[LINK] The Beijing Ticket Scam

[Roger Clarke]

The IOC says it only heard recently about the ticket scam.

If any regulator was 'on the case', an early step would have been to 
ask the IOC whether the organisation in question was an accredited or 
otherwise known conduit whereby Beijing Olympic tickets could be sold.

Ergo:  no regulator was on the case, at all, until this week.  ??!!


For the record, here's an Australian timeline on the Opera House scam:

A scam to bring the house down
28 August 2002
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/27/1030053059530.html

Aust commission targets alleged Opera House Web scam
11 November 2002
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Aust-commission-targets-alleged-Opera-House-Web-scam/0,130061744,120269831,00.htm?omnRef=1337

Court declares imitation Sydney Opera House website illegal
28 August 2003
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/360431/fromItemId/378016

Federal Court judgements re 'Richard Chen' are at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1248.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2003/897.html

57 ... In assessing whether the grant of injunction is futile, it 
seems to me to be appropriate to take into account not only formal 
enforcement mechanisms, but the likely response of administrative 
agencies in the foreign country. If, for example, an agency such as 
the FTC in the United States is likely to initiate measures designed 
to curb misleading and deceptive conduct affecting Australian 
consumers because that conduct is the subject of a prohibitory 
injunction issued by an Australian court, I would not characterise 
the grant of such relief as an act of futility, notwithstanding that 
the injunction itself cannot be directly enforced through the courts 
of the United States.
58 In the present case, an injunction granted by this Court 
restraining the respondent from resuming his misleading and deceptive 
conduct is likely to improve materially the chances of the ACCC 
obtaining the support of the FTC to take measures under the law of 
the United States to curb that conduct (should it recur). As I have 
said, I do not think it likely that the respondent will resume his 
activities to the detriment of Australian consumers, but there is a 
risk that he may do so. If he does, Australian consumers are likely 
to be adversely affected. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the 
making of an appropriately framed injunction against the respondent 
cannot be characterised as futile.
59 For the reasons I have given, an injunction should be granted 
against the respondent, but in more limited terms than the relief 
sought by the ACCC. The application seeks orders, in effect, 
requiring the respondent to prevent access to the Sites by persons or 
computers within Australia, even if that requires removal of the 
Sites. But there is no evidence that the material on the Sites, other 
than that material relating to the Sydney Opera House, was or is 
misleading or deceptive. Nor does the evidence allow me to infer that 
the FTC would be prepared to take action to close down the Sites, as 
distinct from responding favourably to a request to take measures 
under United States law to prevent the respondent publishing 
misleading or deceptive material relating to the Sydney Opera House.
60 Accordingly, I think that any injunction should be limited to 
restraining the respondent (by himself, his servants or agents) from 
publishing on the Sites, or any similar Internet Site accessible in 
Australia, information or material relating to the Sydney Opera 
House, or events at the Sydney Opera House, that is misleading or 
deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive consumers in Australia. 
I shall direct the ACCC to bring in short minutes of order to that 
effect.

CONCLUSION
62 The ACCC has made out its claim to declaratory and injunctive 
relief by reason of the respondent's contraventions of the TP Act, 
although the form of the injunction I propose to grant is narrower 
than that sought by the ACCC. I shall direct the ACCC to bring in 
short minutes of order consistent with these reasons.
62 The ACCC has made out its claim to declaratory and injunctive 
relief by reason of the respondent's contraventions of the TP Act, 
although the form of the injunction I propose to grant is narrower 
than that sought by the ACCC. I shall direct the ACCC to bring in 
short minutes of order consistent with these reasons.


-- 
Roger Clarke                  http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng  Australian National University
Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program      University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW