Illegal or Legal?

>>17961196
It's immoral but not illegal. They should be experts and know what's real and what's fake. It is literally their job to know.

I must say...nice scam. Is he Jewish? Gotta be.

>>17961196
He's presenting what he knows as fakes as being genuine, so it's fraud (it's illegal).

It's also immoral because he knows he's deliberately deceiving the buyer. Not only is it a lie of omission, but he's also deliberately telling a lie ("I know this is worth at least $250").

>>17961233
Not necessarily. If he says "this box is full of genuine Gucci merchandise" then yeah, but if he's just handing over a box with expensive stuff on top and claiming it's worth a lot he isn't defrauding anyone in a legal sense.

>>17961266
I second this

I don't get it

You sell used Gucci clothes to retail stores?

>>17961283
Fake Gucci

>>17961286
Which retail stores buys clothes?

I don't know any here (Canada)

>>17961289
Hes selling it to a used clothing store

>>17961289
Probably a Plato's closet or something.

>>17961196
honestly, if they can't tell it's a knock off then i don't see what the big deal is.

he's saying he doesn't know anything about the clothes which means he's NOT saying they're real.

>>17961266
Nope, this is fraud.

You may be getting hung up on the "requirements" that "must" exist to PROVE fraud, one of which is along the lines of "deliberately making a false statement". And you're thinking "well he didn't say that they're genuine goods, so he didn't lie, so it can't be proved to be fraud, so it is NOT fraud, therefore it is not illegal." That's a shaky chain of logic there even if the first link were true.

1. The "requirements" to prove fraud are NOT the definition of fraud. Proving fraud is in part about demonstrating the defendant's intention/state of mind. A general definition of fraud almost everywhere is "intentional deceit for unfair gain". We already know both the actions and the state of mind for OP's friend meet this definition. If OP wants to post their local jurisdiction, we can look up the specific law, but I'm going to bet it will define what the friend did as being illegal.

2. OP's friend did lie. "I have no idea what this is worth". Not only is this a falsehood on the face of it, but it implies that OP's friend doesn't know that the clothing are counterfeits. That contributes to PROVING fraud, not BEING fraud.

3. Fraud can be proved by behavior, not just the telling of a falsehood. What OP's friend did was pass off counterfeit goods as being genuine. This is sometimes covered by statute as a specific type of fraud (still illegal), but even if not, it's a *behavior* that demonstrates intention to deceive for profit.

What you CAN argue is whether or not the friend is likely to be caught/prosecuted. In most states in the USA where I've lived, merchants that deal in used goods make a copy of photo ID and keep a record of purchases (often this is required by law). So it's likely that the friend is not anonymous.

>>17961196
immoral, definitely, illegal probably
cool idea though

I know some people who do this regularly. Buying fake goods with the intent of selling them is illegal, though considering that you are walking into a place and already claiming ignorance the worst case scenario is that they have an expert on hand and unless you're selling to an actual designer outlet they probably don't have one. Buy all the fakes with paper money and you should have no issue.