Edit

Edit

Edit

Edit

For further information, all chat on this and subsequent scams is now here:
Google Revolution, Different Name, Same Scam!
and here:
More on Google Profits and Pacific Webworks/

Edit

There is a link that I thought would be useful in the third link of yours. It's URL is https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_… and it's supposed to go to the FTC complaints dept.

Except it doesn't.
I think it's the wizard they want here: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard….

Some of what they said was interesting. A reminder of this came today for me because I've noticed a few people having difficulty registering for this website. So I deactivated my SABRE plugin to see if it made it any easier. (Sabre minimises Registration Spam to very small levels). Any way, it was only off for 30mins and I got the first hit from a Russian camouflaged as the Indian TLD. Needless to say, SABRE is now on. When I've tested it, it works fine…hmmm.
The point is that the Google article says that comment/registration spammers are trying to hack in to enable spam ops and any other nefarious activity the permissions will let them do.

Registration isn't really necessary anyway. As you'll know, I allow people to comment freely and anything with more than a few URLs in it is held for moderation. It works for me and needs minimal maintenance and intervention while keeping the sharks in the bay.

And then a link to another help page which tells you how you can report dodgy adwords ads, plus the advice to report scams to the FTC, IC3, econsumer etc.
http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answe…

I've now noticed that Google Inc., while notionally blocking a few adsense accoounts, are still taking ads for extremely similar schemes, some of which, if not being run by the original people, are actually using the same business methods and from virtually the same premises (certainly the same towns in Utah!) See http://strangelyperfect.tv/4308/google-revolution… and http://strangelyperfect.tv/4971/is-this-the-new-g…

What is extremely disturbing to me, is the comments from the report on the Eborn closedown on a local TV/web news station here, http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-feds-investigat…

The comments are here, http://www.topix.net/forum/source/fox13now/T28A5B…

I'm disturbed because hardly anyone in Utah seems to think there's anything wrong with the business and it's methods and activities. They seem to be of the opinion that "at least it's giving people jobs"…. "what right have the FTC got to come busting in…?" etc

Presumably, this is what Mafia staff, hitmen, drugs runners, prostitutes, money-laundering bankers etc think when the G-men come knocking?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In light of the Arizona action against a similar fraudster, see http://strangelyperfect.tv/4971/is-this-the-new-g… I think the best advice for people is to: force a chargeback via their Credit Companycancel their card and get a new onecontact the FTC or whatever and ensure you are on the list of complainants seeking damages

If you are not on their list, how will you get recompense?

The Arizona settlement shows a 3:1 ratio of the fine to damages. Carrying this forward, if the FTC seek damages against Eborn et al of $100m, then the FTC fine will be $300m.

The more people that are on the 'damages' or restitution list, then the bigger that fine is going to be! It's no good just locking Eborn and his chums up – that needs to be paid for and it costs a lot to keep people incarcerated. We must ensure that everyone who's been hurt by these people get adequate compensation. Crime must not be seen to pay.

I know you got your money back but have you added yourself to the list? The amount of stress you've suffered and the sheer waste of your valuable time (every second of your life is precious and you can't get it back) shows you (and people in your situation)have a case. Some people were on the phone for HOURS and HOURS. This costs! Eborn should pay.

Rees

While I am still on the subject of the google scams:

(taken from http://scam-googletreasurechest.blogspot.com)
Today I spent some time on the FTC website reading the lawsuit that FTC has filed against the corporation running the Google Treasure Chest Scam (and other Google named scams). Hope you will take the time to go read it also. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923060/090622goog…
It is very enlightening and certainly vindicates what I have been saying all along about this being a scam and just why it was a scam. I don't know what the final outcome of this lawsuit will be but I hope these con artists get locked up and the key thrown away. From what is being alleged in the lawsuit the con artists were no better than a burglar that breaks into your house and steals what they can get their hands on.

What seems to me to be so strange about this in regard to the mentality of the con artists is "What were they thinking?" Did they really think they could get away with such blatant disregard for the law? And another thing, why did it take the law so long to go in and take some action.

I guess the con artists think that if they out-source part of the action overseas that the law won't be able to reach them but they better brush up on the law concerning the Electronic Fund transfer act and regulations. The law can still reach them and they can't hide–it just might take a little longer but sometimes that makes the penalty even more stiff when it finally comes home to roost.

The counts being levied against GTC in the lawsuit:

Count 1. Failure to disclose material terms

Count 2. False or unsubstantial representations regarding income

Count 3. False representations regarding affiliation (misleading one to think Google was behind them)

Count 4. Violation of the electronic Fund Transfer Act and regulation E.

(it seems that they should have gotten written authorization or similar pre-authorization

for further debits to your account plus provide you with a copy of such. Also it seems that in the unauthorized debiting of your account they did not even have proper authorization to show to your financial institution to make such a recurring debit. Makes you wonder what other loop holes the financial institutions ignore. I would think that to debit your account electronically that the banks would need to have some kind of proof showing that such a debit could even be made. )

Section 907(a) of the EFTA, l 5 U.S.C. j I 693e(a), provides that a ''preauthorized

electronic fund transfer from a consumer's account may be authorized by the consumer only in

writing, and a copy of such authorization shall be provided to the consumer when made.''

Section 90349) of the EFTA, 1 5 U.S.C. j 1 693a(9), provides that the term '- 'preauthorized

electronic fund transfer' means an electronic fund transfer authorized in advance to recur at

substantially regular intervals."

In numerous instances, the defendants have debited consumers' bank accounts on

a recurring basis without "obtaining" or "providing" a copy of a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the consumer's account, thereby violating Section 907(a) of the EFTA, l 5 U.S.C. j l 693e(a), and Section

205. l 0(b) of Regulation E(a) I 2 C.F.R. j 205. 10(b).

My advice to anyone who was involved in this scam and still having a hard time trying to contact these con artists to get their money returned is to copy the FTC lawsuit PDF and take it to the bank to show them how you were swindled. The bank has some responsibility in this matter too as they maybe should have required more proof that the debit had some merit or backing before they sent your money off to the con artists.