me like each individual he scammed also has a case. Which means there's hope for a more just outcome.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  That is what I was thinking as well, a civil case from each person scammed, perhaps put into a class action which would result in a some justice for the folks who were scammed, and perhaps create a permanent garnishment on all of his wages from now until he dies where a percentage of anything he makes in any job goes to his victims.
  - pc86 8y ago
    All a class action will do is make one firm 80% or more of the judgment. And it appears the defendant is judgment proof as this is a low single digit percentage of the original award.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Class actions are worthless as a form of justice to the victim. They might get a $30 check.
    - ChuckMcM 8y ago
      I wasn't clear in my communications ;-). In cases like these (non-violent economic crimes) there is often a call for "justice" which includes incarcerating the perpetrator. I am of the opinion that locking them up furthers the damage of their crime by costing tax payers to pay to lock them up, house, and feed them. Because of that opinion, I lean toward justice solutions whereby the perpetrator is allowed to live in the 'outside' world but a percentage of all their earnings going forward is paid into a victim's restitution fund. This is analagous with "mortgaging their life", think of it as a student loan debt for criminals that can't be discharged through bankruptcy. The idea being that "justice" means impacting the rest of the perpetrators life with an economic cost equivalent to the economic impact they had on their victims lives. And doing so with a minimal increase in tax cost to enforce.
haspoken 8y ago
Paid to the FCC, and not the victims? It appears that the government is not interested in the victims, rather just wants a cut of the scam for themselves.
- maxk42 8y ago
  FTC, although to be fair it doesn't say what will be done with the funds.
  - ithilglin909 8y ago
    I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      > I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself. The money goes to the Treasury. Congress holds the purse strings. FTC fines are not designed to make victims whole; fines are inherently punitive. In our current system, restitution and civil damages fill that role; i.e., victims who want to be made whole should sue Mr. Brar individually, sue him as a class, and/or find a prosecutor who will go after criminal charges with restitution and make sure they're included as victims. The good news for victims is that the FTC settlement generally makes civil suits easier for victims to win. The settlement significantly increases the probability of success and significantly decreasing the cost of each individual victim's lawsuit. In particularly egregious cases, FTC settlements will require an explicit admission of guilt. Those admissions make victims' cases even easier to win (the victim only has to prove that they were defrauded; the question of whether the interaction was fraudulent is already settled). IMO the most appropriate structure for an FTC fine would be ${some multiple of the money you made scamming people, AFTER paying back all victims who decide to file a civil suit}. I think the ordering is exactly the opposite, though, unless the civil suits include punitive damanges. We'd have to find a bankrupcy lawyer to be sure.
justboxing 8y ago
If you hit the paywall, here's the story https://outline.com/GS6Yz8 https://outline.com/GS6Yz8

by ra1n85 8y ago

degenerate 8y ago

Completely agree. These scum definitely need to go to jail, to send fair warning to would-be scammers that it's simply not worth the risk. >The judgment was for $7.6 million, but it was partially suspended because of Brar's inability to pay the full amount, according to the FTC. Pushover justice system, weak.

908087 8y ago
The only lesson learned here is: If you're going to pull a scam like this one, be sure to spend all of the money or hide it really well before you get caught. Good job, FTC. That'll show 'em.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- drawnwren 8y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Brar was a crypto 'pioneer'.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, the data suggests that harsher punishments do not work as a form of deterrent. It seems inappropriate to cage someone for a non-violent offence.
- toss1 8y ago
  perhaps for a single non-violent offenses. But for theft by deception practiced at scale? Absolutely should be jailed for a significant amount of time. I'd argue for significant amount of jail time simply for the waste and violations of law involved in needlessly ringing so many phones and violating Do Not Call laws. these people create a real cost for society, and the penalty needs to be bigger than "oh, just give back some of your criminal gains". If you think that caging someone is inappropriate or doesn't work, you can go for lashing, or something else. What would you actually suggest as a deterrent?
  - eftychis 8y ago
    I don't think the argument here is against jail time. Just that the reasoning it will work as a deterrent is flawed. Unfortunately, we/I don't have a good answer to your question what to use as a deterrent. The problem is a) people do not act rationally in a universal way b) people are bad with statistics c) arrest precision (Pr[you get arrested|you commit a crime] is not that great. (c) is subjective so let us forget about it. If the criminal was rational then they would think as follows: Pr[caught]Cost-Pr[not caught]Pr[succeed|not caught]payout >0 => commit crime. Humans are pretty bad at underestimating probability of events against them and overestimate their chance of success (people buy lottery tickets for instance). If a criminal is irrational, deterrents will not really work by definition -- you might be able to make due in a per case basis. You can view this as a different version of lottery ticket. No matter the risk of wasting your money, people are going to keep buying them. It really baffles me too. P.S. Consider now an extreme version tried in the past -- you commit even a simple crime, you are executed. First, this is a waste of resources (you could still use these individuals). In any system of law, yet in particular in a common law system, where the weight of precedence and law interpretation is much greater, every single one of us has almost surely committed a crime by some interpretation, obscure law etc. Second, as a criminal at that point you are going to escalate. The damage a single individual can cause to society on average has increased dramatically over time. Do not think about gun ownership. A man can just run over a busy intersection in their attempt to escape. To give some weight to my words, here is a personal story. My car was hit by an individual in a car a couple of years back on my way home. The driver drove the wrong way on a one way street, panicked and crushed into me. Instead of pulling over the they attempted to escape. In the process, pedestrians had to jump for their lives, while another car was hit also. That person endangered the lives of several people, damaged one more car, to avoid a DUI (my opinion from their erratic behavior and appearance). So only by luck, a possible DUI/crash did not upgrade to mass murder.

javajosh 8y ago

It sounds to me like each individual he scammed also has a case. Which means there's hope for a more just outcome.

ChuckMcM 8y ago
That is what I was thinking as well, a civil case from each person scammed, perhaps put into a class action which would result in a some justice for the folks who were scammed, and perhaps create a permanent garnishment on all of his wages from now until he dies where a percentage of anything he makes in any job goes to his victims.
- pc86 8y ago
  All a class action will do is make one firm 80% or more of the judgment. And it appears the defendant is judgment proof as this is a low single digit percentage of the original award.
- briandear 8y ago
  Class actions are worthless as a form of justice to the victim. They might get a $30 check.
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    I wasn't clear in my communications ;-). In cases like these (non-violent economic crimes) there is often a call for "justice" which includes incarcerating the perpetrator. I am of the opinion that locking them up furthers the damage of their crime by costing tax payers to pay to lock them up, house, and feed them. Because of that opinion, I lean toward justice solutions whereby the perpetrator is allowed to live in the 'outside' world but a percentage of all their earnings going forward is paid into a victim's restitution fund. This is analagous with "mortgaging their life", think of it as a student loan debt for criminals that can't be discharged through bankruptcy. The idea being that "justice" means impacting the rest of the perpetrators life with an economic cost equivalent to the economic impact they had on their victims lives. And doing so with a minimal increase in tax cost to enforce.

haspoken 8y ago

Paid to the FCC, and not the victims? It appears that the government is not interested in the victims, rather just wants a cut of the scam for themselves.

maxk42 8y ago
FTC, although to be fair it doesn't say what will be done with the funds.
- ithilglin909 8y ago
  I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself. The money goes to the Treasury. Congress holds the purse strings. FTC fines are not designed to make victims whole; fines are inherently punitive. In our current system, restitution and civil damages fill that role; i.e., victims who want to be made whole should sue Mr. Brar individually, sue him as a class, and/or find a prosecutor who will go after criminal charges with restitution and make sure they're included as victims. The good news for victims is that the FTC settlement generally makes civil suits easier for victims to win. The settlement significantly increases the probability of success and significantly decreasing the cost of each individual victim's lawsuit. In particularly egregious cases, FTC settlements will require an explicit admission of guilt. Those admissions make victims' cases even easier to win (the victim only has to prove that they were defrauded; the question of whether the interaction was fraudulent is already settled). IMO the most appropriate structure for an FTC fine would be ${some multiple of the money you made scamming people, AFTER paying back all victims who decide to file a civil suit}. I think the ordering is exactly the opposite, though, unless the civil suits include punitive damanges. We'd have to find a bankrupcy lawyer to be sure.

justboxing 8y ago

If you hit the paywall, here's the story https://outline.com/GS6Yz8 https://outline.com/GS6Yz8