'You've Won $72 Million and a Mercedes Benz': Phone Scammer Gets 6 Years in Prison After He Made the Mistake of Calling William Webster, Ex-FBI and CIA Director (washingtonpost.com) 169
Reader McGruber writes: The Washington Post has an amusing story about phone scammer Keniel A. Thomas, who made the mistake of calling William H. Webster. Thomas told 90-year-old Webster that he had won $72 million and a new Mercedes Benz in the Mega Millions lottery, but that he needed to send $50,000 in taxes and fees to get his money. Thomas also told Webster he'd done his research on the top winner. "You're a great man," the scammer cajoled. "You was a judge, you was an attorney, you was a basketball player, you were in the U.S. Navy, homeland security. I know everything about you. I even seen your photograph, and I seen your precious wife."
Thomas's research didn't turn up everything. He didn't learn that the man he was calling was the former director of the FBI and the CIA, the only person ever to hold both jobs. And he didn't know that Webster would call him back the next day with the FBI listening in. Thomas was arrested in late 2017, after he landed in New York on a flight from Jamaica. He pleaded guilty in October and faced a prison term of 33 to 41 months under federal sentencing guidelines. But with Webster and his wife in the courtroom, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Friday added another 2 years to Thomas's sentence, giving him nearly six years to serve. Howell said that the scam qualified as "organized criminal activity" and that Thomas posed "a threat to a family member of the victim."
Thomas's research didn't turn up everything. He didn't learn that the man he was calling was the former director of the FBI and the CIA, the only person ever to hold both jobs. And he didn't know that Webster would call him back the next day with the FBI listening in. Thomas was arrested in late 2017, after he landed in New York on a flight from Jamaica. He pleaded guilty in October and faced a prison term of 33 to 41 months under federal sentencing guidelines. But with Webster and his wife in the courtroom, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Friday added another 2 years to Thomas's sentence, giving him nearly six years to serve. Howell said that the scam qualified as "organized criminal activity" and that Thomas posed "a threat to a family member of the victim."
Wait! WHAT? (Score:5, Funny)
This is a scam? I just got that email 2 days ago! Damn!
Re:Wait! WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a scam? I just got that email 2 days ago! Damn!
And I'll bet that if you had called the FBI they would have ignored you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a scam from the government to make it seem like they actually give a damn about spammers calling you.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt but I'm okay with a double standard. If someone this stupid gets away with it we've broken natural selection altogether.
If a student says you put glue on their chair and you get away with it that is one thing but the system is completely broken if you get away with putting glue on the principal's chair.
Re:Wait! WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a student says you put glue on their chair and you get away with it that is one thing but the system is completely broken if you get away with putting glue on the principal's chair.
The system is completely broken if putting glue on the principal's chair carries a heavier punishment than putting it on a fellow student's. Crap like that is why schools have a culture of bullying.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'll bet that if you had called the FBI they would have ignored you.
Years ago, long before there was an Internet, I did call the FBI on a PC purchase scam that crossed a state line, putting it in their jurisdiction. They did call me in for an interview, but I subsequently heard nothing.
Re:Wait! WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why yes, yes it is. We're supposed to have equal justice, but obviously unless you're a former FBI director, the system doesn't give a shit about you.
As a prole, try getting any law enforcement to take action on a scam where you haven't already lost a million bucks. Ain't gonna happen. But, if you're part of the government elite, they'll organize a SWAT team to help you out just because you got a phone call.
The moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get justice - if you are an important person.
Re:The moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get justice - if you are an important person.
Indeed. According to the summary, the judge slapped an extra two years onto the sentence because of who the perp targeted.
So we are willing to devote lots of taxpayer funded resources to prosecuting this one guy for targeting a VIP, but doing something about the millions of scammy phone calls that little people face everyday remains a low priority.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that the extra two years was for being really really stupid.
Re:The moral of the story (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that the extra two years was for being really really stupid.
But wouldn't it make more sense to give the smart criminals extra jail time?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, you're probably right. But there should be some special penalty for stupidity, just as a general principle. And trying to run a scam on a guy that you googled but didn't notice he was a retired head of the FBI and CIA is a level of stupidity that qualifies for special treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. If we figure the point of prison is rehabilitation, then smart criminals, being smarter, would be more likely to learn their lesson and not recidivate.
Re: (Score:3)
Smart criminals aren't criminals at all because they don't normally get caught. But if we caught one by luck (everybody has a bad day) we should turn them loose ASAP to up the odds of someone with a brain reproducing. The dumb ones we should lock away forever to make sure they don't breed.
Re: (Score:2)
I was initially going to comment pretty much in line with yours. But then, I was wondering if children of criminals have a higher tendency to become criminals. My brief search turned up nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
By that standard everyone is a criminal.
Re:The moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully support rehabilitation over punishment but then technically, all sentences should be minimum sentences and if you have not rehabilitated and show now signs of it, you should never be let go. So prison more studio apartments because we aren't total arseholes but you never get set free.
It is not learning your lesson, how to fake rehabilitation for early release, it is hard line full psychological evaluation to ensure very, very low rates of recidivism. In fact correctional services officers should face evaluation and possible penalty for releasing a person who latter commits a crime and certainly the government should pay for the harm caused by a citizen released who was not rehabilitated.
I fully support a 100% rehabilitative system, with all that it implies and that correctional facilities, staffed by professional college degree correctional services officers and run by trained psychiatrists, who properly medically seek to rehabilitate their patients unstable failed citizens and not treat them like prisoners to be punished and turned into worse criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you propose to get people to become correctional officers if they faced the potential penalties you proposed? If I were a released criminal that had been under you, you'd be my blackmail target.
"all sentences should be minimum sentences"
So, you'd leave judges with no leeway in sentencing criminals who had more egregious crimes? Isn't that why there's a range in sentencing guidelines? Also, what about repeat offenders?
Unintended consequences (Score:2)
Your proposed punitive measures toward people for the actions of OTHER people is sure to backfire.
It becomes absolutely the incentive for the the "rehabilitators" to make sure no one ever, ever leaves their care, just so they don't face consequences.
Talk about a perverse incentive.
Think it through harder, and study how possible it is to really predict someone's behavior. You might find that rather than all this psychological stuff, it's better to invest in reintegrating people effectively into society and
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The smart ones need to get out and breed whereas if we can stop the dumb ones from breeding there might be hope for the human race. Also, we don't catch the smart ones.
Re: (Score:3)
I knew that was a scam
https://www.gnc.com/hardcore-s... [gnc.com]
Oh, it is...just not the same one.
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't it make more sense to give the smart criminals extra jail time?
No, you give them job training and placement, possibly in fraud prevention. If you give them extra jail time, they're going to have extra time to teach the dumber criminals things that they never would have thought of on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
And who's gonna run our economy?
Re: (Score:2)
ShanghaiBill misstated:
Indeed. According to the summary, the judge slapped an extra two years onto the sentence because of who the perp targeted.
Prompting PopeRatzo to opine:
I'm pretty sure that the extra two years was for being really really stupid.
Actually, I think the extra 2 years was for what the judge (rightly, IMnsHO) viewed as an implied threat by the scammer.
Or does, "I know everything about you. I even seen your photograph, and I seen your precious wife," strike you guys as mere innocent banter ... ?
Re: (Score:2)
"You're a great man," the scammer cajoled. "You was a judge, you was an attorney, you was a basketball player, you were in the U.S. Navy, homeland security. I know everything about you. I even seen your photograph, and I seen your precious wife.
I would have taken that to be complimentary designed to lower the defences of the potential victim. He's just saying he's looked into they guy obviously that would include photos and from the context he is saying the guys wife is pretty, thats it. Sure it sounds vaguely threatening out of context and written down but that doesn't make it a threat. And seeing as the guy was apparently in Jamaica where is the threat?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just assume his or her gender?!?!?!?! Y I K E S
Re:The moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
we are willing to devote lots of taxpayer funded resources to prosecuting this one guy for targeting a VIP, but doing something about the millions of scammy phone calls that little people face everyday remains a low priority.
"Quiet serfs. How dare you question the noble class? Here, we'll add $100 to your tax refund if you stop bringing this up."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"According to the summary, the judge slapped an extra two years onto the sentence because of who the perp targeted."
Unfortunately, the summary didn't quote this from the article:
The conversation was one of many calls that Thomas made to Webster or his wife, Lynda, in 2014, including one in which he promised a bullet “straight to the head” of Lynda. ... But with Webster and his wife in the courtroom, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Friday added another 2½ years to Thomas’s sentence ... Thomas posed “a threat to a family member of the victim.”
That's why Thomas got the two extra years.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the outrage at the double standard and treatment from law enforcement. But if you call and threaten to put a bullet in the head of the former director of the CIA's wife that should illicit a response. For that matter the director or former director of any executive agency, or congressperson or president, or even state equivalents to the same.
At some point it isn't about the person or their special status, you've just thrown down a gauntlet and challenged the power and dignity of the United Sta
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there aren't enough cops and resources to stop mugging but if you try to mug the chief of police in a police station you should get busted. Think of what a laughing stock the police would be if it were otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, I don't feel sorry for the scammer one iota. That said, I think (but IANAL) his attorney should appeal the sentence based upon the 14th amendment (Equal treatment under the law...which actually only applies to state and local but SCOTUS has upheld it's use in some federal situations). Or, possibly that's it's an unusual punishment.
Re:The moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
it will make make some people think twice before becoming a criminal
Not really. Most scam calls originate outside the US. This "one guy" is atypical, and is not where the FBI should be focusing their resources.
He was also an idiot who provided a valid callback number that was registered in his own name. So the message from the FBI is "We only catch the dumb ones", which isn't much of a deterrent.
What we need is a change to telecom regulations that make call spoofing so easy. Most other countries are far less welcoming to scammers, and have much less of a problem with it. Even India makes spoofing illegal for domestic calls, although obviously not for outbound international calls.
If an entity owns and controls multiple numbers that can be tracked back to that entity, then "spoofing" those numbers has legitimate uses. But there is no valid reason to allow anyone to spoof a number they do not own and do not have a right to use.
Feds: You need to fix the spoofing problem.
Telcos: We can't. It is technically impossible.
Feds: Starting next week, we will fine you $1000 per spoofed call.
Telcos: Oh. We'll have it fixed in five minutes.
Re: The moral of the story (Score:4, Insightful)
The usual argument against stopping spoofing is that the average person won't answer the calls from a cold caller telemarketers.
Sadly, organisations like the Direct Marketers Association have more political clout than consumer protection advocates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What I hate the most is when they call me on my work phone. That phone is primarily used for system emergencies. When it rings, it means something big is happening and I need to hop on it right away. Too often, recently, though I've picked it up to hear. "We're calling you with an important message about your car's warranty/student loan." You can block the number, but they just call back using a different number each time.
Re: The moral of the story (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just them. We need to stop allowing all the exceptions, debt collectors and political campaigns can fuck off too. They can send letters like everyone else.
Re: The moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual argument against stopping spoofing is that the average person won't answer the calls from a cold caller telemarketers.
That should not be a problem. If a telemarketer with a call center in India or the Philippines wants to spoof an American number, that is fine. But they need to own both the originating number and the spoofed number, and it needs to be traceable back to them, so they can be held accountable for illegal behavior.
But spoofing to random numbers in local prefixes, inflicting blowback on the innocent people that own those numbers, and misleading the call targets, should be illegal. It is unconscionable that we allow the telecoms to get away with this behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
The usual argument against stopping spoofing is that the average person won't answer the calls from a cold caller telemarketers.
That should not be a problem. If a telemarketer with a call center in India or the Philippines wants to spoof an American number, that is fine. But they need to own both the originating number and the spoofed number, and it needs to be traceable back to them, so they can be held accountable for illegal behavior.
That is actually an easy one to get around with modern VOIP systems and happens here in the UK. You set up a number in Birmingham that is basically a PABX connected to a VOIP back end. The back end goes back to India via a data connection (VPN or otherwise). So the number isn't spoofed, it's actually is a line connected in Birmingham... But you get connected to "Steve from London" with a very thick subcontinental accent who knows about the car accident I didn't have (common scam here in the UK, ambulance ch
Re: (Score:2)
"So the message from the FBI is "We only catch the dumb ones", which isn't much of a deterrent."
Well the argument from law enforcement in general is that they only have to be dumb once. Or that the "bad guys have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once"
If you continue to roll the dice on bad behavior then sooner or later you are going to fuck up. You don't have to be dumb, you just have to do something dumb today. Would it be nice if the Feds has a manpower to handle all the cases this way?
Re: (Score:2)
An Anonymous Coward opined:
The director never really had potential to be a victim. However this guy won't be targeting other potential victims, it will make make some people think twice before becoming a criminal as well which has positive benefit on society for us all.
I'm pretty sure the judge viewed, "I know everything about you. I even seen your photograph, and I seen your precious wife," as an implied threat, à la, "Nice wife you have there. Pity if anything happened to her."
However, given Webster's career - and his reaction to this idiot's attempt to scam him - I agree that he was never in any personal danger ...
Re: (Score:2)
"I agree that he was never in any personal danger ..."
Sure but if you threaten to kill someone who turns out to be Navy seal it is still the same crime as threatening to kill the sweet old lady from 2B. Now if said seal or old lady kills you alleging they feared for their life considerations like that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
I posited:
I'm pretty sure the judge viewed, "I know everything about you. I even seen your photograph, and I seen your precious wife," as an implied threat, à la, "Nice wife you have there. Pity if anything happened to her."
But concluded:
"I agree that he was never in any personal danger ..."
Prompting Shaitan to point out:
Sure but if you threaten to kill someone who turns out to be Navy seal it is still the same crime as threatening to kill the sweet old lady from 2B. Now if said seal or old lady kills you alleging they feared for their life considerations like that matter.
You're correct on both points. A threat is a threat, no matter who it's directed at. Responding to a threat with deadly force may or may not be treated as justifiable homicide, depending not only on the self-defense capabilities of the person being threatened, but on other circumstances, such as the credibility of the threat, the other options (short of deadly force) that were available to the target of the threat at the moment he/she acted, and - very
Re: The moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By definition they aren't citizens at all, at least not here.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely - it's all on who you know. If you happen to have a phone tree to buddies at the FBI, they'll take care of the problem quickly.
I'll bet a lot has to do with whether the person being called can hook the crook. I just heard a podcast where the police took over a woman's phone number because she was a known mark. She had been taken before and was on the "easy list." The police had the number forwarded to an agent who pretended to be the gullible woman, but was in fact an expert in reeling croo
Re: (Score:2)
"Absolutely - it's all on who you know."
Sure, and that is mostly the same with anything. If your son is special agent Johnson you can bet he'll answer the call when YOU are abused. Similarly, if you are special agent Johnson are you going to let your own mother be abused when you help other people each and every day? Does anyone really think that is unreasonable?
In this case, it isn't someone's mother. In this case it was a former director of the FBI and CIA and the guy threatened to put a bullet in his wif
Re: The moral of the story (Score:2)
Or, maybe it's just "don't try to scam someone who spent their life tracking scammers". Kind of like "don't try to mug a black belt", or "if you're going to steal a hat, don't steal from a police officer on duty". Really unlucky (for the criminal) choice of a mark/victim.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy [nytimes.com] could tell you all about it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you think asian, latino, or black multimillionaires and Congressmen and other powerful people are held to the same rules as anyone else? It's money and power that move the world. "
Ever hear of OJ? Michael Jackson?
Glad to hear, to bad the common person suffers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Glad to hear, to bad the common person suffers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So much this!
Meanwhile, I get so many scam calls on the landline that I no longer bother answering it unless I hear a familiar voice leaving a message.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI surely wouldn't help me if I tried to setup a sting on a scammer...
I mean, you don't really have any authority to do so. Frankly neither dd Mr. Webster. He just had the right connections due to his previous professions. I find it funny how a lot of people are commenting about this as some sort of elitism. Like none of us ever benefited from having connections with the right people in the right circumstance....say like knowing the bouncer at the local club.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't pay the bouncer out of out taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Your taxes aren't paying for the FBI to be your personal police force either. Only Slashdot would take a story about a criminal scammer getting caught and turn it into a grievance play about class disparity.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've lost the thread here somewhere. Go read YOUR analogy again.
Re: (Score:2)
It might not be the most fluid argument. But basically, I don't see any issues with a former director of the FBI & CIA using his connections to capture a scammer who threatened him and his family. But rather than celebrating the scum scammers ill luck in his chosen target, people here grumble how they would never get such treatment if they were the one being scammed. I find it a bit much.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem people have is that there are thousands of scammers calling hundreds of thousands of people with impunity. This includes scammers claiming to be representing the IRS and various At tourneys General and sometimes issuing threats. We'd like to see some action taken against them as well, not just the one who calls someone with clout by accident. If the big cheeses in D.C. get all the stops pulled out for them (and only them), they're unlikely to understand the plight of those who get "leave
Re: (Score:2)
OK, that's understandable. But this is a case of misdirected anger. You need to be angry at Congress and not the FBI. The FBI actually is heavily involved in pursuing scammers, a simple google search will show this. And again, I still fail to see what is wrong with a former FBI director using his connections to involve the FBI in his situation? What? Was he supposed to file a complaint through the FBI website.....while his family was being threatened....and wait for a response?
Re: (Score:2)
What? Was he supposed to file a complaint through the FBI website.....while his family was being threatened....and wait for a response?
To be fair, that's what the rest of us are supposed to do.
I personally don't blame him personally. I don't think most people here do. I think they blame the system that actually responded to that by pulling out all the stops but wants the rest of us to file a complaint through the website and wait for a response.
I do blame Congress and the FCC as well for letting the telecomms make it so easy to spoof caller ID. It might be a lot harder to scam people claiming to be Publisher's Clearinghouse if the caller I
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI surely wouldn't help me if I tried to setup a sting on a scammer.
No but they might charge you with something stupid for telling them your plans. You know, just to uphold their already pathetic reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
If only we had some law that guaranteed equal protection under the law. Might be nice to add that to the constitution or some such...
Justice Works Well (Score:2)
so the moral of the story is (Score:4, Interesting)
don't ever step foot onto american soil and these crimes are entirely harmless!
Comparative sentencing with manslaughter (Score:3, Interesting)
Six years for attempting a phonecall scam.
Meanwhile the woman who willfully abused her boyfriend into not backing out of a suicide attempt gets 15 months [npr.org]
Definitive proof that our justice system values an attempt at monetary loss at nearly six times the rate of actual loss of human life.
Amazing America (Score:5, Insightful)
When hundreds of thousands of elderly are bilked out of tens of millions of dollars in the exact same scam, law enforcement just shakes its head and says it's too difficult to track down and arrest these people and everyone has to be vigilant. When this power-man with serious connections gets called by the scammer, suddenly the wheels of justice spring into motion in top gear, the next day the FBI is on it and they get the guy right away. The scammer didn't even get anything. What about grandma who lost her $200,000 life savings in a scam only to hear "that's a shame" from the police?
Then, the icing on the cake, the appropriate penalty is 33 to 41 months for the actual offence. And he gets 2 more years just because power-man is pulling the judge's string. What a corrupt system.
This whole thing reminds me of a joke. North Koreans believe they live in the greatest country in the world because the government and media lie to them. Americans know perfectly well they live in the greatest country in the world.
Re:Amazing America (Score:4, Interesting)
While to some extent I agree with your sentiments, the real issue is this guy and his wife went through the steps to document the crime and get the FBI involved early on. They didn't complain they were scammed months later when the criminal was long gone.
That they just happened to be well connected is only slightly tangential.
Of course if people wouldn't be gullible and hand over their money to anyone who calls them, this wouldn't be an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
While to some extent I agree with your sentiments, the real issue is this guy and his wife went through the steps to document the crime and get the FBI involved early on.
Sure, but would the FBI usually be willing to be involved in something like this?
Of course if people wouldn't be gullible and hand over their money to anyone who calls them, this wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah! Piss on those victims!
Re: (Score:3)
o.O Are you serious? If the average Joe or Jane called the FBI, they'd reach a call center and a perfunctory report would be taken - and nothing would ever happen. (BTDT) That he's well connected (understatement of the year), isn't tangential at all. It's why he was able to have the FBI on the case the very next da
Re:Amazing America (Score:5, Informative)
When this power-man with serious connections gets called by the scammer, suddenly the wheels of justice spring into motion in top gear, the next day the FBI is on it and they get the guy right away.
I understand and agree with your sentiment, but you are also factually incorrect. The article says that Thomas called Webster in 2014, but he was not arrested until 2017, 3 years later. He was then tried and convicted in October 2018, and finally sentenced in February 2019.
The scammer didn't even get anything. What about grandma who lost her $200,000 life savings in a scam only to hear "that's a shame" from the police?
Again, I understand your sentiment, but you are again factually incorrect. The article says:
The FBI was able to document that Thomas, 29, from St. James Parish in the Montego Bay area, collected at least $300,000 with his scam from about three dozen victims, according to court records.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand and agree with your sentiment, but you are also factually incorrect. The article says that Thomas called Webster in 2014, but he was not arrested until 2017, 3 years later. He was then tried and convicted in October 2018, and finally sentenced in February 2019.
Webster didn't involve the FBI until Thomas started threatening his family, described his house, etc. Until then he was just blowing it off. Also, if you read the article, he was charged in 2014, but wasn't arrested until he came to the US in 2017.
Re: (Score:3)
In general, I agree with you here.
But, "because power-man is pulling the judge's string"-- maybe. There _was_ an actual threat made on Webster's wife. From TFA:
> The conversation was one of many calls that Thomas made to Webster or his wife, Lynda, in 2014, including one in which he promised a bullet “straight to the head” of Lynda.
Re: (Score:3)
> gets 2 more years just because power-man is pulling the judge's string
"I know everything about you. I even seen your photograph, and I seen your precious wife."
That, to me, constitutes a threat against both him and his wife. The only thing missing is the old "It would REALLY be a SHAME if something were to happen to her...."
Yes, it would be nice if all of us had the resources available to us to catch these crooks. But the 2 extra years isn't JUST because of who was sitting in the courtroom.
Re:Amazing America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Noice. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Lights cigar.)
i am conflicted (Score:2)
between either a Homer's "D'OH" or Nelson's " Ha Ha"
this maybe a rare case where both are appropriate.
After reading this (Score:2)
He threatened the life of the director's wife. If I had the director's connections then this guy and everyone he ever met would just disappear off the face of the earth without a trace.
Re: (Score:2)
You need connections now to shoot someone in the face?
"Old age and treachery will always beat.... (Score:2)
....youth and exuberance." - David Mamet
As an old grey beard, I always enjoy seeing that saying proven true!
If a couple thousand scammers were (Score:2)
given 10+ year jail terms, I would guess the total amount of scammers would decrease.
Why isn't Homeland, FBI, whatever actively hunting down these people? Shouldn't that be their job?
Re: (Score:2)
The funny bit is that the scammers probably pay more tax than some "legitimate" businesses...
$72 million and a new Mercedes Benz (Score:4, Funny)
What kind of bizarre prize packaging is that? If you win 72 mil, the last thing you'd care about is any particular car tossed in.
Re: (Score:2)
hey I'll take that crappy car off your hands, even with capital gains tax well worth my time to resell it.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the car is just the container for all the money.
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of bizarre prize packaging is that? If you win 72 mil, the last thing you'd care about is any particular car tossed in.
It's probably some sort of mental trick to make the "prize" seem more concrete. Keep in mind, the ideal target of such scams is not a lucid and clear-thinking individual -- rather, it's someone who is in the process of cognitive decline.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of bizarre prize packaging is that? If you win 72 mil, the last thing you'd care about is any particular car tossed in.
I would if it were a Noble... I'd save myself £350,000.
But seriously, these scams work by targeting our greed (desire for material wealth) and exploiting the naive. So adding in the car is another way to keep the victim from thinking that this is a scam.
1 down... (Score:3)
a few hundred thousand more crooks to catch.
Re: (Score:2)
They can start by publishing the former director's phone number.
Ever notice... (Score:2)
Ever notice that sometimes you come across someone you just shouldn't have fucked with?
They left out the part (Score:2)
Where it was when he called his kids and told them about the exciting news that they convinced him it may not be legit.
okay... (Score:2)
72 million dollars AND a mercedes. that's like saying 'you've won $10,000 AND a big mac value meal!'
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's like the old "we'll go to Iraq and kill a million Iraqis and a dentist" joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You just have to hope that they know sign language.