OK - moving onto another aspect of telemarketing fraud which is linked in the FBI article - when the telemarketer does not want the mark to speak with a third person, such as another family member, an attorney, a CPA, a fraud expert, etc.
This, of course, should be a dead giveaway. It goes without saying that a fraudster does not want to give his mark the opportunity to speak with a third person about the "offer" that is being made. The reasons are obvious - the third person may be able to see right through the telemarketer's pitch and inform the mark as to what is going on. At the very least, the third person might be able to give the mark information to see the "offer" from a different angle, which may be all the mark needs to refuse the "offer."
Any "offer," therefore, should give a person the time and opportunity to have it reviewed by a third person. Failure to allow such an opportunity is a giant warning label.
This, of course, should be a dead giveaway. It goes without saying that a fraudster does not want to give his mark the opportunity to speak with a third person about the "offer" that is being made. The reasons are obvious - the third person may be able to see right through the telemarketer's pitch and inform the mark as to what is going on. At the very least, the third person might be able to give the mark information to see the "offer" from a different angle, which may be all the mark needs to refuse the "offer."
Any "offer," therefore, should give a person the time and opportunity to have it reviewed by a third person. Failure to allow such an opportunity is a giant warning label.
NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR
IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. IF
THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.
----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene
tausk
No comments:
Post a Comment