The Letters - Update December 21, 2008

[Tapewormboy]

I agree it was not the vendor's fault aside from being too successful and becoming too high profile.

There seemed to be two seperate events going on here:

1) The credit card gateway was compromised. This led to fines and warnings without actual seizures.

2) Packages were being confiscated.


Thanks Wilkey for the update!

Still seems more like a payment processor thing than a vendor thing. I ordered from the Asia Paccific a few weeks ago (ashtray *cough*) and it got here fine.

 

[domlee]

None from the pacific region huh?

I wonder if the other retailers in that area know of this crackdown?
Perhaps IF another payment provider was used?

Lots of questions...not enough answers...

I will say...thanks Wilkey for the excellent amount of info in this thread.
I will be making a call or two to the Pacific area for some research.

 

[Ginseng]

Still seems more like a payment processor thing than a vendor thing. I ordered from the Asia Paccific a few weeks ago (ashtray *cough*) and it got here fine.

I think your first sentence is unfounded. "More" and "responsible" and "culpable" are concepts that are not easily defined and assigned in this complex situation. I would not be quite so ready to jump to conclusions and I suspect the full truth will not be known even after this campaign has expired. As to the second, I think it not entirely prudent to broadcast such actions.

I agree it was not the vendor's fault aside from being too successful and becoming too high profile.

There seemed to be two seperate events going on here:
1) The credit card gateway was compromised. This led to fines and warnings without actual seizures.
2) Packages were being confiscated.

Thanks Wilkey for the update!

Standard variety confiscations continue. Strangely, the cigars are taken and the empty packaging is allowed through to the destination. I think if your first point is clarified to "payment processing gateway" then it would be accurate. In fact we know that the information provided in the initial wave of R-letters contained no more, no less than the exact information that could be gleaned if a transaction confirmation email were intercepted.

None from the pacific region huh?

I wonder if the other retailers in that area know of this crackdown?
Perhaps IF another payment provider was used?

Lots of questions...not enough answers...

I will say...thanks Wilkey for the excellent amount of info in this thread.
I will be making a call or two to the Pacific area for some research.

The situation is a bit more nuanced than I've presented in open forum. Risk does indeed vary with geographic region. However, one thing is true. Packages have experienced standard confiscations from a broader range of sources and regions than have elicited R or W-letters. I will add one more point, though, with respect to your second and third sentences. If the authorities knew that a given building contained a meth laboratory and began monitoring the main road and driveway leading to that building, might it not make sense that they would be watching the back door, the woods behind the building, the sewers beneath the building, etc. I think you get my drift.

Wilkey

 

[domlee]

I agree Wilkey. By no means do I believe big brother to be naive. If I were receiving paychecks from them...you can bet I would have a few places in mind to start looking. They are every bit as smart and tech savvy as the rest of us.

It is always a combination of manpower, what is on the agenda, time, and priorities.

If I find out anything, I'll be sure to let you know.

 

[Mindflux]

I think your first sentence is unfounded. "More" and "responsible" and "culpable" are concepts that are not easily defined and assigned in this complex situation. I would not be quite so ready to jump to conclusions and I suspect the full truth will not be known even after this campaign has expired. As to the second, I think it not entirely prudent to broadcast such actions.

I think you are leading the paranoid train here. I did, indeed order an ashtray. So for me to 'broadcast' I bought a molded bit of ceramic is not something to worry about 'broadcasting'. Secondly it had been WIDELY stated in VARIOUS locations that another vendor out of the Asia Pacific (not the 'forum favorite'). Combined with WorldPay giving up dollar figures to the exact penny from "this vendor or that vendor" OFAC knows that you only spent "X" dollars with a Vendor that HANDLES items that are illegal for US Citizens to obtain.

The OFAC letters that supposedly got specifics "you ordered X on X day for X.XX amount" are the ones from the Asia Pacific Vendor that gave sensitive information from 2004 and 2005 to OFAC, in which WorldPay (UK BASED) allowed OFAC to go on their witch hunt armed with WorldPay invoices and invoices from ONE SPECIFIC VENDOR.

If you get a letter from OFAC for the vendor everyone THINKS is the problem, it'll be generic in stating you spent "X much on X day", and they will ASSUME it is for Cuban contraband.

Maybe we'll never ever KNOW 100% what really happened, though. We can just keep spreading the paranoia.

The supposedly increased confiscations from that region may very well be that Customs and OFAC have noticed increased traffic from certain locations. The SHEER volume of stuff that comes out of the Asia Pacific into the United States every single day is astounding, and they're bound to stumble upon boxes now and then.

I also believe that internet forums tend to blow things out of proportion. People say their stuff was taken in this manner, and then someone else spreads it to another forum, and before long all the sudden it's 100 people on 5 forums (of which 75 of the people are on all 5) claim to have had problems very recently.

It's like going to 5 ford forums looking for a brake problem on your mustang. It's so localized it's going to seem that Ford has HUGE problems with the brakes on the mustang.

If you want to PM me your email to discuss this more privately that's fine. You claim to have concrete proof but will not share it? Why is that?

 

[Ginseng]

Mindflux,

I'm aware of your perspective. I've read your postings on this matter across several forums. This thread is not to foster debate, speculation, finger pointing, unfounded conclusions, or rants against the validity of the law. If you want to debate the merits of one perspective or another, you are welcome to take it elsewhere. The purpose of this thread and the terms under which it is allowed to continue were clearly laid out in the opening post. If that is not in accord with your view on the matter, then by all means, start another thread either here or on another forum.

Frankly, I don't care what has been "widely stated" anywhere including in this thread. If I cannot personally, first hand verify the information I do not present it. THAT is the standard for sharing information in this thread. And by your standard, when does people repeating the same claim over and over again, suddenly turn into "widely stated" truth?

I supposed we'd all be a lot happier believing that this can't or won't happen to us. That the odds are slim if not darn near close to zippo. But when you get that R-letter, your probability just went from the hope that it was near zero to 100%. "Fat, dumb, and happy*" isn't the prudent approach on this matter, IMO. If you get the impression that I'm pulling a "chicken little**" then you've misread my intent.

I appreciate your perspective, and this forum welcomes opposing viewpoints on such matters. However, the force with which you present your argument is borderline irresponsible in my view. Further, it is not a perspective which is in accord with the sensibilities and guidelines of the forum owner/administrator (who by the way authorized this thread under very specific conditions.)

Wilkey

* I'm using this as an aphorism and not to imply that you or anyone else in particular is in fact fat, dumb, or happy.
** Meaning that I'm either intentionally or unintentionally creating paranoid hysteria by claiming dire consequences that are clearly out of proportion to the assessed risk.

 

[Mindflux]

Mindflux,

I'm aware of your perspective. I've read your postings on this matter across several forums. This thread is not to foster debate, speculation, finger pointing, unfounded conclusions, or rants against the validity of the law. If you want to debate the merits of one perspective or another, you are welcome to take it elsewhere. The purpose of this thread and the terms under which it is allowed to continue were clearly laid out in the opening post. If that is not in accord with your view on the matter, then by all means, start another thread either here or on another forum.

If you want to end the speculation why not share your definitive evidence. Scan it and share it and blank out what should not be given (name of Recipient).

I agree with being careful, but if that's the case why would you blatantly state you have been waiting for a reason to order Cohiba Exquistos on another forum, so publicly if you think it's prudent to share nothing about your activities to the public?

I'm just saying what I see and what I've read. I cannot attest first hand to any of it. So yes, in theory it's hearsay.. but until someone coughs up an actual scan of a letter.. who's to know any better?

FWIW. I'm trying to stay civil in the thread. If you read my previous post as hostile than you have misread my intentions to inform people that accusing the wrong vendor isn't going to help anything progress.

 

[Ginseng]

Mindflux,

I don't respond well to call outs, dares, or intimations of less than honorable behavior. In fact I typically do not respond at all.

Wilkey

 

[Mindflux]

Mindflux,

I don't respond well to call outs, dares, or intimations of less than honorable behavior. In fact I typically do not respond at all.

Wilkey

Wilkey,
I'm asking you kindly to show something to keep people from speculating. Nothing more. No call outs. Is it your intention to keep people in the dark? This thread would say no but your actions to me say yes?

 

[indyrob]

If you want to end the speculation why not share your definitive evidence. Scan it and share it and blank out what should not be given (name of Recipient).

I've seen a copy of the letter, but the recipient does not want to be named publicly. Knowing the identity doesn't give more weight to tthe validity of the letter, it just means you need tangible proof.

I agree with being careful, but if that's the case why would you blatantly state you have been waiting for a reason to order Cohiba Exquistos on another forum, so publicly if you think it's prudent to share nothing about your activities to the public?

I'm sure we are all waiting for the day when we can order some Cohibas. Calling Ginseng out on a paticular post doesn't mean that he's going against his own advice; as far as I know this thread was put together more as a FAQ than anything else.

I'm just saying what I see and what I've read. I cannot attest first hand to any of it. So yes, in theory it's hearsay.. but until someone coughs up an actual scan of a letter.. who's to know any better?

Faith is all you need on this subject and hope that you never gain that first hand experience. I'm sure that the poor souls that have received the letter were not overjoyed and didn't run to scan it.

FWIW. I'm trying to stay civil in the thread. If you read my previous post as hostile than you have misread my intentions to inform people that accusing the wrong vendor isn't going to help anything progress.

As far as I know, it wasn't a vendor that turned over it's database. It was the card processing company that the vendor used. The vendor has repeatedly stated that it was not him, and I do believe he is telling the truth. There are really only 2 groups of people that are completely worry free are the people who never ordered any contraband and the people who sent in IMO's.

 

[indyrob]

Mindflux,

I don't respond well to call outs, dares, or intimations of less than honorable behavior. In fact I typically do not respond at all.

Wilkey

Wilkey,
I'm asking you kindly to show something to keep people from speculating. Nothing more. No call outs. Is it your intention to keep people in the dark? This thread would say no but your actions to me say yes?

You are calling him out and the only "people" asking for tangible proof is you bubba...

 

[Mindflux]

You are calling him out and the only "people" asking for tangible proof is you bubba...

Apparently you don't need tangible proof for anything? It must be nice to go through life blindly on faith.

 

[Ginseng]

Still seems more like a payment processor thing than a vendor thing. I ordered from the Asia Paccific a few weeks ago (ashtray *cough*) and it got here fine.

I agree with being careful, but if that's the case why would you blatantly state you have been waiting for a reason to order Cohiba Exquistos on another forum, so publicly if you think it's prudent to share nothing about your activities to the public?

I'm sure we are all waiting for the day when we can order some Cohibas. Calling Ginseng out on a paticular post doesn't mean that he's going against his own advice; as far as I know this thread was put together more as a FAQ than anything else.

I think the simplest answer I can provide in response to Mindflux's accusation of hypocrisy is that while he admitted to having already committed the act of ordering an ashtray *cough* I was musing and expressing intent. To take it as anything more than that would be unwarranted.

I often muse about banging sitting down for a nice cup of Earl Gray and conversation with Jessica Alba but I don't for a second believe that she drinks Earl Gray.

Wilkey

 

[Mindflux]

I've seen a copy of the letter, but the recipient does not want to be named publicly. Knowing the identity doesn't give more weight to tthe validity of the letter, it just means you need tangible proof.

Would it not be easy enough to blank out the recipients name? problem solved? blank out the case ID or the unique identifier OFAC uses.

 

[Mindflux]

I think the simplest answer I can provide in response to Mindflux's accusation of hypocrisy is that while he admitted to having already committed the act of ordering an ashtray *cough* I was musing and expressing intent. To take it as anything more than that would be unwarranted.

I often muse about banging sitting down for a nice cup of Earl Gray and conversation with Jessica Alba but I don't for a second believe that she drinks Earl Gray.

Wilkey

According to the trading with the enemies act, anything to come out of the countries listed in the act is illegal. Even an ashtray. Why Customs is now releasing cigar boxes to the recipient is beyond me, since they were manufactured in Cuba henceforth they are illegal for a US citizen to own, just as an ashtray made in Cuba would be.

 

[Mindflux]

As far as I know, it wasn't a vendor that turned over it's database. It was the card processing company that the vendor used. The vendor has repeatedly stated that it was not him, and I do believe he is telling the truth. There are really only 2 groups of people that are completely worry free are the people who never ordered any contraband and the people who sent in IMO's.

I meant to quote this in the post above where I addressed your other concern. If in fact, the Vendors database was not compromised and OFAC is sending out letters to WorldPay users from said Vendor (there are TWO vendors involved) all they can do is ASSUME what you purchased. Since I can visit any site in any region of the globe that Cuban goods are not illegal and purchase an ashtray or a lighter or a book on Cuban Lifestyle that was published IN Cuba from any site that MAY use WorldPay, how can OFAC simply assume I bought cigars (since last I checked their letters implicitly implied that cigars were purchased). They cannot, simply put.

 

[Mindflux]

Lastly,
I respect Wilkey. He's done WONDERS for every community I see him participate in and was disappointed to see him request to be purged from another forum that I participate in. I believe he is an absolute asset to our communities and am not trying to out him or chastise him. I'm simply trying to find the truth. An actual copy of a letter, not re-typed "verbatim" would easily answer most people's questions or concerns.

Wilkey, You are a gentleman and a scholar. Do not be soured by my hunger for absolute knowledge on the issue. It's a character flaw of mine. We're all on the same team as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ginseng]

According to the trading with the enemies act, anything to come out of the countries listed in the act is illegal. Even an ashtray. Why Customs is now releasing cigar boxes to the recipient is beyond me, since they were manufactured in Cuba henceforth they are illegal for a US citizen to own, just as an ashtray made in Cuba would be.

Keep in mind that in the "old days" Customs would slit the cigars lengthwise with a knife and then send the mutilated cigars on to the recipient. Sending through empty boxes is perhaps a bit less provocative, but the objective is the same: to personalize and drive home the fact that you have committed a no-no.

Since you mentioned it, I should clarify that to date, I have been banned from exactly one cigar forum. In that case, apparently the admins believed I was not appropriately supportive of a poster's use of the term "n*gg*r". I'm proud to have been cast out.

Wilkey

 

[Mindflux]

According to the trading with the enemies act, anything to come out of the countries listed in the act is illegal. Even an ashtray. Why Customs is now releasing cigar boxes to the recipient is beyond me, since they were manufactured in Cuba henceforth they are illegal for a US citizen to own, just as an ashtray made in Cuba would be.

Keep in mind that in the "old days" Customs would slit the cigars lengthwise with a knife and then send the mutilated cigars on to the recipient. Sending through empty boxes is perhaps a bit less provocative, but the objective is the same: to personalize and drive home the fact that you have committed a no-no.

Since you mentioned it, I should clarify that to date, I have been banned from exactly one cigar forum. In that case, apparently the admins believed I was not appropriately supportive of a poster's use of the term "n*gg*r". I'm proud to have been cast out.

Wilkey

Wilkey,
I didn't know you were banned, I thought you had requested removal (as a few other members did). I had mentioned I felt that losing you was a bad thing. I value your input even if we don't see eye to eye.

On the slit cigars, or empty boxes. Both of these are 'no-no's for government officials. They are 'technically' not doing their job by allowing contraband from a country on that act on to US Soil. None of us can guess why it happens other than some seedy Custom's agents are getting a rise out of it. I bet if it was known fact by someone who cared they'd get their hand slapped for letting items come through, dismembered or not.

 

[Mindflux]

Anyone notice OFAC caught up recently and posted their July, August and September Penalties notices? These are new as of last time I checked which wasn't all that long ago.