edlaurpic Posted August 31, 2007 Share #1 Posted August 31, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Two weeks ago my wife and I purchased a mint Leica Tri Elmar 28-35-50 lens which, although the seller claims he shipped it to us, did not arrive. Instead, I received the box the lens supposedly was shipped in, but all that was in the box was a small plastic case of 50 blank DVDs—no lens. The matter is under investigation by the Reno Police Department Fraud unit, by Fed Ex's corporate security group, and by my insurance company. They have the name and confirmed home addresses of the seller as well as the individual at Fed Ex who processed the box on the first leg of the shipment. The serial number of the lens is 3920413. Obviously, if someone tries to sell this lens to you, beware, and please contact me on my email address in the members' list if you are offered the lens or are exposed to any information concerning its whereabouts. As more information about his matter emerges during the investigations, I will post more info about this experience here, as this is a cautionary tale for anyone who buys and sells Leica gear on the internet. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Hi edlaurpic, Take a look here Missing Leica Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 / Series II. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted August 31, 2007 Share #2 Posted August 31, 2007 Sorry to hear this, the stuff of nightmares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 31, 2007 Share #3 Posted August 31, 2007 Wow that flat out ....s. that is a lot of money to lose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted August 31, 2007 Share #4 Posted August 31, 2007 Sorry to hear that. A nightmare indeed. (1) Was the parcel insured to the full value with FedEx? I would be interested to hear how they stand to this. (2) Any signs of the box having been opened? (3) Was the lens supposed to be shipped in the original packaging? If so, have you checked that lens box would have actually fitted into the parcel (isn't a pack of DVDs smaller)? I can give you the MATE box dimensions if you want. I find it hard to believe the lens got lost during transit but I guess you never know. Thanks for posting, I always wondered what one would do in such a case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted September 2, 2007 Share #5 Posted September 2, 2007 Ed - if by chance you used a credit card, the issuer could stop payment... Here's keeping my fingers crossed for you. JB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlaurpic Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share #6 Posted September 23, 2007 Thanks for your comments and emails. The Reno Police Department Fraud and Financial Crimes unit and the Security Division of FedEx have been actively investigating this since I reported what happened. They see this as a felony, either a felony involving fraud or one involving theft, which I suppose is obvious. Suffice to say that they both believe a strong case is coming together against one suspect, but I don't want to respond to your questions or go into this further now while this is a "live" case. Although the suspect has not acknowledged any wrongdoing, he is showing signs of wanting to make this go away, which would happen if he turns over the lens or the cash to replace it. He appears to be seriously considering doing one of the other. If he does either, I will withdraw the criminal complaint. If not the case will go forward and we will see where it ends up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 23, 2007 Share #7 Posted September 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry to hear about your problem. Looking on the (possibly) bright side, it could simply be an address label mix up and there could be someone who'd expected 50 blank disks wondering why he's been sent a camera lens. Hope everything works out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted September 23, 2007 Share #8 Posted September 23, 2007 Ed, What is your gut feeling; has the seller swindled you or was the lense stolen? If the first, who is this guy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted September 23, 2007 Share #9 Posted September 23, 2007 Ed, what thoroughly bad luck. Exactly the kind of thing we're all horrified could happen to us. While the case is still live I'd keep the details to yourself, as you are doing, simply so that should it come to a criminal prosecution you can't be accused of in any fashion prejudicing the outcome. I know that's hardly likely, but still, I'd be hyper-cautious until the matter is resolved. Then, of course, do please tell us everything... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted September 23, 2007 Share #10 Posted September 23, 2007 Thanks for your comments and emails. The Reno Police Department Fraud and Financial Crimes unit and the Security Division of FedEx have been actively investigating this since I reported what happened. They see this as a felony, either a felony involving fraud or one involving theft, which I suppose is obvious. Suffice to say that they both believe a strong case is coming together against one suspect, but I don't want to respond to your questions or go into this further now while this is a "live" case. Although the suspect has not acknowledged any wrongdoing, he is showing signs of wanting to make this go away, which would happen if he turns over the lens or the cash to replace it. He appears to be seriously considering doing one of the other. If he does either, I will withdraw the criminal complaint. If not the case will go forward and we will see where it ends up. Unless you are both located in Reno, wouldn't it fall under a regional (or federal, if state lines were crossed) jursidiction, not the local police? Also, since the authorities have spent their time and taxpayers' money gathering evidence and could make a case without your testimony, or compel you to testify whether you want to or not, do you believe that if you manage to leverage the seller into reimbursing you, that you will be able to simply withdraw the complaint and all will be forgiven? If I were the seller I would have retained my own attorney and all communications would be coming from him. I am not an attorney but I can't imagine it would be easy to prove purposeful fraud on his part unless there were others with the same complaint against him. Did he offer you optional insurance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted September 23, 2007 Share #11 Posted September 23, 2007 Thanks for your comments and emails. The Reno Police Department Fraud and Financial Crimes unit and the Security Division of FedEx have been actively investigating this since I reported what happened. They see this as a felony, either a felony involving fraud or one involving theft, which I suppose is obvious. Suffice to say that they both believe a strong case is coming together against one suspect, but I don't want to respond to your questions or go into this further now while this is a "live" case. Although the suspect has not acknowledged any wrongdoing, he is showing signs of wanting to make this go away, which would happen if he turns over the lens or the cash to replace it. He appears to be seriously considering doing one of the other. If he does either, I will withdraw the criminal complaint. If not the case will go forward and we will see where it ends up. Ed a lot of this over e-bay items and such do get turned over to the FBI since it is a felony with state lines getting crossed it does usually become FBI involvemnet. It maybe worth inquiring about this to the Reno locals and the FBI to see about there involvement . Maybe worth a call at least Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwnedEveryM Posted September 23, 2007 Share #12 Posted September 23, 2007 You are making a big mistake by saying "If he does either, I will withdraw the criminal complaint." Please Don't do it ! I am a police officer. I have often served as a Court Officer as well--the Deputy who sits to the right of the Judge and maintains courtroom order and flow. Dropping the charge--that is, telling the police you won't testify to the truth because all you want is your money back--just lets the perpetrator go free, without a record, to prey on one of us. You are just helping him get away with breaking the law so he can scam another photographer, or wristwatch collector, stamp collector, etc. If he's caught again, and the victim stands behind the law enforcement authorities, this same guy will face the judge in that case as a "first offender" and get off with a plea bargain and probation. If you stand up NOW, he'll have to plea bargain in your case and the FIRST part of that plea bargain will require that you get the lens or your money back. If you "drop the charges" what you are saying to the law enforcement authorities who tracked this guy down and recovered your money is, "All I care about is myself, so thanks fellows. Let this guy go so that he can steal from someone else." Your responsibillty as a citizen is to help the police and courts uphold the law. Taking your money and taking the side of the criminal by refusing stand ready to tell the truth before a judge, just demoralizes the police who worked hard to catch the crook and recover your stolen money. You really have a moral and legal responsibility to see that the law is upheld. The police and prosecutor deserve every citizen's support in doing the job our tax dollars pay them to do. This perpetrator's crime isn't against YOU, it's against the LAW. And ultimately against all of us. It is your DUTY to uphold the law as much as it is that of the police. Saying "Give me mine and let this guy off to screw another camera owner," is playing into his hands. You don't know how many other people he may have scammed because people like you have "withdrawn charges" and there is no record of what he may have done in 2004 or 2002 or 1998. It is NOT a matter of "withdrawning charges" as it would be in a Civil complaint case. This is a criminal case so by saying that you will not testify and help the police YOU are independently taking on the role of judge, jury and prosecutor. Deciding to testify truthfully is the only way to "withdraw charges" in a criminal case. You don't actually bring a criminal charge yourself. Only the prosecutor or a Grand Jury can file a criminal charge. All you do is file a complaint with police that a crime occurred and a statement that you are a victim. By deciding to "drop the case" which you could do in a civil complaint case, what you are really saying is "I'm recanting what I said when I filed the complaint. No crime took place. This suspect was authorized by me to take my money for a while and use it as his own. Sorry to have bothered you, officers." Is that REALLY what you want to do? In a criminal case, the Judge and Jury are suppose to be the ones who decide the issues of whether or not a crime has been committed and what price the perpetrator should pay for committing that crime. You are onlly a witness--and a victim--who, now that you may recover your money, are turning around to thumb your nose at the police, the courts and the law, deciding on your own to free this guy by saying, "I lied when I filed the complaint with police." And then he is free to commit the same crime again. Ask the police and prosecutor if they have a strong case and can force a plea bargain. If so, stand up for yourself and for all of us. The case won't go to trial. Ninety-percent of all cases never see trial no matter what you see on tv. There are 22 court days in a month; our small county has close to 100 criminal cases scheduled a month. If 90 percent weren't settled by plea bargain, we'd need a 20-story Courthouse the another 10 judges. If you stand firm and support local law enforcement, a likely plea bargain would require this guy to give your money back FIRST, then plea to a felony charge with an agreed upon sentence of three years of probation. He, his attorney and the prosecutor would be before the judge for about 3 minutes. With a bang of the gavel the judge would finalize the case, accepting the plea. Not only would you get your lens or money back, but this guy would then have his name and this record entered into the NCIC Computer that tracks cases and criminals nationwide. That computer even contains a field for "stolen cameras" so if any camera or lens theft by mail comes up anywhere, his name will pop up as a possible suspect. Five years from now police can check where he's located to see if any clues in a new case lead to him. If he violates the law anytime during his 3 years probation, he'd likely have to serve the remainder of his term behind bars. That's a strong deterrent. However, remember that some people NEVER learn to drop their criminal ways, always believing that they've learned by getting caught and won't make the same mistake again. Then they go right on stealing from people like you and me. Let me tell you why I know what I am talking about and something about my first hand experience. Google the name Russell Pritchard III. The first hit will start with the story of the FBI prosecuting Pritchard III and his partner George W. Juno, in 2001 for $1.2 million worth of frauds against several people and being convicted in Federal Court. Pritichard served one-year and then was let out on probation. Click on the second hit and the headline reads "Russell Pritchard III Responds To Fraud Complaint Charges" and that's dated 2006, for crimes committed while he was on probation after serving his one-year term. Trial on this new case starts next month. As I said, this case demonstrates that some people who are scam artists never learn even after being convicted. The money they can make is too much to resist and they think they are too smart to be caught twice. I personally know both Russell Pritchard III and George Juno. I know people who have been ripped off by them. Do those names sound familiar ? They might. They were minor tv stars at one time and thought they could get away with anything because they even scammed people right on Public Television? Both were "antique military collectibles experts" on the PBS program Antiques Roadshow for over three years. These "stars" felt untouchable. PBS didn't terminate them until they were indicted by the FBI Fraud Unit, even though the broadcast producers were aware of many complaints. Please don't believe "withdrawing charges" is an acceptable action on your part. It is not in a criminal complaint case. All you are doing is siding with the criminal and seeing that he is quickly released to scam someone else. Go ahead and Google Russell Pritchard III as I suggested, you will find there are at least 31 entries about Mr. Prichard's scam career, running more than three full pages on Google. Don't ask me how many times he and Juno avoided prosecution by outside settlements with parties who had been scammed, but the cases listed on the Google pages were far from the first. And while you are at it, look up George Juno too. He has at least 10 entries including this headline, "Juno Pleads Guilty To 4 Counts Of Fraud & Lying." Don't let the guy who scammed you get off to sucker a Nikon Rangefinder collector or a Hasselblad user. Please support our legal system and duty your duty as an American citizen. Thank you. CPJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted September 24, 2007 Share #13 Posted September 24, 2007 Not wanting to do FBI's or whoever's job here but I find it hard to believe 50DVDs to weigh similar to your lens. To what accuracy does FedEx weigh an item at the start of shipment? You get my point, there should be a record of the shipped weight and I would think it possible to show the sender posted it with the DVDs inside, not the lens. Also, I agree with the post above about your duty as a citizen not to let people get away with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.