International Law

Con Man and Advance Fees

Image via Wikipedia

I have followed Jack Payne's Con Man blog with mixed feeling.  Although I would like to see Payne as the modern Joseph Weil, or the Yellow Kid, his novel and writing is a bit stilted for my taste.

I keep hoping for more from Jack, and today I think he delivered on his observations about the advance fee scam.

"If variety is the spice of life for con men, advance fees are the big can of leftover Spam.

Used for generations, advance fees always work, so why not keep using them as a dangle, a fitting way to set up a victim for a fleecing?

This is the common thinking of con men.

If you feel you were born wet, naked, and hungry, then things got worse, look at it this way: If you fall into this archaic trap you will suffer such evolution in reverse. when you are offered a lucrative-sounding advance fee deal, remember, if you don't believe a lion is dangerous, ask any antelope."

The victim of an advance fee scam rarely identifies the scam early enough to stop.

Payne explains about advance fees:

"What are advance fees?

These occur whenever the victim pays his hard-earned money to con men in anticipation of receiving a product or service of greater value--such as a contract, loan, investment, or gift.

Then in a big majority of cases, receives nothing in return.

To the con men way of thinking, advance fee deals are much like dating a homeless woman. You can drop her off anywhere.

In this case the "homeless" would be you, once parted from your advance fee.

Unfortunately, such finder's fee-type agreements are often legal."

Payne is right about how most police/criminal agencies will deal with a complaint about an advance fee scam - they will treat it as civil problem.

Now, ask yourself: when is paying a franchise fee the equivalent of an advance fee scam?  

When you "purchase" a franchise, and you receive nothing in return, your problem will be that "this type of finder's fee-type agreements" are legal.  

Why? Because the franchisor disclosed to you exactly how they were going to give you nothing in return.  And you "forget" to read the disclosure document.

Full post as published by Misleading Advertising Law on September 12, 2008 (boomark / email).