We should be used to this by now. Yet another money grubbing directive has surfaced from mother eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY), As covered in a story in The New York Times, eBay has decided to test market the strategy of allowing payment for transactions on its site solely through its wanton money portal, PayPal. The company intends to run this test on Australian eBayers. I wonder if our mates Down Under would be willing to tell us how they feel about this strategy?

eBay is claiming that this change in operating procedure will lower the incidences of fraud on the site. That's funny coming from them, when you consider that the worst eBay fraud nightmares generally run through its own PayPal system. I can believe that eBay's own fraud exposure might be cut by funneling everything through PayPal, but that's about eBay's bottom line. It's not about the bottom lines of its loyal patrons. The matter is further examined in this Associated Press article.

BloggingStocks reports that, as it stands right now, PayPal collects 2.9% from every sale which runs through its system in the U.S., plus another .30 cents for any sale under $3,000. The picture gets even gloomier for Australian eBayers, where PayPal charges 4.4% on sales, plus the additional .30 cents. What percentage of eBay Australia's sales currently run through alternate payment means? That's what I want to know.

If this change is enacted by eBay against the entirety of it's operations, it will be just one more step in the inevitable creation of "Wal-Bay", a site where large volumes of foreign made junk will be peddled by a thin crust of well protected sellers. In the meantime, alternate online selling strategies continue to take hold and grow as eBay's own growth has stalled. eBay can fake revenue growth for just so long. It's only a matter of time before things really start to get ugly over there.

Just when you finished setting up the final Viagra and ED related keyword filters on your inbox, the scamming spammers have found a new ruse to part fools with their money. The new scam claims to offer a discount of 70 cents on each gallon of gas and originate for now anyway, from an individual representing himself as "Gas Saver." According to McAfee, a security and anti-virus company, in terms of volume gas related spam is still relatively low, but it has the potential to skyrocket over the summer in tandem with gas prices.

Next time you sit down with a friend or relative, do your part; remind them that they shouldn't purchase medication, gas or lottery winnings from an email. It seems to have been said again and again but just like the MPAA and the RIAA run their public service announcements before movies; maybe we need to have an announcement before sending money from your bank to another account. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, especially when it comes to reduced gas prices.

I truly wonder how many times local news stations and papers need to run the story of an individual scammed out of their life savings due to an email that touted a too-good-to-be-true scheme. At the very least, it seems these email-armed con men are on the ball when it comes to identifying consumer needs, or perceived needs anyway. I hear later this year they are coming out with a reprinted version of Dante's Inferno which has been updated to include a new circle of hell specifically for spammers. Until then, be sure to check out how to get gas for $2.99 a gallon for the next three years legitimately.

Recently we discussed the LifeLock identity theft protection services, and whether or not the services offered are nothing more than a scam. Our readers have varying opinions, and I ultimately came to the conclusion that what LifeLock sells is not worth the money. There's very little actual protection, and the company's "guarantee" doesn't seem to be worth the paper it's printed on.

Now Lifelock has announced two new service offerings. The company says it is approaching one million "members" and these services "... will further secure LifeLock's position as the industry leader in identity theft protection." The new "eRecon" service is billed as a technology solution that monitors over 10,000 websites, bulletin boards and chat rooms used by criminals to sell and trade identities. If your information is found, the company say it will call and tell you. The "TrueAddress" service is billed as a technology solution that monitors address databases and notifies you if your address is changed in one of them.

Sounds like a lot of hype and little substance. What do you think the chances are that they're going to find valuable information about you with either of these tools? Would you really pay for the miniscule chance that they might find someone in a chat room talking about your identity? The effectiveness of these services has to be sketchy. I don't know how much they're going to charge for them, but I sure wouldn't buy them.

Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.

You have to give this guy credit for being very good at what he did. My mom always told me, "If you're going to bother to do something, make sure you do it well." I bet James Hartman's mom is super proud of him. He stole his brother's identity and spent over $3 million in 3 months with it. On his list of goodies purchased via his brother's identity: A $48,000 pickup truck, a $49,000 pickup truck, two Dodge Durangos for $77,000, a Dodge Viper for $94,000, two ATVs, two houses, and some land. The grand total: $3.2 million.

James Hartman stole Ed Hartman's identity with his social security number and a photocopy of his driver's license. James says his brother approved of all the purchases. Ed says he knew nothing of it until someone called him because they were suspicious of the copy of the driver's license, being used to purchase another toy.

What a wonderful way to honor and love one's family. I've often theorized that family members steal more from their kin than they would from complete strangers. I don't know why, but it's sick. (Yes, this post is dedicated to my "Uncle Louie".)

Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.

Ken and Daria Dolan, America's First Family of Personal Finance, answer your money questions every Friday.

Dear Ken and Daria,

I realize it's important to stay up-to-date on your credit score, but is it necessary to pay for a credit monitoring service?

Jeff

Want to learn more about protecting and improving your credit score? Visit our Credit Center at Dolans.com.

Click here to ask Ken and Daria your question.

Several days ago, the 30th anniversary of spam came and went.

We're talking email, and not Spam, the food product. Anyway, I looked at quite a few articles that ran on the day of the anniversary May 3 or around then, like this story that originally appeared in The Washington Post, and I can't find any that quoted the man who began it all, Gary Thuerk. I was particularly interested in what he might have to say because I was lucky enough to interview him for Entrepreneur magazine during the 25th anniversary of spam.

At the time, I was getting more spam than I ever had in my life. I get a lot now, but in 2003, I was bombarded, and my computer was riddled with viruses and Trojan horses and other fun things. So when I was assigned to interview Thuerk, I had a lot of choice words prepared for him. I was going to light into him like a barbecue. I couldn't wait to pummel him with my gratitude for what he did on May 3, 1978, which is to be the first to send an unprompted email to a small but select number of people who had email, and he tried to sell these elite computer users, naturally, a new type of computer. I admit I wasn't thinking like a professional, but had made this personal. I wanted to do my best 60 Minutes Mike Wallace impression, and for Thuerk to fold like a house of cards and apologize for unleashing such a rotten practice into the world.

The chances are good that you'll never need the services of a private investigator, but if you ever do, hiring a good one is essential to getting the desired results. I have found that definitive guides on the matter are virtually nonexistent, so based upon my rather extensive elbow rubbing with the men (and ladies)in blue, I have created the following guidelines for hiring a private investigator to serve your investigative needs.

Define your need. Understanding the type of services that you need an investigator to perform will aid in finding your ideal detective. As with all other fields of endeavor, PI's each have their own specialties. I suggest that you draw up an outline of what services you seek, a rough time line within which you'd like to see specific results and the final resolution that you are seeking. Creating a mental picture of the experience as you would like it to turn out can help you to make it become a reality. Be realistic however, effective investigations can be extremely time and labor intensive. Define your needs, then begin your search.

A few years ago, at my 10th high school reunion, I was surprised and delighted to discover that my former Sex and Marriage teacher, a man that I particularly disliked, had been scammed by a 27-year old George Mason student and sometime porn star. Apparently the young man, Anoushirvan D. Fakhran, aka "Jonathan Taylor Spielberg," posed as Stephen Spielberg's nephew, claiming that he was doing research for a forthcoming movie. My former teacher, now the principal of the school, allowed the young man to attend classes, showed him around, and gave him numerous privileges that ordinary (read: paying) students were denied. Ultimately, "Jonathan" was discovered and my alma mater was massively humiliated. I think my former teacher was farmed out to another school.

Recently, I was reminded of this as Yale University suffered a similar scam. Akash Maharaj, formerly of Trinidad and Tobago, got into Yale with the help of a forged letter of recommendation from one of Yale's professors. This letter, combined with a forged Columbia transcript, made him look very impressive, and Yale welcomed him to the school, giving him $31,750 in financial aid. He also received $7400 in federal scholarships, $6739 in loans, and $900 from a federal work-study program. During his time at the school, he received a literary prize, found a boyfriend, and generally seemed to fit right in. Unfortunately, things soured with his boyfriend, who ended up ratting him out to the University. Not long after, his forgeries were discovered and it all came crashing down.

Does anybody remember when U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that the war in Iraq would pay for itself? Specifically, their argument was that oil revenues in Iraq would easily pay for the cost of reconstruction, and that the bill wouldn't be laid on the American taxpayer.

Admittedly, this was five years ago, so it's understandable if our memories might be a little fuzzy on the issue. However, this was the running argument back in 2003.

Of course, this isn't how it's worked out, a fact that becomes crystal clear when we look at how much the U.S. military is paying for gas. Currently, American forces in Iraq are paying an average of $3.23 a gallon for their gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The Defense Energy Support Center, essentially the fuel wing of the Department of Defense, buys gasoline on the open market at prices ranging from $1.99 a gallon to $5.38 a gallon. They then set a fixed rate for the fuel; thus, as of April 4, American forces in Iraq were paying $3.51/gallon for diesel, $3.15/gallon for gasoline, and $3.04 for jet fuel.

This weekend I read in our local paper about an individual who almost got caught up in a scam to drain her bank account. The scammer was using the upcoming economic stimulus package to solicit personal and bank account info under the guise of the IRS.

Even though she had already provided the information she was lucky enough to change her bank account info before any funds were drained. The local IRS contact warned individuals that the IRS will not make contact via email and that scams like this are a common occurrence.

WalletPop producer Amey Stone had warned of the tax rebate scams before congress had even approved the stimulus package, but as May 2 approaches, the frequency of attempted rip-offs will only increase. The IRS already spent $42 million letting citizens know that the checks are coming, and the only requirement is to fill out a 2007 tax return. Despite the Super Bowl-sized campaign and nonstop news coverage it seems individuals are still falling for these scams.

I don't think I can put this any nicer, don't give out your personal information online! It is really that simple, if everyone stops answering these "demands" for banking info, the spammers and con artists will at the least have to move to a new medium. I understand that at times the emails appear to be legit now that the bad guys hired an English major to write them, but just delete it.

When you hear about a data breach at a credit card company or a retailer, do you immediately wonder why the company wasn't more careful with the information of the customers? I bet most people do. But as concerned as they are about others protecting their information, many people don't even take minimal steps to protect their own data.

A survey of 800 people in the U.S. and the U.K. found that 88% of people use one password for all of their online accounts. That's right... one. The implications of that are insane. If a hacker gets your information on one site, he can possibly get into every site you're on because he has that one password.

Sometimes all it takes is a little pressure to get the wheels of a corporation moving. It turns out that shortly after the story of Tom, a Sears customer who was charged $1070 for a TV he never received, gained traction in the media, Mark Ennis, from the Presidential office at Citibank service contacted him. Mark had tried calling the Sears store where Tom purchased the TV but was given the same treatment Tom experienced. Undeterred Mark went "off script" and pulled the records for every Tom who purchased a TV on "Black Friday" in order to find out what went wrong on the order.

It turns out that just after the first TV was refunded, it was re-rung, resulting in the outstanding charge to Tom's Sears card. None of the individuals Tom spoke to over the past 4 months looked past the initial refund transaction to see what was really happening. If they had spent an additional 5 minutes investigating the billing issue, Tom's problems could have been solved months ago. Thankfully the story has a happy ending, Tom is getting a refund for his undelivered TV and some Sears employees will likely be getting a refresher course in customer service. That is if they aren't shown the door for this heinous neglect of customer service. Bravo to Mark for helping out the consumer and making extra effort along the way. We need more people like you in corporations.

Via Consumerist

Update; no thanks to Sears, Citibank officials have stepped in to resolve this dilemma. Read about it here:

Just in case you need another reason not to use a store branded credit card, a Sears card holder, Tom, is still waiting for a refund on a TV that he ordered last November at his local store. After finding out that Sears didn't have the specially priced TV he wanted in stock on Black Friday, the store agreed to order one for him. He went ahead and paid for the $1,070 TV with his store credit card.

The customer left for a week long vacation expecting to pick up his new TV upon his return. However the TV was still unavailable. At this point, he was able to negotiate a lower price on a similar TV by speaking with the manager, for which he also paid. He went home with his new TV to bask in its glow.

He soon found out that Sears had not refunded the original purchase price of $1,070 for the set he had purchased on Black Friday, a TV he has never taken delivery of. He has tried speaking to the manager at the local store as well as the customer support for his Sears card, but no one can seem to get their act together and issue a refund. Tom already disputed the charge with the "Disputes" department for his Sears Card but is consistently hung up on, as there is no hold queue for the department. Contacting the local manager has proved fruitless as well, as her phone rings continuously.

Right now the customer is out $1,070.74. It is ridiculous that no one at Sears can step outside the script to help resolve a major purchase for this man. To get closure he may find it necessary to take Sears to small claims court or to approach his State Attorney General.

In Ohio, for example, one can file a complaint online and sit back while the AG's office does all the heavy lifting for you. Tom might also call his local news team -- I am sure they have a "Call for Action" segment that this would fit into quite nicely.

He would have been well advised to use a major credit card instead of a store card for this purchase, so that he could better challenge this charge. Store cards are notorious for having high rates, and in this case have a vested interest in not helping him with the dispute.

The high-profile prosecution of actor Wasley Snipes a few months before tax season was pretty clearly an effort to scare people into paying their taxes. It might have backfired given that Snipes got off pretty light, but the IRS and the Justice Department say they aren't backing down in their fight against tax cheats.

In a press release, Nathan J. Hochman, the Justice Department's Tax Division Assistant Attorney General, announced the "creation of a national tax defier initiative," According to the press release:

This initiative is aimed at stopping those tax defiers who do not meet their federal tax obligations and seek to transfer those obligations to their neighbor's back. The tax defier is not someone who has a legitimate or factual dispute about the amount of tax due ... The tax defier is someone who rejects the legal foundation of the tax system, despite decades of legal precedent upholding the system's constitutional and statutory validity, and who takes specific and concrete action to violate the law. It is this tax defier conduct, which results in fraudulent claims, frivolous returns and bogus schemes, that threatens the foundation of our tax system and must be vigorously countered.

You can read the press release for details on what exactly they plan to do. It contains lots of phrases like "strengthen and expand coordination," "Leverage expertise and resources," and "maximize our use of technology." When I hear government officials using language like that, I tend not to have a lot of confidence in their ability to get things done. But that's just me.

To learn about some of the frivolous arguments that cheats make to shirk taxes, check out this series from Tracy Coenen.

Because you really do need another reason to hate taxes and hate the IRS: A report from the office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration warns that taxpayer date stored with the IRS could be vulnerable to a disgruntled employee or even an outside hacker. A hacker could "gain full control of the IRS network," according to the report.

Holy schnikes!

So here's my question: if there were a massive data breach at the IRS and someone was able to "gain full control of the IRS network" and steal the identity of pretty much everyone (except survivalist freaks who live in log cabins and don't pay taxes), what would happen?

It's not too outside the realm of possibility either. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently apologized to all three major presidential candidates after it was discovered that IRS workers had snooped into their tax records. It looks like we have a serious privacy problem over at the IRS -- and they don't exactly need to to give people more reasons to hate them.