A post on 5ch’s livestream discussion board claims a card shop failed to notice that a high-value trading card had been altered before buying it. Based on the photos, the card appears to be a first-edition (“old back”) Holographic Charizard, bought for ¥7 million — and it’s suspected the edges were trimmed to make a worn card look mint. The thread is split on whether this amounts to fraud, or whether it’s simply the shop’s own negligence for missing it during appraisal.
Feel bad for them.
Is there actually a point to cutting it down in size?
>>3
If it's a different size from the rest of the cards, you can feel it out while shuffling and bring it right back to the top of the deck.
If it's a different size from the rest of the cards, you can feel it out while shuffling and bring it right back to the top of the deck.
>>65
Isn't it meant to be used in a sleeve?
Isn't it meant to be used in a sleeve?
>>65
I figured it wouldn't matter if it was trimmed subtly enough that you couldn't tell just by looking — but that's the reason, huh. I guess that makes it a fraudulent, altered card.
I figured it wouldn't matter if it was trimmed subtly enough that you couldn't tell just by looking — but that's the reason, huh. I guess that makes it a fraudulent, altered card.
They trimmed off the beat-up edges to make it look mint.
>>6
Ah, I see lol
Ah, I see lol
Are the cops actually gonna get involved in this? lol
>>7
Probably not. Even if it's clearly a forgery made with intent to defraud, it'd be hard to prove the person who brought it in actually had that intent.
Probably not. Even if it's clearly a forgery made with intent to defraud, it'd be hard to prove the person who brought it in actually had that intent.
>>7
A botched appraisal on a secondhand buy… I wonder if the police would really move on this.
A botched appraisal on a secondhand buy… I wonder if the police would really move on this.
Clerk: "Um, excuse me, this trading card has been shaved down by a few millimeters!!"
Officers: "…?"
Officers: "…?"
>>12
You shouldn't underestimate this.
You shouldn't underestimate this.
>>32
Sounds like the type to bash welfare recipients.
Sounds like the type to bash welfare recipients.
Even if it was cut down, there's no way to prove who actually did it.
>>30
Proving the person who brought it in is the one who did it is probably impossible.
Proving the person who brought it in is the one who did it is probably impossible.
>>30
This card itself is way too old to begin with. If they just say "it was already like this when I got it from somewhere years ago," that's pretty much game over.
This card itself is way too old to begin with. If they just say "it was already like this when I got it from somewhere years ago," that's pretty much game over.
This is just bait to drum up money on the side lol
>>58
What's with the idiots who fall for stuff like this, or LINE sign-up scams?
What's with the idiots who fall for stuff like this, or LINE sign-up scams?
If there's a recorded exchange from the appraisal like "Did you polish it?" / "No, I didn't," that's fraud. But if it's "Did you polish it?" / "I got it as a single card and don't recall polishing it myself," then there's no issue.
>>91
Sounds like Mercari lol (Japan's big secondhand marketplace app)
Sounds like Mercari lol (Japan's big secondhand marketplace app)
>>91
There's a chance that exchange never even happened in the first place.
There's a chance that exchange never even happened in the first place.
How much is this card even worth?
>>100
Holographic Charizard
First-edition "old back" print
Buy price: ¥7,000,000
Holographic Charizard
First-edition "old back" print
Buy price: ¥7,000,000
>>100
According to Dr. Google, the buy price is ¥7 million.
According to Dr. Google, the buy price is ¥7 million.
If the person who brought it in for sale "knew" it had been trimmed, then under the principle of good faith they'd have had an obligation to disclose that.
>>172
There's no such obligation lol
There's no such obligation lol
>>202
>>172 is talking about a case where the person who brought it in knew it had been cut. If it's a one-owner item, there's no way they wouldn't have known (or rather, they're the one who cut it). But if it changed hands as a used resale, proving that would be next to impossible.
>>172 is talking about a case where the person who brought it in knew it had been cut. If it's a one-owner item, there's no way they wouldn't have known (or rather, they're the one who cut it). But if it changed hands as a used resale, proving that would be next to impossible.
Like, if you sold a car without disclosing it had actually been in an accident, that'd be a problem, right? Well, normally you'd check for that anyway and it'd show up in the appraisal.
>>175
Uh, the shop is the one who did the appraisal lol
Uh, the shop is the one who did the appraisal lol
>>175
It's not like it was in an "accident" — it's more like they just buffed the whole thing with polishing compound.
It's not like it was in an "accident" — it's more like they just buffed the whole thing with polishing compound.
Instead of outing themselves as the idiot who couldn't spot it, they should've just sold it to some other idiot who also couldn't spot it.
>>190
If they'd pretended to be an amateur and listed it on Mercari, it probably would've sold. The buyers there are resellers too, so there's no way they'd catch it.
If they'd pretended to be an amateur and listed it on Mercari, it probably would've sold. The buyers there are resellers too, so there's no way they'd catch it.
>>190
Their head's probably full of "I'm the victim here!! Mommy, help!!"
Their head's probably full of "I'm the victim here!! Mommy, help!!"
>>193
Yeah, but how are you gonna prove whether the seller deliberately shaved a few millimeters off the card's edge, or just resold it without noticing lol? It's the shop's own fault for failing to catch it during appraisal lol
Yeah, but how are you gonna prove whether the seller deliberately shaved a few millimeters off the card's edge, or just resold it without noticing lol? It's the shop's own fault for failing to catch it during appraisal lol
>>202
I ran your argument through an AI — it says you win, though while criminal charges are a stretch, pursuing a refund and return through civil court is possible, it says.
You're right that the bar for pursuing this as a criminal matter (filing fraud charges) is, in reality, quite high.
For investigators (police/prosecutors) to pursue and indict this as a criminal case, they need proof that goes beyond a "suspicious" level — proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person absolutely intended to lie and deceive.
The main reasons criminal charges are difficult, and the line at which police would actually act, are as follows:
Why criminal charges (fraud) are difficult
The barrier of proving "intent" (proving what's in someone's mind): If the seller keeps insisting "I genuinely didn't notice" or "I figured it was fine since a professional appraiser accepted it," it's difficult for police to prove that claim is a lie.
I ran your argument through an AI — it says you win, though while criminal charges are a stretch, pursuing a refund and return through civil court is possible, it says.
You're right that the bar for pursuing this as a criminal matter (filing fraud charges) is, in reality, quite high.
For investigators (police/prosecutors) to pursue and indict this as a criminal case, they need proof that goes beyond a "suspicious" level — proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person absolutely intended to lie and deceive.
The main reasons criminal charges are difficult, and the line at which police would actually act, are as follows:
Why criminal charges (fraud) are difficult
The barrier of proving "intent" (proving what's in someone's mind): If the seller keeps insisting "I genuinely didn't notice" or "I figured it was fine since a professional appraiser accepted it," it's difficult for police to prove that claim is a lie.
LMAOOO!
>>216
Lol. Yeah, even taking this to civil court would just turn into a he-said-she-said.
Lol. Yeah, even taking this to civil court would just turn into a he-said-she-said.
>>216
Hmm, true — if they just claim "it got shaved down after the shop bought it, that's on the shop," there doesn't seem to be any way to win.
Hmm, true — if they just claim "it got shaved down after the shop bought it, that's on the shop," there doesn't seem to be any way to win.
>>216
Card shops take photos at the time of purchase to document the condition, so whether it happened before or after the buyback isn't actually an issue.
Card shops take photos at the time of purchase to document the condition, so whether it happened before or after the buyback isn't actually an issue.
*This article is excerpted and summarized from the 5ch (Livegalileo/Anything Goes) thread “[Breaking] Card Shop Buys Altered High-Value Card Without Noticing, Ends Up Utterly Humiliated LMAOOOOOOOOOO“.
Leave a Reply