Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

jacksonville.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#71

Post by milesf »

acangiano wrote: post #68
techiferous wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obie, sorry to hear about this fiasco. Do you by chance have an example of the solicitations in question? Showing that the solicitation was designed in good faith (and not to confuse people) can go a long way to quell the rumor mill.

IANAL, but you can check Exibit A at the end of the document embedded in this blog post: http://avramc.posterous.com/united-directories-federal-court... Facts: - They clearly state that it's not a bill/invoice. - The fine print explains that there is no obligation to subscribe. - The fine print explains that they are not affiliated with the actual Yellow Pages. - The fine print font is larger than your typical bank s…

What's the deal with Mark Smith's brother Charles?

"In September 2009, a Grand Jury sitting in the Northern District of Georgia indicted Charles Smith for committing mail fraud. He remains a fugitive."

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#72

Post by batasrki »

acangiano wrote: post #68
techiferous wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obie, sorry to hear about this fiasco. Do you by chance have an example of the solicitations in question? Showing that the solicitation was designed in good faith (and not to confuse people) can go a long way to quell the rumor mill.

IANAL, but you can check Exibit A at the end of the document embedded in this blog post: http://avramc.posterous.com/united-directories-federal-court... Facts: - They clearly state that it's not a bill/invoice. - The fine print explains that there is no obligation to subscribe. - The fine print explains that they are not affiliated with the actual Yellow Pages. - The fine print font is larger than your typical bank s…

If it is within the borders, it's just so, not by much. Also, legalities aside, this is unethical business behaviour and I wouldn't want to be associated with it in any shape or form.

But, hey, maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#73

Post by acangiano »

batasrki wrote: post #72
acangiano wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but you can check Exibit A at the end of the document embedded in this blog post: http://avramc.posterous.com/united-directories-federal-court... Facts: - They clearly state that it's not a bill/invoice. - The fine print explains that there is no obligation to subscribe. - The fine print explains that they are not affiliated with the actual Yellow Pages. - The fine print font is larger than your typical bank s…

If it is within the borders, it's just so, not by much. Also, legalities aside, this is unethical business behaviour and I wouldn't want to be associated with it in any shape or form. But, hey, maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity.

I think in this case, there is such thing as bad publicity. And as much as it may be unfair, I'd be surprised if this story didn't affect Hashrocket as well (which is not guilty of any wrongdoing).

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#74

Post by [deleted] »

milesf wrote: post #71
acangiano wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but you can check Exibit A at the end of the document embedded in this blog post: http://avramc.posterous.com/united-directories-federal-court... Facts: - They clearly state that it's not a bill/invoice. - The fine print explains that there is no obligation to subscribe. - The fine print explains that they are not affiliated with the actual Yellow Pages. - The fine print font is larger than your typical bank s…

What's the deal with Mark Smith's brother Charles? "In September 2009, a Grand Jury sitting in the Northern District of Georgia indicted Charles Smith for committing mail fraud. He remains a fugitive."

[deleted]

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#75

Post by ryanwaggoner »

pvg wrote: post #67
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people named in the complaint are executives of Hashrocket, then it has something to do with Hashrocket, however indirectly. This seems pretty pedantic. If a VP at Google gets arrested for domestic violence, that hardly means that it "has something to do with Google".

It is, only if you make up an example quite unlike the one at hand. If an exec of a firm gets charged with fraud, it's not a piece of information you'd ignore when doing business with that firm, even if the fraud charges are regarding another venture. Suppose you're negotiating a deal with some company and in the process they tell you 'Oh, a couple of our key executives were just charged with fraud. But, really, this…

I concede the point :)

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#76

Post by xenopia »

acangiano wrote: post #68
techiferous wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obie, sorry to hear about this fiasco. Do you by chance have an example of the solicitations in question? Showing that the solicitation was designed in good faith (and not to confuse people) can go a long way to quell the rumor mill.

IANAL, but you can check Exibit A at the end of the document embedded in this blog post: http://avramc.posterous.com/united-directories-federal-court... Facts: - They clearly state that it's not a bill/invoice. - The fine print explains that there is no obligation to subscribe. - The fine print explains that they are not affiliated with the actual Yellow Pages. - The fine print font is larger than your typical bank s…

This kind of deceptive business is quite common, and they usually get away with it. It would be naive to think that the Feds have the resources to go after every company that engages in deceptive marketing. There is something more here. They have taken the trouble to get access to bank accounts, this is no minor step. I think they saw enough in those accounts to warrant going after this. While there may well have been a sweep account involved, the document seems to clearly imply that they looked at the pattern of individual deposits coming in from the "customers." To say that this is some overzealous prosecutor desperate for fame seems a bit hasty.

Consider that they pulled records of how many business reply cards came into the PO box and compared that to how many names were actually published in the book. They compared that to the bank accounts. While I have my doubts that the actual solicitation was illegal and that the total dollar amounts were so high, there seems to be more here than just an out of control prosecutor.

If United billed far more names than they actually published in the book, that would be fraud.

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#77

Post by xenopia »

duckpunch wrote: post #16
washed wrote: post #5

Mark Smith funded and funds Hashrocket. Hashrocket isn't profitable without Mark Smith. If Obie had no knowledge of this scam then I feel sorry for him and this situation. I guess "The Rails Maturity Model", the Hashrocket Way and BizConf includes taking scam money and pretending to be profitable.

You're confusing Hashrocket, the web development company, with United Directories, the company being charged. The people being charged are essentially initial investors. Pointing a finger at Hashrocket in this scenario is not unlike blaming every startup that was invested in by an angel or VC that later ended up involved in fraudulent activity. None of this means that Hashrocket is not at all at fault, but based on t…

The two executives charged seem to be a bit more than passive investors, considering they are right on Hashrocket's site. One is the CFO. That's not good.

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#78

Post by ryantownsend »

obiefernandez wrote: post #23

Importantly: 1) Hashrocket has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal complaint 2) In the USA people are innocent until proven guilty Now if you're interested in this case, read on... There are hundreds of independent yellow pages (including Yellow Pages United) that legally use the term Yellow Pages and the "walking fingers" logo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Pages My partners have been doing direct mail…

Not really related to the story, but can someone explain to me why Americans put '$425MM', where does the second M come from? Here in the UK we'd just put '£425m'? Just curious because I saw DHH use MM too.

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#79

Post by yxhuvud »

acangiano wrote: post #68
techiferous wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obie, sorry to hear about this fiasco. Do you by chance have an example of the solicitations in question? Showing that the solicitation was designed in good faith (and not to confuse people) can go a long way to quell the rumor mill.

IANAL, but you can check Exibit A at the end of the document embedded in this blog post: http://avramc.posterous.com/united-directories-federal-court... Facts: - They clearly state that it's not a bill/invoice. - The fine print explains that there is no obligation to subscribe. - The fine print explains that they are not affiliated with the actual Yellow Pages. - The fine print font is larger than your typical bank s…

The way you phrase this, it seems more of a trade mark violation than anything else.

Re: Hashrocket execs (not Obie) charged in $425 million mail fraud case

#80

Post by marclove »

xenopia wrote: post #69
xenopia wrote: post #60

Read for yourself. http://bit.ly/united_dir_filing And while I wish I could say I was a super L33T hacker, I'm afraid these docs are public record if you are set up to look.

So on taking a further look at the court filing I think what we have here is your basic "real world spam" business model. Unfortunately these things are all over the place as they are a proven way to generate money by sending out a firehose of solicitations for an essentially useless "service". Looking at the solicitation it clearly covers it's ass with all sorts of disclaimers, despite looking deceptively like a bil…

After reading the complaint, I came to a similar conclusion. Was it fraud & money laundering? That's for the court to decide and they have a presumption of innocence.

Regardless of that outcome though (and assuming United Directories doesn't dispute that Exhibit A is one of their advertisements), its pretty clearly a shady business in my mind. While technically (probably) legal, its a spammy business model that adds very little value.

Its not really fair to Hashrocket employees that this will taint Hashrocket's reputation, but it unfortunately will to some extent.

Oh and totally agreed about the whole -- if your brother's already been indicted for the same exact thing and is currently a fugitive you might want to rethink the business model -- thing. That just shows a complete lack of common sense.

Post reply on HN