Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's often easier to prove this (or, even more often, tax evasion) than prove the alleged criminal activity. Either way, bad guy goes to jail, so the government is happy.


Would like to see Amazon charged with wire fraud for all the counterfeit stuff they sell. It's paid for "by wire" is it not? And almost certainly across state lines which makes it federal.


Fraud is the wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

While counterfeit stuff are sold by sellers in the marketplace that Amazon provides, that is not equivalent to Amazon being the one selling the stuff.


In what imaginary world is accepting payment and shipping the item not the same as selling the item?


The difference between being an Amazon Vendor and a Seller: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/01/2...


The vendor that appears on my Credit Card statement is Amazon. The organisation who sets the commercial terms is Amazon. The website is completely Amazon branded. The goods are usually stored in a big warehouse with "Amazon" written on the side and delivered by someone engaged and paid by Amazon. The box that arrives has "Amazon Prime" written all over it.

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, Amazon is selling the item.


A former Nascar driver, Jeremy Mayfield, was charged with felonies for (supposedly) unknowingly selling stolen goods through his scrap yard.


Right, but there are plenty of counterfeit items shipped by Amazon. Just search for 1TB USB stick. Whatever internal distinctions they make don't matter to the reality that they are accepting payment and shipping the items.

Substance over form.


Then why is eBay in court for allowing emissions defeat devices to be sold on its platform, eBay didn't sell them?


1. Amazon ships plenty of counterfeit merchandise.

2. There is so much counterfeit stuff on Amazon that they should know about it, and should be held responsible since they do nothing about it. "Should have known" is sufficient for guilt in a court of law, when the thing is blatantly obvious.


silk road




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: