Staminus and a fake company continued

Today’s response from Staminus:

""I can only ask you to investigate because there are serious doubts this is a legitimate website."

Investigator : a person, persons or entity who is qualified to and tasked with investigation. e.g. Policeman or law enforcement.

Law Enforcement: a body that can investigate and gather evidence to be used in a court of law for prosecutions.

ISP : a company that provides internet services and is generally is unqualified and unlicensed to conduct legal investigations or provide chain of custody for evidence necessary for a trial.

**

Therein lies the source of your problem. Now that I understand, I can probably be of some assistance to you.

Not dissimilar to grabbing a random used car salesman and putting them in charge of designing and building nuclear bombs, you have been focusing on getting the wrong group/individual(s) to do your investigation for you.

I encourage you to contact your local law enforcement office. They are qualified, licensed and certified to conduct legal investigations, collect legal evidence, track chain of custody for said evidence, and then provide said evidence to a prosecutor. If they determine that they require additional information, they will contact us directly via established channels.

By following this procedure, criminals can be investigated, charged, tried and convicted.

By following your procedure, at best, criminals would have their services briefly interrupted while they relocate to another host - possibly even within the same data center / ISP.

I'm glad we were finally able to clarify the challenge you were experiencing and get it resolved for you.

If you need the numbers to any law enforcement, FBI, Homeland security or secret service, please do not hesitate to ask. We will be happy to provide you with appropriate contact information.

Abuse Department
Staminus Communications "

"Dear Staminus,

While I can understand your position, I do disagree with you.

I note that you still have not provided a link to, or copy of your TOS, but I guess that fraud is against your TOS. It generally is for most hosting companies.

I can only ask you to investigate, look into or at least re-examine your side of things, specifically the arrangement that your company has with your customer.

I am asking because you are in a much better position to do so than I am. I can only point to the website and raise with you the doubts over the validity of the statements and claims made on the website that are claimed to be facts. Where I can refute those I have provided sources for my information. You may not choose to recognise the sources I linked to, that is your right, just as it is my right to inform you of abuse that I believe is occurring that is utilising your resources.

In this case as the site claims to be a company in 6 different countries, is hosted in a seventh and the registrant claims to be in an eighth, just which countries Law Enforcement would you suggest I contact? All of them? When I have serious doubts that it would fall under any of their jurisdictions? As I said previously, I am not a victim. Or do you think Law Enforcement would be more willing to hear from yourselves, as after all, you have a financial relationship with your customer and can provide much more information and, in general, be of more assistance to them than I can as an ordinary citizen?

I am all for having getting the police and courts involved in investigating these matters, but the sad fact is that unless they have victims, ie. evidence of a crime having been committed, there is little for them to do. Who exactly is in the better position here to provide this? Myself an ordinary citizen, or the hosting company?

Or, just perhaps, it may be better for everyone for the hosting company to step in before people are defrauded and turned into victims.

Most hosting companies have abuse teams that can recognise fraudulent sites, and suspend them. As you say, briefly interrupting their criminal activity, but it does prevent people falling victim to these fraudsters while they relocate their site.
It also sends a message to the fraudsters to stay away from that hosting company, in effect the more sites hosts suspend the fewer they will have to in future. After all, no hosting company wants to have a reputation for hosting fraudulent sites, do they?

At this point it seems only fair to inform you that I happen to maintain a blog - http://419fraudtoleranthosts.blogspot.com/ and I have posted our exchanges so far.

Kind regards

Rob"

 Staminus' reply:

"but I guess that fraud is against your TOS"

You have not proven fraud. You have implied some form of deception and suggested that I obtain sufficient evidence on my own.

Will you be funding the investigation?

"I can only ask you to investigate"

You can, indeed, ask. But that is not the "only" thing you can do. You could also perform the investigation yourself and obtain proof beyond circumstantial evidence of a violation of our TOS or criminal activity.

"I am asking because you are in a much better position to do so than I am"

By what method do you arrive at that conclusion? I have the same internet access as you do. And, if you are suggesting that I access the server, drives or data, then you also have the same access to hack the server that you are suggesting I do.

"but the sad fact is that unless they have victims, ie. evidence of a crime having been committed"

That damned US Constitution gets in the way every time, doesn't it. Let's throw out the 'search and seizure' laws. Let's throw out 'innocent until proven guilty'. Let's throw out 'wire tapping' laws. While we're at it, let's just take anyone you suggest behind the barn and shoot them - unless you'd prefer hanging.

In fact, we require the same proof/evidence that law enforcement requires.

You aren't really supporting the notion that services be terminated based on suspicion, are you?

You'd be okay with having someone report a suspicion to your ISP and having them terminate your services based on that suspicion? Really? Or will you, perhaps, suggest that your ISP should spend money investigating you? Will they be looking for evidence to convict or evidence to clear you? Who will pay for that investigation? Will you be okay with them reviewing all of your emails and phone calls? Just how much of an ISP police state are you advocating?

"Who exactly is in the better position here to provide this? Myself an ordinary citizen, or the hosting company?"

None of the above. Law Enforcement is in the best position to investigate and collect information that leads to a conviction.

"Most hosting companies have abuse teams that can recognise fraudulent sites"

We are not a hosting company. We do not provide web hosting services.

We are an ISP

"At this point it seems only fair to inform you that I happen to maintain a blog"

Email communications are private and copyrighted. Publishing them is a criminal offense and can be prosecuted. You have not requested and I have not granted permission to republish my copyrighted and private communications.

Clearly you have now established that you are a criminal.

No further communication is necessary.

Have a great day.

 As Staminus has asked me to stop emailing them on this issue, I will. However, this would have been my response to them.

"Dear Staminus,

In answer to your email,

"You have not proven fraud. You have implied some form of deception and suggested that I obtain sufficient evidence on my own.
Will you be funding the investigation?"

The definition of fraud:
"Fraud is a type of criminal activity, defined as:
'abuse of position, or false representation, or prejudicing someone's rights for personal gain'.
Put simply, fraud is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party.

The general criminal offence of fraud can include:

deception whereby someone knowingly makes false representation
or they fail to disclose information
or they abuse a position."

Site claims to be an international company head quartered in the UK. The contact address listed for these headquarters is another countries Embassy. No company has any office in an Embassy. They can afford their own offices.

The company is not registered with Companies House in the UK, despite claiming to be a 150 year old company.

The telephone number for the headquarters is a mobile number, would a long established company really not have a geographic number in their own offices for potential customers to call?

The email address listed for the headquarters is for a suspended domain. The email address used to register this suspended domain does not exist. A whois violation.

"By what method do you arrive at that conclusion? I have the same internet access as you do. And, if you are suggesting that I access the server, drives or data, then you also have the same access to hack the server that you are suggesting I do."

You are at the abuse desk of an ISP. You are providing services for this website, and as such, I would imagine, have better contacts with Law Enforcement and the hosting company for this website than I as an ordinary citizen would have access to. You could simply pass my email to them for them to look at and make a decision on. They may decide that it warrants investigation, although you have made it abundantly clear that you do not.

"That damned US Constitution gets in the way every time, doesn't it. Let's throw out the 'search and seizure' laws. Let's throw out 'innocent until proven guilty'. Let's throw out 'wire tapping' laws. While we're at it, let's just take anyone you suggest behind the barn and shoot them - unless you'd prefer hanging.
In fact, we require the same proof/evidence that law enforcement requires.
You aren't really supporting the notion that services be terminated based on suspicion, are you?
You'd be okay with having someone report a suspicion to your ISP and having them terminate your services based on that suspicion? Really? Or will you, perhaps, suggest that your ISP should spend money investigating you? Will they be looking for evidence to convict or evidence to clear you? Who will pay for that investigation? Will you be okay with them reviewing all of your emails and phone calls? Just how much of an ISP police state are you advocating?"

Not at all. I think you misunderstand me. I am saying please look at the website in question, look at the links I have provided and come to your own conclusion as to whether this is a website that you want your company associated with. If it is, fine. Feel free to ignore me. I am asking if what I have said has raised no doubts in your mind as whether you would be happy to engage this companies services or not.

""Who exactly is in the better position here to provide this? Myself an ordinary citizen, or the hosting company?"None of the above. Law Enforcement is in the best position to investigate and collect information that leads to a conviction."

Again, you misunderstand me. I agree LE is in the best position to investigate, however I also believe that you would be able to provide them with better leads than I could.

""Most hosting companies have abuse teams that can recognise fraudulent sites"

We are not a hosting company. We do not provide web hosting services.

We are an ISP"

Again, you could simply pass my email to the hosting company and let them make their own decision.

""At this point it seems only fair to inform you that I happen to maintain a blog"

Email communications are private and copyrighted. Publishing them is a criminal offense and can be prosecuted. You have not requested and I have not granted permission to republish my copyrighted and private communications.

Clearly you have now established that you are a criminal."

Actually, I believe that I would be covered by fair use. You are sending emails in your capacity as a representative of Staminus, who I am conversing with over their providing services to a domain I believe to be fraudulent, I am attempting to demonstrate why and your responses to my emails, it is for those reading to make up their own minds. If you didn't want these emails made public, perhaps you should reconsider what you are saying before you send them."

Update 09/05/15: panwestafricasec.net is currently offline, hopefully for good.

Staminus and a fake company

Different companies respond in different ways to reports of abuse, but Staminus it turns out has a truly amazing way of responding.

"Mr Stevenson,

Thank you for your report.

As you may not be aware, the database for aa419.org is not reliable. It is editable by the public and there is no individual or entity that accepts legal or financial liability for the content of same.

Please be sure to let us know if you obtain any reliable information that you would like to have taken into consideration.

Best Regards,

Abuse Department
Staminus Communications"

The site in question is panwestafricasec.net

A Security, Logistics & Consultancy company, based in six countries, the UK, Ghana, Sierra Leone, DR Congo, Cameroon and Namibia. So you'd think it would be easy to ascertain that this company exists beyond it's website. Well, I tried.

First stop Companies House in the UK, as it's Headquarters are there.

No such company found. As the site doesn't list a Company Registration number, that can't be checked either, but if it's trading under another name it's possible that I may have missed it somehow. Anyway it's bound to be found at the contact address listed on site, under some name isn't it?

Well, would you believe that the contact address listed for this companies headquarters turns out to be the address for the DR Congo Embassy? A headquarters that's supposed to be responsible for over 10,900 staff and billions in trade is operating out of an Embassy in London? They can't afford their own building after being in business for over 150 years?

Or even afford a landline in the Embassy apparently, as they provide a mobile telephone number to call. They even provide a different, but dead, domain for you to email them on.

Domain Name:TPS-INC.ORG
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited -- http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: pendingDelete -- http://www.icann.org/epp#pendingDelete
Domain Status: serverHold -- http://www.icann.org/epp#serverHold

whose registrant used the email address 'info@standard-chart.com' to register that site.

Queried whois.internic.net with "dom standard-chart.com"...

No match for domain "STANDARD-CHART.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:42:01 GMT <<<

Oh look, a suspicious looking email address that doesn't exist, a whois error which probably got tps-inc.org suspended.

But the problem was that I referenced the Artists Against 419 database, apparently.  Ok, but that's not the only reference I used.

"Dear Staminus,

The AA419 db may have a few false entries from time to time, because we are only human. The db itself is not editable by the public, there are only a few who can make entries into the database, although anyone can put forward a website for consideration for entry, dependant on evidence. In this case I also provided other links to other sources that you may consider more reliable such as Companies House in the UK for you to double check the accuracy of my claims. Please reread the entirety of my last email and check the other sources I provided then make a decision.

Kind regards Mr Stevenson"

What I received back was beyond all expectation.

"Mr Stevenson,

"The AA419 db may have a few false entries from time to time, because we are only human."

That is sufficient for us to not be able to use it as a legal resource for the purpose of making legal decisions which could result in our being sued and taken to court.

If a resource is not reliable, then it can not be used to make a decision.

I understand that it is a valuable tool for you. But you are not risking your home, car and future income. You are simply filing (virtually anonymous) complaints. There is no liability or accountability for your end.

As to the rest of your citations.

1) "Site claims to be a courier company in the UK, but is not registered with Companies Houses."

You have not proven it is not registered. You have proven it is not registered under that specific name. Will you put up a $1Million liability bond and guarantee that it is not registered under any other name or spelling?

Furthermore, the point is academic. Can you direct my attention to a clause in our TOS/AUP that requires a downstream customer to register their website with "Companies House" ?

2) "UK contact address listed on site is for the DRC Congo Embassy" So, did you contact the Embassy? Is there an applicable law against a website using their Embassy as a contact address? Again, which part of our TOS is being violated in this example?

3) "Site claims to be a courier company located in the UK, Sierra Leone, Namibia, Ghana, DRC Congo and Cameroon, yet the registrant lists an address in Nigeria."

Your point is what, exactly?

Which relevant law is being violated?

Which portion of our tos is being violated?

Having reviewed your report, as you requested, it appears that you have provided a list of trivia and circumstantial evidence.

Let's review:

You sent an untraceable email from email from a gmail account.

You referenced a database that you subsequently admitted is unreliable.

You sign your emails "Mr Stevenson" in atypical business format, and you fail to provide any additional contact information that would identify you as an actual person.

Using the same criteria you used, it is reasonable to conclude that your report is fraudulent.

Best Regards,

Abuse Department

Staminus Communications"

Yes, being able to provide evidence that your customer who gives you money may actually be up to no good, and trying to show you why, makes me the bad guy here. Certainly not your paying customer who is trying to defraud the public.

"Dear Staminus,

"That is sufficient for us to not be able to use it as a legal resource for the purpose of making legal decisions which could result in our being sued and taken to court.
If a resource is not reliable, then it can not be used to make a decision."

By your logic that would then render every database in the world useless. Human error always creeps in, mistakes are always made.

"But you are not risking your home, car and future income. You are simply filing (virtually anonymous) complaints. There is no liability or accountability for your end."

True. The only thing the Artists have is our reputation, and that many registrars and hosting companies are wiling to listen, work with us and act on our reports is a comment on our reputation. That you choose not to is unfortunate.

"You have not proven it is not registered. You have proven it is not registered under that specific name. Will you put up a $1Million liability bond and guarantee that it is not registered under any other name or spelling? "

Really? Another database that may also have errors? I'm surprised the British Government hasn't done away with it, let alone rely on it for official Company registration certification.

From http://www.panwestafricasec.net/index.php?_page=aboutus
"As the industry leader in risk management and secure logistics, PWASC has safeguarded valuables since 1859. With 150 years of experience, PWASC offers the utmost quality of service and sets the market standard."

For a 150 year old company that claims to be in the UK not to be registered with Company House under their trading name is downright suspicious don't you think?

"Furthermore, the point is academic. Can you direct my attention to a clause in our TOS/AUP that requires a downstream customer to register their website with "Companies House" ?"

No, I can't seem to find your TOS beyond DMCA requirements. Can you please provide a link for me? I would at least like to try.

But I can point to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418559/GP2_Life_of_a_Company_Part_1_v4_4-ver0.3.pdf

"GP2 March 2015 Version 4.4
Companies Act 2006
Page 4 of 56
Introduction
This guide tells you about the documents that a company must deliver every year to Companies House - even if the company is dormant – see chapter 9. If you don’t comply, there could be serious consequences. The Registrar might assume that the company is no longer carrying on business or in operation and take steps to strike it from the register. If the Registrar strikes a company off the register, it ceases to exist and its assets become Crown property. However where a company is in operation, the company's officers could be prosecuted because they are personally responsible for ensuring that they submit company information on time. Failing to do so is a criminal offence. In addition, there is an automatic civil penalty for submitting accounts late. The requirement to file annual documents applies to all companies, including small companies such as flat management companies"

As this company doesn't seem to have provided 150 years worth of returns to Companies House, they are breaking UK law. Is that against your TOS? Or perhaps that is why they claim they are operating out of a foreign embassy in the UK. If I did contact the DRC Congo embassy, do you think they'd be able to put me in contact with this company? Or think I was playing a prank? Do you know of any companies that have offices inside an embassy?

"Site claims to be a courier company located in the UK, Sierra Leone, Namibia, Ghana, DRC Congo and Cameroon, yet the registrant lists an address in Nigeria."

Your point is what, exactly?
Which relevant law is being violated?

Which portion of our tos is being violated?

My point being that a supposed 150 year old company with no branches in Nigeria is unlikely to have hired someone in Nigeria build their official website. Again I would actually like to read your TOS, but I couldn't find it on your website.

"You sent an untraceable email from email from a gmail account."

Yes. So what? Gmail is a popular email provider.

"You referenced a database that you subsequently admitted is unreliable."

All databases can be considered inherently unreliable due to human error.

You sign your emails "Mr Stevenson" in atypical business format, and you fail to provide any additional contact information that would identify you as an actual person.

Does it really matter who I am? I am not the one trying to defraud the public like your customer is trying to.

"Using the same criteria you used, it is reasonable to conclude that your report is fraudulent."

I am trying to provide you with evidence. I can only ask you to investigate because there are serious doubts this is a legitimate website. Would you employ their services?

Please understand that I am not a victim of this internet fraud. I am a concerned individual who is trying to keep innocent victims from falling prey to this fraud.  Whether you investigate this matter and take proper action or not is ultimately up to you (as it should be).  Just know that when victims are defrauded by a domain you have been made aware of, you are partially responsible by doing nothing to investigate other than writing unprofessional snide comments rather than look into the matter.

Regards Rob "

I'm patiently awaiting Staminus' next response.