From: JEFF HAIN-MATSON (flmv@flmv.net)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 08:47:31 PST
here is what the state of New Hampshire says:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/358-G/358-G-1.htm
TITLE XXXI
TRADE AND COMMERCE
CHAPTER 358-G
REGULATION OF AUCTIONS
Section 358-G:1
358-G:1 Definitions. – As used in this chapter:
I. "Auction" means the public sale of property real or personal, or
both, in which the sale price of the property offered is
increased by bids until the highest acceptable bidder becomes the
purchaser pursuant to RSA 311-B.
II. "Collusive bidding" means a practice whereby the auctioneer, the
seller, or anyone acting on behalf of the auctioneer
or seller, causes, employs any person to engage in, or knowingly allows,
fictitious bidding during an auction for the purpose
of bidding up the price of any goods in competition with bona fide
bidders, or for the purpose of encouraging or enticing
bona fide bidders to purchase, or for the purpose of stimulating
competitive bidding to purchase. Collusive bidding shall
include any use of false bidders, cappers, shills, or by-bidders.
III. "Person" means any person defined by RSA 358-A:1, I.
Source. 1979, 447:1, eff. Aug. 24, 1979. 1998, 17:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1999.
here is what they say in cache county utah:
http://www.cachecounty.org/auditor/procedures.php
SECTION 4: PROHIBITION OF COLLUSIVE BIDDING
Collusive bidding is prohibited. Collusive bidding is defined as any
agreement or understanding reached by two or more
parties that changes the bids the parties would otherwise offer absent
the agreement or understanding.
And apparently if you google "11 U.S.C. 363 (n) collusion" you will se
it comes up time and again in bankruptcy sales
(traditionally there are not a lot of bidders there).
Your argument that a larger bidder pool makes it legal is the same as
saying "if 25 cars are speeding then it's legal for me to
speed also". I don't think that will hold up in court!!
One of ebays biggest problems that they try to keep a lid on is
collusive bidding with shill bidders running up items. If they
don't keep a lid on it, be sure that government will do it for them, and
kill ebay in the process.
Steve Grammont wrote:
I should have read Alan's post before responding to Jeff :-) My
limited
understanding is that Alan is correct. A buddy and I not bidding on
the
same item at the same time is no different than two guys being in a
large
public auction, sitting next to each other, and not raising a hand if
the
buddy does. It is common practice and it is more designed to not have
friends going at each other's throats than it is to control the price
of
the bidding (which is impossible on eBay).
Steve
>What you are discussing is apples and oranges. Collusive bidding in
regards
>to a federal DRMO auction is not the same- or even close- to eBay.
The eBay
>activity is still open to millions of other bidders, as well as being
a
>private company. It is certainly NOT illegal by any stretch. No
matter what
>a small group of folks do, a million people are still able to bid on
any
>item at any time.
>
>
>
>
>
>on 11/20/04 10:20 AM, JEFF HAIN-MATSON at flmv@flmv.net wrote:
>
>> correct, what you are doing is illegal!! it is collusive bidding,
and i
>bet if
>> these other people are in different states, the FBI would be
involved.
>not a
>> pretty picture.
>>
>> Steve Grammont wrote:
>>
>>> Wow... I have "cease fire" arrangements with probably a dozen
fellow
>>> eBayers so we don't wind up killing each other over items of
mutual
>>> interest. Instead we email each other and see if other
arrangements can
>>> be made. Guess I should be looking over my shoulder for some DA
looking
>>> to make a name for himself :-)
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>> for everybody's information:
>>>> The below link should also include the same cases against the top
20
>people
>>>> buying surplus at the time on the east coast. A new U.S. attorney
out of
>>>> Philadelphia was trying to make a name for himself, convinced
that
>there had
>>>> to be collusive bidding since the acquisition cost vs. the sale
price of
>>>> tractor trailer sized lots was so big. Several dealers pled
guilty
>(Sarafan
>>>> was not one as far as i know). the charges were dropped
eventually
against
>>>> the rest, and the new U.S. attorney was fired for wasting lots of
taxpayer
>>>> money on what was found to be a non issue!!
>>>>
>>>> m35products wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/sarafa0.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>>>>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-
veh.org>
>>>>> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> JEFF HAIN-MATSON
>>>> FRONT LINE MILITARY VEHICLES WEB SITE: http://www.flmv.net/
>>>> WRIGHTSVILLE PA
>>>> 717-252-4489 VOICE
>>>> 717-252-4499 FAX
>>>> flmv@flmv.net E-MAIL
>>>> MVPA #1833
>>>> IMPS #1726
>>>> MVT #9362
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
-- JEFF HAIN-MATSON FRONT LINE MILITARY VEHICLES WEB SITE: http://www.flmv.net/ WRIGHTSVILLE PA 717-252-4489 VOICE 717-252-4499 FAX flmv@flmv.net E-MAIL MVPA #1833 IMPS #1726 MVT #9362-- JEFF HAIN-MATSON FRONT LINE MILITARY VEHICLES WEB SITE: http://www.flmv.net/ WRIGHTSVILLE PA 717-252-4489 VOICE 717-252-4499 FAX flmv@flmv.net E-MAIL MVPA #1833 IMPS #1726 MVT #9362
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:37:42 PDT