Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Your Rights Online

SEC Lifts Ax For Minnesota Stock-Price Spammer 210

Posted by timothy from the suhwing-batta-batta-batta dept.
thejuggler writes "A call to Samuel Meltzer's St. Paul home is greeted with the message that he doesn't want to be bothered by solicitations. But, this story in a Minneapolis newspaper tells how the Feds and SEC claim he is a huge spammer. They claim he sends out spam spreading false and misleading information about various penny stocks. So far he has made at least $159,600 in stock and cash from 1998-2001 for spreading this false information. In a brief interview Tuesday, Meltzer (The evil spammer), 37, said he hadn't seen the complaint. "This is a surprise," he added."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SEC Lifts Ax For Minnesota Stock-Price Spammer More

SEC Lifts Ax For Minnesota Stock-Price Spammer

Comments Filter:

  • Heh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:40PM (#5336777)


    So a spammer doesn't want to be bothered by solicitations. You won't need to take your iron supplements today, folks! There's irony a-plenty here.

  • Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (Score:5, Funny)

    by ConeFish ( 216294 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:41PM (#5336787) Homepage
    We could rid ourselves of all these spammers if we just brought back the Spanish Inquisition.... although it seems as if the feds and SEC might already be getting their help....

  • Someone get his address? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pfguy ( 321202 )
    Think we can do to him what we did to the last spammer that caught media attention?

    Snail spam to the rescue.

  • If he thinks that's a surprise (Score:5, Funny)

    by Brandeissansoo ( 553129 ) <tcraig AT brandeis DOT edu> on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:42PM (#5336803)
    Just wait until he tries to take a shower in prison.

  • Hello? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "This is a surprise"
    Guess he should start answering his phone...
  • Besides sending the unsolicited e-mails, the SEC said Meltzer created numerous Web sites to spread misinformation given to him by stock promoters. To conceal his identity -- and avoid the detection of Web hosts seeking to stop Internet spam -- Meltzer operated under at least 30 different assumed Internet identities, the SEC said. Some alias' are as follows: MELTzURISGOD, H4X0Rd00d, MNGUY2000, CWBYNL, ...

  • Surprised it still works (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:43PM (#5336829) Journal
    This guy may well be mistaken identity, but if the allegations are true, he is surely in for a surprise. I don't know his state's laws, but let's hope they get in on the works.

    I have given up communicating on stock boards mainly because of the nature of these kinds of posts - hype. But then again, I'm not sure what I was looking for in reading those boards anyway.

  • I hope the FCC gets this guy. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by inteller ( 599544 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:43PM (#5336833)
    but if he only made that much money in the time said, that's not much better than a decently paid programmer. Is this guy really the big fish? how much money do the penis enlargers and 2 week MBA guys make?

  • Happened before (?) (Score:3, Informative)

    by beef3k ( 551086 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:44PM (#5336836)
    I seem to remember a TV show about a 16 year old that made a lot of money this way, i.e. buy a lot of cheap stock in some company, send out thousands of email tipping people off: "Watch this stock, it'll really roof in a week". Thousands of other buy the stock and the price on it goes up.

    I think he got to keep 500k or something, the rest was taken away (by who I don't remember).

  • so this is the guy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by simpl3x ( 238301 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:45PM (#5336856)
    who faxes me all this crap about great stocks! each one has a different number to call to be removed from the various lists, so you can never effectively opt out. this is why we need a national opt in database! and, now he has a name... and an address... and a telephone number... i do wonder what lists his name will be entered on!

  • Evil Spammer (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Shouldn't that be the alleged evil spammer? Come on, even spammers are innocent until proven guilty.
  • He's probably just like us... too busy deleting spam from his inbox...

  • Correction to Story (Score:5, Funny)

    by doublem ( 118724 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:45PM (#5336865) Homepage Journal
    Alleged evil spammer

    Let's not commit libel here. He may be innocent.

    Of course if he IS a Spammer, I'd saw we draw and quarter him.

    • Now now, we should do this scientifically (Score:5, Funny)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @04:11PM (#5337726) Homepage
      Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with spammers?
      Peasant 1: quarter them!
      Sir Bedevere: And what do you quarter, apart from spammers?
      Peasant 1: More spammers!
      Peasant 2: Videogames!
      Sir Bedevere: Correct. Now, why do spammers quarter?
      Peasant 3: ...because they're... Videogames?
      Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether he is a Videogame?
      Peasant 1: Dominate Japan with him!
      Sir Bedevere: But don't we also dominate Japan with excessively cute rodentia iconography?
      Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
      Sir Bedevere: Now, do videogames withstand a slashdotting? [goodoldadventures.com]
      Peasant 1: No, no... Throw him to the Trolls!
      Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else does not withstand a slashdotting?
      Peasant 1: Apples!
      Peasant 2: IIS!
      Peasant 3: Very small rocks!
      Peasant 2: Debian! KDE Mirrors for minor upgrades!
      Peasant 1: Mindstorms Segway Scooters!
      Peasant 2: Beers cooled by Jet Engine exhaust!
      Peasant 3: Matrix Movies!
      Peasant 2: The RIAA!
      Peasant 3: Churches! Churches!

      King Taco: Atari 800s! [kl.net]

      All Peasants: Ooooooooo....
      Sir Bedevere: Exactly! So logically...
      Peasant 1: If... he... computes as fast as... an Atari 800... he's a videogame.
      Sir Bedevere: And therefore?
      Peasant 1: ... A spammer!
      Peasant 2: A Spammer!
      crowd: A Spammer! A Spammer!

      Bedevere: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of mob logic?
      King Taco: I am CmdrTaco, King of the Geekins.
      Bedevere: My liege!

    • no....he's definately a spammer....what is alledged/under investigation is whether he was involved in fraudulent market manipulation

  • $159k (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nherc ( 530930 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:47PM (#5336885) Journal
    $159k over 3+ years isn't exactly a killing, especially for something he was spending a considerable amount of his time on (read: full time job).

    Perhaps the lower and lower profit margains on this type of activity will eventually put an end to sonafabitches like this.

    • > $159k over 3+ years isn't exactly a killing,
      > especially for something he was spending a
      > considerable amount of his time on (read: full
      > time job).

      Anything over a hundred thousand dollars in three years is fucking incredible. As a netadmin (and programmer, and web master, and ISO 900x form designer, and part time journalist, and data enterer, and end user support dude, and machine setup guy) that could bring his company down with a simple push of a button (I'm in a room with all the servers, and that UPS switch looks mighty inviting at times), half that amount would be a pretty sweet raise. Heck, you can also figure in that he wouldn't have to spend four thousand dollars over those three years to pay for the gas for the commute. Heck, all that commuting has cost me a good six or seven thousand dollars on my car if you also count wear and tear (and that replacement engine) over the last three years.

      Wow. This guy has a dream job. Work from home, exploit stupid people, make fifty thousand dollars a year with far fewer expenses. Shit, if only I had less in the way of ethics and morals....

      -JC
      http://www.jc-news.com/

  • The two problems (which impact more than e-mail) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mdog ( 25508 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:47PM (#5336886) Homepage
    (1) You (and I) get too much spam.

    (2) Your e-mail system administrator (and mine) need to keep beefing up the servers because the sheer volume of e-mail is growing so quickly.

    To a first approximations, filters solve (1) but not (2), and black hole lists solve (2).

    whirlycott summarizes the problem with (2) in two words: "collateral damage." How much of the e-mail network do we need to destroy in order to save it?

    We need to move past first approximations. We need systems that work at the server level, but that somehow address the problems of collateral damage and false positives.

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. Any network messaging medium is vulnerable to abuse by spammers. The problem started with Netnews, it continued with e-mail, it's happening now with instant messaging. We need at least high level solution that helps solve the problem regardless of prototcol.

    I wish I had one.
    • Check out Postini: http://www.postini.com/ [postini.com]

      I work for an ISP, and we've implemented this as our anti-spam and anti-virus solution for our subscribers. It could not have worked out better -- we make money, our customers get less spam (almost none, really, and very few false positives), and our platform is much more healthy because the crap is blocked before it gets to our network.

      The only downside is that it must be implemented by the mail provider -- individuals can't sign up for the service directly. Other than that, it's win-win.

    • Re:The two problems (which impact more than e-mail (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @04:23PM (#5337847) Homepage Journal
      I think the only "real" solution would be to IDP the places that are known for being effective spamhausen. You know, failing to recognize them at the router level.

      That there are mail servers bouncing mail from *.cn and *.br is a start, but think of it, what if the 'net at large just said that these people don't exist? It's true that it blocks the innocent users as well, but think of the domino effect: innocent users on foobar.com.br can't read google, bitches at sysadmin, threatens attrition (or just simply votes with his feet and moves to foobaz.com.br). Management sees bottom line, asks why, sysadmins say people are moving off because they can't talk to the 'net through them. Management *theoretically* investigates why and determines the reason they are no longer on the 'net is because they let a spammer sign a pink contract with them and people gave him the Internet Death Penalty.

      So yeah, it's a nasty way to go, but it closes another door and tells the rogue admins that we ain't gonna take it no more.


    • (1) You (and I) get too much spam.

      (2) Your e-mail system administrator (and mine) need to keep beefing up the servers because the sheer volume of e-mail is growing so quickly.

      To a first approximations, filters solve (1) but not (2), and black hole lists solve (2).


      I question the validity of the statement "black hole lists solve (2)".
      Block lists have been tried for many years now.
      The quantity of spam has steadily increased during that time, even if you only include spam comming from unblocked IPs.
      Based on the spam I've received in the past six months,
      the quantity of spam comming from listed IPs is realtively constant,
      all the increases have come from unlisted IP addresses.

      -- this is not a .sig

    • Well then, let's make public the RIGHT analogy! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by uptownguy ( 215934 ) <UptownGuyEmail@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @11:02PM (#5340770)
      This is only the tip of the iceberg. Any network messaging medium is vulnerable to abuse by spammers. The problem started with Netnews, it continued with e-mail, it's happening now with instant messaging. We need at least high level solution that helps solve the problem regardless of prototcol.

      So, how do you get the word to motivate people to act on this mushrooming problem? One way that I can think of is by giving them a new way to think about it. Relate it to something that they understand...

      Spam is not junk mail.

      Spam is litter on the information superhighway.

      Its trash. Pure and simple trash that gets in the way of people communicating with each other. And pretty soon this garbage will be everywhere. On the sides of roads, in the streets, in our driveways. We won't be able to go anywhere because of this TRASH.

      Besides...your POSTAL MAILBOX isn't about communication anymore. The only kinds of mail you get in your postal mailbox are BILLS and your MAGAZINES and NEWSLETTERS and CATALOGS. Come on, does anyone send US mail now except for at the holidays? Or to grandma? Except, heck, Grannie's on AOL now, too.

      That's what the word SPAM was coined for. (The history of the word is a different topic for a different (overly rehashed) post.) But the fact was, a new word was needed and SPAM arrived to fill the need: To let people know that this wasn't regular junk mail. Pretty much ALL postal mail (besides checks) is junk mail, anyway...

      But SPAM is too soft. Too cuddly. SPAM doesn't convey the sense of urgency that is needed...

      I think it would be effective if people started calling it for what it is: Trash, Garbage ...and most of all...

      Pollution!

  • Fools and their money... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:48PM (#5336904) Homepage
    This always struck me as such a weird crime.

    I mean, who is stupid enough to make serious investment decisions based on unsolicited email? Is there something I'm missing here? Somebody explain this to me!

    • It doesn't take much.

      We're talking about penny stock. So theoretically, if you could get even 50 people to make small purchases, that would up the amount of trading going on for that stock, which sets off alarms all over the world, with people who are monitoring penny stocks for movement. Remember, it's based on percentages. So you don't really see (unless you know what you're doing, which most folks don't) that the stock went from selling 5 shares a day to selling 50 shares a day. You see that it went up 1000%.

      So then all those people jump on it, looking to invest pennies and ride a short spike and then dump it. Probably doubling their money at least. Going from 1 cent to 2 cents, or 2 to 4 or 3 to 6, etc isn't hard, and that is technically doubling your money.

      So what happens is a few people make dumb decisions, a bunch of other people think those few people know something special, so they jump on it and so on. Before you know it you have a thousand people pumping money into a wothless stock. By the time everyone realizes what a dog they've bought, it's too late. They've already paid 40 cents for a 2 cent stock. Then a massive sell-off happens, which drives the stock into the dirt again, making it even more wothless.

      Of course, this asshole had already bought a ton of it beforehand for pennies, then spent the whole time selling it to the newcommers for huge profit. I'm not sure if it's illegal, but it should be.

    • Somebody explain this to me!

      Simple: greed. The force that drives people to become investors in the first place is the same force that clouds judgement, the same force that says "don't sell it, the stock price will go back up!", the same force that makes people believe in things that are too good to be true.
    • ...you haven't read your own sig recently, have you?

      People want to believe they're special. Being on the inside of a deal like this makes 'em feel special. That's all there is to it. Kinda funny actually - we here tend to disregard what the general population thinks about all sorts of stuff and we're usually better for it, except the old rule of "If it's too good to be true..." still holds firm - we know we're special, just like everybody else.

      Triv

    • As the adage goes. . . (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.

      In a world where there are actually people who make investment decisions based on newspaper astrology columns and mortgage their homes to buy lottery tickets ( so that they're sure to win) nothing surprises me very much.

      The fact of the matter is that most people aren't very bright. Get used to it. The world is populated by most people.

      KFG
    • Short answer, Me. Let me explain. This could influence the price of a stock. I can predict the directionof the near term stock price. Check the server stats. If it's new, check the history of the stock price. If the price hasn't jumped up yet, jump on board knowing that it's a scam. If the price has already jumped up, you are too late to ride it up. Don't buy to ride it back down. Plan on not holding but bail right after the price goes up. In other words, take advantage of the spammers work.

  • Stock Tip: McDonalds sucks. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by $$$$$exyGal ( 638164 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:49PM (#5336913) Homepage Journal
    Everyone should sell their McDonalds [yahoo.com] stock immediately! The stock is going down down down. Only suckers would keep it. They are being sued left and right, and it's only gonna get worse. Plus the fact that their restaurants are grimy, and they are slow, and their prices are kept artificially low (read Fast Food Nation).

    Now, is the SEC gonna come and get me? What if I'm selling short?

    --sex [slashdot.org]

    • Oh fsck! I'm selling my McDonald's stock right now!

      BTW--Krispy Kreme (KK) is going up up up! Buy now! I have few shares if anyone wants to buy...

    • Look, nobody ever accused securities laws of being sensible. It is based on the premise that people lacking a bit in the brilliance department need a bit of help on the side.

      Such people are likely to do silly things, and it's only natural that any laws devised to deal with this issue will be inately insensible in some respect or other.

      It's law reductio ad absurdum

      On the converse side though, although these laws have proven entirely ineffective at preventing such people from ultimately being fleeced, it does at least provide for the social benifit that the fleecers have to provide some modicum of real value before unltimately making of with the booty.

      Like vinyl siding for instance.

      KFG
    • I'd sell it anyways-- the last time I ate there (coincidence, I think not), they served me rotten eggs. Rotten eggs and cold hash browns.

      Oddly enough, if I didn't have gift certificates coming out my ass, I wouldn't eat at any fast food restaurant-- Local restaurants are about the same for a meal (minus the soda) as a fast food joint-- and the food is a hell of a lot better. /Ex

  • It's called a pump and dump scam. (Score:3, Funny)

    by gpinzone ( 531794 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:50PM (#5336923) Homepage Journal
    Just because he used email instead of cold calling little old ladies in a rest home, this makes it "news for nerds?"

    Did he at least use Linux to send out the spam? Come on, give us some reason to care about this article.
  • In a brief forum Wednsday, Slashdot (The home of geeks), 5, readers said they hadn't seen the complaint. "He should go to jail," they added."

  • Something hit me after reading this: Are the tricks and games played in the "old internet days" when everything was hype still working? There are new people logging in, true, but with the endless popup/pr0n/commercial aspect of the net these days, who doesn't get wise quickly?

    I'm simply amazed that the internet is now a global "idiot born every day" domain where any old trick still works like a charm. Yawn. When will this simply be as much news as someone buying "land in arizona" sight unseen?

  • Pink Sheets & dormant shells (Score:5, Informative)

    by scoove ( 71173 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:51PM (#5336945)
    While it's nice to see the "don't bug us, we're woefully underpaid and overworked" SEC finally going after one of these parasites, it's too bad they have to get geeked out about the whole spam bit to do so. That's only the tip of the iceberg on these pink sheet [pinksheets.com] company abuses.

    I got taken by a pink sheet bulletin board stock deal in the mid-90s. We put a good company and $15 million of local investor capital into what's called a dormant shell - a publically trading company that perhaps didn't make it in a former life, got kicked off of NASDAQ (or never made it), is probably late on SEC filings, and is operationally dormant. You can buy these things for a quarter million or so in Nevada, apparently.

    The whole pitch is "you can go public for much less than an IPO, and get a publically trading stock which is much more liquid for your investors and allows you to get more investing money for less equity." The reality is that the shell's broker gets a credible asset in the shell to use for pump & dump.

    The only problem is that every single one of them I've come across has had a controlling parasite "broker" in the middle - as was the one we encountered. The broker broke all the merger terms by refusing to hand over control of the company. He illegally siezed the company and the millions invested and looted it all. Ficticious board resolutions were used to change who could sign on the company bank accounts, etc. Offshore Bermuda accounts were used to funnel things to Swiss accounts - sounds hollywood, but it was very effective.

    By the time the courts caught up with it all, the company was absent any cash or assets. The SEC's response? "Sorry - We have too many people doing this to be able to help you. Call your congressperson and ask them to increase our funding." Seriously.

    Two years ago, I thought I found a company that had this background that wasn't a scam. WaveRider, a manufacturer of near-line of sight 900 MHz proprietary fixed wireless gear. Then I found the parasite, the Bermuda angle and the Swiss angle. It has since gone from $1/share to around $0.12. Like the best of these deals, the parasite retains competent management that really truly believes it has a chance. But they never do - not when legal control of the company is closely held by the parasite.

    So... before you invest in a bulletin board stock, look for the parasite. Late on SEC filings? Run. See a Bermuda/Swiss connection? Run. Nevada corporation? Be very nervous. Read that 10K and 10Qs very, very closely.

    Oh, and what ever happened to our parasite? He's still pushing his stocks and has avoided SEC and IRS enforcement for years. He's grown rather confident that he's untouchable and is probably right...

    *scoove*

    • Here's another one that's going on at this moment, CMKM [yahoo.com]. In one fell swoop, without any public notice, they went from having 352 million shares outstanding to over 7 billion, effectively wiping out existing stockholders in the blink of an eye. They have a horrible website [cmkmdiamonds.com] too.

    • Re:Pink Sheets & dormant shells (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @03:16PM (#5337189)
      > While it's nice to see the "don't bug us, we're woefully underpaid and overworked" SEC finally going after one of these parasites, it's too bad they have to get geeked out about the whole spam bit to do so.

      Your point about this particular pump-and-dump being the tip of an iceberk of OTCBB "pink sheet" abuse is well-made.

      From where I sit, the sad part is that the SEC generally isn't geeked out about spam. It comes down to resources.

      I mean, anyone can Google for meltzer stock spammer [google.com] and find piles of stuff.

      A cursory reading of ROKSO [makeashorterlink.com] reveals this particular ring has a record going back to 1997, including death threats. (Cripes, this is the ETMP spammer from 199teyfucking7!)

      Why the hell does it take SIX GODDAMN YEARS to take down one pump-and-dump dirtball?

      And he's just one of dozens.

      Stock fraud continues because justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

      A six-year delay between the start of the scam and the SEC finally issuing a "Stop breaking the law, or we'll make you sign a consent decree wherein you don't admit to guilt but promise not to break the law in the future" is unacceptable.

      It's unacceptable because it's not just useless - it's worse than useless - it's practically an invitation to dirtballs from around the world to get into the fraud business, because by the time the SEC actually catches onto the scam, the scammed money has either left the country or has been laundered.

      If anyone from HomeSec is reading this - hook up with some SEC folks. Fund them. Fund the hell out of them. Because if even a tenth of the pump-and-dump scams are being used for money laundering (as opposed to mere fraud), you've got one hell of a conduit for drug money and/or terror money, and the SEC's Enforcement Division as currently set up, clearly doesn't have the resources to stop it.

      My nose rankles at my use of the word "mere" to describe stock fraud - but it's a reflection of reality, which is that the government doesn't give a fuck about "mere" fraud, because it's only the serfs getting ripped off, and the dumb serfs at that. So to hell with the serfs. It's no excuse for being blind to the the opportunity for money laundering (perhaps more precisely, the opportunity to camouflage money laundering) brought on by continual, ongoing pump-and-dump stock fraud operations. And honestly, maybe that is more HomeSec's bailiwick than the SEC's. But the two organizations definitely need to start sharing data, and they need to start now.

      • Your point about this particular pump-and-dump being the tip of an iceberk of OTCBB "pink sheet" abuse is well-made.

        But, there must be some way to benefit indirectly from someone else's pump-and-dump operation. When you receive spam about a fresh company, you could buy in quickly and then unload it after a certain period of time before the 'dump' phase kicks in.
        • > But, there must be some way to benefit indirectly from someone else's pump-and-dump operation. When you receive spam about a fresh company, you could buy in quickly and then unload it after a certain period of time before the 'dump' phase kicks in.

          Actually, that's much easier said than done. It sounds great on paper - and like all "easy money" ideas, it really only serves the interest of the stock scammer.

          The reason this sort of fraud is concentrated in the pink sheets is due to the relative illiquidity of penny stocks.

          In a liquid market (say, Microsft - MSFT) millions of shares change hands each day, and hundreds (if not thousands) of people are willing to sell you their stock.

          In an illiquid market, there may only be a handful of participants. The only seller, for instance, is likely to be the "pumper" - because he's already accumulated the stock at a steep discount.

          So - your "buy in quickly" part - doesn't work, because you're buying from the scammer. If the stock's at $0.05, the scammer might sell you 1000 shares at $0.06, and another 1000 at $0.07. He's not likely to sell you 1,000,000 at $0.08 - because he'd rather find some poor sucker willing to buy 1000 at $0.09 - so he can sell (you!) his 1,000,000 at $0.10.

          Your "and then unload it" part also fails in an illiquid market. You're not going to be sold much stock unless you pay far more than it's worth. And if you've got lots of stock, to whom are you going to sell it? Once the pumper dumps you his 1,000,000 shares at $0.10, he's out of the market, and certainly isn't going to be buying from you at $0.11. Or $0.10.

          You're now the proud owner of 1,000,000 shares of worthless stock. You might sell some of it to stragglers to the game at $0.11, but the pump and dump is done - you're left holding the bag. When the buyers go away (the spammer isn't going to send out another load of emails to encourage anyone else to buy it!), the bid/ask spread widens up, and you're left holding the bag.

          A few months later, you see someone bidding $0.04 for 900,000 shares, and now that you've been had, you realize that's better than nothing. That's the scammer, buying the stock back for the next round.

          Remember - if you're sitting at a poker table and you don't know who the sucker is, it's you.

          • Actually, that's much easier said than done. It sounds great on paper - and like all "easy money" ideas, it really only serves the interest of the stock scammer.

            Exactly (and well stated, btw). When I discovered concerns about WaveRider for instance, I received several contacts telling me confidentially to bug off as these folks were expecting to game the gamers.

            Because it's such a matter of timing, you just cannot beat the dealer, as TackHead indicated. Don't forget too that there usually appears to be a relationship between the market maker and the parasite - though I've never seen enough on that aspect to fully understand how its being exploited.

            The other thing to watch for on some of these shell games is acquisitions of nothing companies when the company has gone into a dormant period. This is a "reloading of stock" move by the parasite.

            Yes, the SEC has got to make enforcement visible, rather than complain about being underfunded - (yes, guys, we're all overworked these days. Be glad you're employed!)

            *scoove*
        • When you receive spam about a fresh company, you could buy in quickly and then unload it after a certain period of time before the 'dump' phase kicks in.

          What if you are the last one that received the email, the price has jumped by the time you "jump" to buy it, and 1 day later the scammer sells, driving the price down?

          Trying to do what you say is akin to trying to catch an arrow in mid flight.
        • No, because you are already late to the game. The 'dump' starts at the same time as the 'pump.'

    • The only problem is that every single one of them I've come across has had a controlling parasite "broker" in the middle - as was the one we encountered. The broker broke all the merger terms by refusing to hand over control of the company. He illegally siezed the company and the millions invested and looted it all. Ficticious board resolutions were used to change who could sign on the company bank accounts, etc. Offshore Bermuda accounts were used to funnel things to Swiss accounts - sounds hollywood, but it was very effective.

      Damn. Sounds like your dirtball needs to piss off the wrong guy - it would be a shame if he screwed over some mafia boss' nephew.

    • you realise that the bush administration has further hampered the sec's ability to do its job, right?
    • Wow. As another replier said, it's amazing there are this many pussies in this country. I mean, there are business deals where you win and business deals where you lose. But as an entrepreneur, if somebody did that to my company, well, they'd find themselves on the unwelcome end of a .357 magnum. Of course, I'd have an unassailable alibi. And it might not happen for 6 months, or even a year. Revenge can take its time. But really, it seems like you would have to be a fucking crackhead to try to screw over entrepreneurs in this way. I mean, you screw over a bunch of investors for a few grand each, nobody is gonna be mad enough to kill you (beat you to a modest pulp maybe). But screw over an entrepreneur with years of his life invested in a company, his own money and time, his faith and credit on the line with his investors? That is a foolish force to fuck with indeed. He just might have you wacked. Then you are a dead scumbag broker. And nobody is likely to cry about it.

  • The problem with spammers... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shamashmuddamiq ( 588220 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:52PM (#5336955)
    ...is that they make a life out of deception and lies. They consider themselves "good people" (and they really believe that). I'm sure if you look into this guy's financial history, you'll find lots of problems: bankruptcy, maxed out credit cards, unpaid loans, etc.

    If you bring any moral charges against him, it will be like talking to a brick wall. He's already rationalized it all away in his own mind. Even though he will often bring the very same moral charges against other people, he will defend (or deny) his own actions down to the last detail.

    It's called "hypocrisy". We all do it. However, when this guy does it, it's just a little more annoying.

  • Let me get this straight (Score:5, Funny)

    by Virtex ( 2914 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:53PM (#5336965)
    They claim he sends out spam spreading false and misleading information about various penny stocks.

    You mean to tell me that somebody's sending out spam with false and misleading information? Oh, come on now! Surely you're not serious! Next you'll be telling me that people are sending out spam with faked return addresses.

  • Nothing like trial by media. (Score:3, Funny)

    by WankersRevenge ( 452399 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @02:59PM (#5337015)
    Slashdot looks to join the crowd [theonion.com]

  • Meltzer has a long history... (Score:5, Informative)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @03:10PM (#5337117)
    Here [google.com] is the record of nanae discussions involving him. Here [spamhaus.org] he is on ROKSO, the spamhaus.org register of known spam operations. The long-running pump-n-dump spammer. He finally got nailed, eh? Good! And we've already done Ralsky. Now for the diploma guy...

  • Another culprit (Score:4, Funny)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @03:12PM (#5337142) Journal
    "The SEC labeled him a "professional Internet spammer."

    They might also want to take a look at Britney_caught_xXx_HOTHOTHOT@hotmail.com as well. This young woman has cunningly persuaded me ( weilding the lure of false information and promises) to spend at least $8,550 on internnet "entertainment" between 1999 and the present. I demand that action be taken.

  • A good movie where and investment firm pushed sales of stock in a fake company that they made up. Here it seems the guy picked crappy companies at random and tried to push their stock, so he could sell his own shares.
    If you haven't seen Boiler Room [imdb.com], I highly recommend it. It has Vin Diesel, Giavanni Ribisi, and Ben Affleck, but still manages to be a great movie.
  • If you complain about Spam on an airliner, will you get reported to the Homeland Security types?

  • This is the best spam control (Score:3, Interesting)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @03:26PM (#5337272)
    The best spam control isn't new laws about who can send mail or newer and fancier statistical analysis filters, it's vigorous and severe punishment for the fraudulent schemes/products pushed through email.

    Even if you passed a law that said "No spamming" the people running spam servers or doing bulk emailing would still be nearly impossible to catch since they can be hijacking open relays or using false-name disposable mail servers.

    But ALL of the spam ultimately has a 'reachable' person there to collect the money, and that provides the perfect means to catch the PEOPLE invovled.

    If the fraud merchants behind these schemes began to get indicted and convicted with a visible public frequency, it might start to have a real impact on spam. It wouldn't be a 100% perfect solution, but it would stave off needless government regulation of email which 'spam' laws would need to be effective and it might scare off a big chunk of the amateurs and part-timers trying to run their own solo operations.

    I'd love to see that spam bitch from Florida that was on Slashdot a few months ago lose that house, the SUV and all the other goodies she has as she tries to ward off a federal wire fraud investigation. I know she was just acting as an advertising service, but isn't aiding and abetting illegal too?

  • It would be a shame (Score:5, Informative)

    by SquadBoy ( 167263 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @03:35PM (#5337361) Homepage Journal
    if someone were to link to documents that have his address in them.

    http://www.wa.gov/ago/pubs/ChippynetComplaintfor Re lief.pdf

  • Gee, I'm glad they're prosecuting serious frauds.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alea ( 122080 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @03:35PM (#5337363)
    I mean... $159,600... wow, no wonder the U.S. economy is down the tubes. It's great that SEC has plenty of time to fry these gnats and beat the war drums, showing they're doing their jobs, so they don't have to go after the multi-billion dollar scam people like Enron, WorldCom, and all the others that have covered their tracks by now.

    Spam bugs me as much a next person, but if this is biggest fish they're going to catch that way, I'm sure all those investors and pension plan holders would rather the guns were turned on some more worthy target.

    It's amazing how well the war hysteria has worked at smoothing over the corporate scandals. And now spam too...

    • This is much worse than that (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SysKoll ( 48967 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @05:58PM (#5338827)

      I don't think you accurately measure the damage this guy has done. He made $160k. Not much on the Enron/Worldcom Pimping Scale (TM), I agree. But in order for him to make a buck, a certain stock has to be pumped up with the hard-won cash of countless small investors. These people collectively lost much more than $160k when the bastard dumped the stocks.

      It's not a zero-sum game. Like most other criminal activity, each dollar of illicit profit is actually creating tens of dollars of damage. So we're talking millions of destroyed wealth here.

      Also, don't forget that countless other shitbags would be thinking twice before attempting pump-and-dump schemes now thanks to this deterring case.

      Be thankful to the SEC that they finally condescend to catch the kind of miserable bastards that defraud the small people, instead of devoting all its time licking the wounds of multi-billion investors.

      -- SysKoll

      • Re:This is much worse than that (Score:4, Informative)

        by Alea ( 122080 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @06:37PM (#5339209)
        You make a very good point about the magnitude of the loss vs. the spammer's gain.

        But the same argument applies to the Enron collapse. The tens and hundreds of millions that the executives walked away represents not only the loss of some big time investors, but countless small investors (several in the company itself who were encouraged to hold stock by the people robbing them) and many pension plans, which are really just another form of 'small investment'. I doubt the cost to the little guy from this spammer vs. any one of those execs really is comparable.

        However, it is probably true that this remedy will have more impact on the other spammers then any Enron-level punishment will have on the other corrupt executives. The former expose themselves by the very nature of their scam. The latter will simply become more careful.

        Also consider that the victims in the spammer's case are foolish to trust a random guy on the net who told them to buy something. The victims in the Enron case were, reasonably enough, placing trust in company and investment house reports, auditors, and legislation which the SEC is supposed to keep clean!

  • This spammer switched businesses (Score:4, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @04:02PM (#5337634) Homepage
    If you look at the Washington State complaint about this spammer, he used to be pushing debt-consolidation services. That's not an SEC issue, although it's illegal in Washington State, where they (two brothers (?) and their wives) are.

    But he made the big mistake of branching out into stock hyping via spam. This is much easier for the SEC to prosecute than the old phone-based frauds - you have hard copy and can prove it's being sent out in volume. The SEC nails a few of these bozos every month, which tends to keep this a small-time scam.

    Still, the SEC needs to be more aggressive against the big fraudsters. The previous head of the SEC, Pitt, will go down in financial history as the person who should have stopped Enron, WorldCom, etc. before it was too late.

  • Him not being aware may be typical of SEC invest.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jackson Five ( 470862 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @04:21PM (#5337819)
    I've been on the more pleasant side (if there is one) of SEC investigations, and one thing they do which is kind of cool is investigate everyone around the person first - particularly in insider trading.....then when they've compiled the data, they contact the potential guilty party - for example, I work in Mergers & Acquisitions and we represented a public company in a sale. SEC investigated some trades right around the announcement - and first asked for a list of people at my company that knew about the deal...they then sent us lists of people - ie, do you know any of these people...without any other info.

    So maybe this guy will still get it. These guys piss me off - primarily because they are capitalizing on ignornace - it's no different then a cheap con.

  • jonathan lebed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquar ... .com minus berry> on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @05:03PM (#5338277) Homepage Journal
    jonathan lebed [brown.edu]

    anyone remember this kid?

    read the new york times magazine article i linked to if you aren't familiar with his story. it absolutely floored me. great story.

    15 years old, made at least $250,000 in six months

    the amazing thing about this kid is he settled with the SEC... they BACKED OFF prosecuting him because at the time, shortly before the stock bubble burst a few years ago, his lawyer was ready to make an issue of the illegality of what he was doing... inflating stock prices through hype.

    the problem? think about it: what was going on at the time via PROFESSIONAL stock info outlets?

    same damn thing

    makes you think, doesn't it?

    made the SEC think at least, they backed off, so the kid actually cleared some profit (a small percentage of whatever he actually made... no one knows for sure, but not bad for a 15 year old)

    amazing!

    jonathan lebed: if you're at some university today, lurking on slashdot, my hats off to you for staring down the whole damn SEC ;-P

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • That way if anyone sent spam I could sue the fuck out of them for patent infringement.

Slashdot Top Deals

What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.

Close