US homeless fundraiser: GoFundMe campaign 'based on a lie' | Hacker News Reader

US homeless fundraiser: GoFundMe campaign 'based on a lie'

bbc.co.uk

71 pointsjfk1328 comments

Makes me wonder how many of these campaigns are fraudulent. You know, in cases when you don't have someone so stupid that they bring legal action against a co-conspirator because they got screwed over while committing theft by deception.

If I were a betting man I'd guess there's a small number of people running large scams on the site to net 5 or 6 figures in profit a year. Unlike donating to a charity where you have ample resources to research the organization you're donating to, you sadly can't get that donating to crowdfunding campaigns.

I think Go Fund Me probably has less outright scams because the whole point is that you are asking for money and giving nothing in return.

Compare to Kickstarter where many people try to sell ideas and products that they have no intention or ability to bring to fruition.

> I think Go Fund Me probably has less outright scams because the whole point is that you are asking for money and giving nothing in return.

Scams offering emotional/spiritual rewards rather than concrete material benefits are common precisely because those duped noticing and having remedy for the deception is far less likely unless someone involved gives the game up.

If I ask $10,000 and offer you a car in return, you’ll notice not getting a car.

If I ask $10,000 and offer to relieve the (fictional) plight of a stranger, you're a lot less likely to notice you've been played.

I think gofundme would have more scams in that case, since they would be MUCH harder to detect since nothing is promised to 'donors' in return. On kickstarter, you at least have to pretend for a while that you're making progress, and failing to deliver anything at the end makes it even harder for you to do it all over again.

Indeed. While I'm sure there are genuine cases of need that deserve our sympathy (and maybe even our money), the total lack of verification and accountability makes me really wary. AFAICS, all it takes to collect thousands from random strangers is the ability to present a heart-wrenching story. The entire setup is such that facts are entirely optional.

On Kickstarter, I'd expect more accountability given that people will either receive their rewards or not receive them. This is quite a bit easier to measure than funds going into a pot to "help" someone.

My point: I think it's easier to identify outright scams on Kickstarter than on GoFundMe. I don't necessarily know what site is more vulnerable to scams.

We don’t allow gofundme/crowdfunding links on r/CrohnsDisease because we’ve had scammers just like that in the past and we don’t have the resources to investigate each campaign. It sucks because some of our users really could use the assistance.

I really hate the entire culture around Gofundme. I feel like a number of people use it in a way I find horrifying.

My grandfather passed away a few years ago and my much younger relative in college in Hawaii decided to make a gofundme page to raise money for the plane ticket to his funeral. I could have paid for his ticket no problem, but I got the feeling the gofundme wasn't really about the money. It somehow was just "what you do" for a bit of attention.

Call me old fashioned but I don't really like the way it looks when my family members are begging all over facebook for something the family could easily take care of. It also feels weirdly exploitive of people who are bad with money management. His parents are solid middle class, but I personally know one of the people donating $100 to his gofundme was a fifty-something year old waitresses with a heart of gold and no sense of budgeting.

When the big, fatal limousine crash happened in New York a few weeks back, it seemed like there were GoFundMes being shared around Facebook before any details of the accident were released. I saw at least 6 different campaigns being shared at the same time the news outlets were beginning coverage.

It looks like now GFM has created a special page for the "event", and over half a million has been donated.

I can't even put into words why this makes me uncomfortable, but something about it feels skeevy. It's difficult to have a rational conversation about it without detracting from the tragedy itself.

I think part of it has to do with how gofundme started... early on, they made it look and feel like people were essentially donating to a charity. They hid their fees deep in the FAQ and allowed the general population to assume that donations on gofundme were the equivalent of donating to something like the Make A Wish Foundation. It was a toxic company from the very start.

I think there is a meme running around: "You can now subsidize your cost of healthcare in the United States by starting a GoFundMe every time you visit the doctor."

But seriously, I agree with you. I'd guess there are groups creating crowdfunding campaigns on hot-button topics AND soliciting donations from both sides (pro-gun/anti-gun, red/blue), and like this case, most of the money falls off somewhere along the line to pay "consultants" and "meals/fundraising activities."

Not the mention the small-time scammers running campaigns for their not-so-sick child or cancer scare.

Pigs get slaughtered and greed is their downfall.

Hey, we raised $400K, tax free (donations,) how about we split it in half and shut the f-up? Unless an insider mouths off, who would even find out? But then you have an outsider (homeless guy,) the couple could get divorced and spill the beans etc.

Kate McClure knew it was a fraud from the beginning. She texted her best friend that the backstory was a lie, and she was warned by her own mother that "people go to jail" for these sorts of things. Mark D'Amico also knew, given the tens of thousands of texts exchanged between the two.

The prosecution seems sympathetic to Bobbitt, despite charging him with the same crimes. I wonder if we'll see different plea deals come out of this. He does appear to have some mitigating factors (homelessness, desperation) whereas McClure and D'Amico made overt acts to fund their gambling and shopping habits.

The prosecution told the public that Bobbitt's subsequent lawsuit for the remaining funds was a total legal "miscalculation" on his part which sparked the criminal investigation. The media probably would have uncovered it too, given that the whole thing started when local reporters spotted Bobbitt panhandling again a mere four months after the $400,000 campaign ended. Bobbitt probably felt like he had no choice (other than coming clean about the scam in public).

At least GoFundMe is committed to providing refunds to all the people donated.

Having been executive director for a non-profit I founded and ran for three years which had incredible media reach and trended on twitter at least once I can say:

You should treat ALL charities as if they are a scam until proven otherwise. Running a charity and talking to other directors about the rampant fraud perpetrated by and even against some household names is so pervasive you wouldn't believe it. Your next question might be, why isn't it investigated or prosecuted? Simple, optics. Nobody wants the name of their foundation sullied because someone ran a celebrity golf tournament that raised millions but never sent the check.

It's getting harder to spot too. My older relative has trouble seeing the difference between the "American Firefighters Society" and the "Society of American Firefighters" (made these names up), but a bunch of them are scams just piggybacking on well-known names.

Religious organizations seem to get the biggest pass around here (Midwest US). Yet these same people (myself previously included) are so skeptical of all the _other_ religious organizations/systems they're nota part of.

This reminds me of the Miracle Jones short story "Kickstart My Bad Life" http://www.miraclejones.com/stories/kickstart-my-bad-life.ht...

> The three face potential sentences of five to 10 years for the second-degree crimes.

Does anyone know more details on the actual crimes? I didn't see it in the article. I haven't followed this story that closely as it's popped up this week more and more, but I'm confused about what part of what they did was actually illegal? Didn't just gullible people on GoFundMe fall for a fake sap story?

EDIT: I guess I just missed it in the article. Makes sense: https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-by-deception/

Theft by deception. https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-by-deception/

Since the articles cites CNN, here is what I found over there:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/us/gofundme-scam-donor-trnd/i...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/us/couple-homeless-man-gofund...

> The couple, Kate McClure and Mark D'Amico, and the man, Johnny Bobbitt Jr., face charges of second-degree theft by deception and conspiracy to commit theft by deception, Burlington County Prosecutor Scott Coffina said Thursday.

> Does anyone know more details on the actual crimes? I didn't see it in the article.

First sentence:

"The US protagonists in a viral fundraising campaign for a homeless man have been charged with theft by deception and conspiracy."

> Didn't just gullible people on GoFundMe fall for a fake sap story?

Yes, but there are laws that make various forms of such behavior criminal, such as fraud and criminal deception.

>> but I'm confused about what part of what they did was actually illegal? Didn't just gullible people on GoFundMe fall for a fake sap story?

> Yes, but there are laws that make various forms of such behavior criminal, such as fraud and criminal deception.

It's kinda depressing that some people seem to think the law ends (or even worse, should end) at caveat emptor.

So I'm guessing 'theft by deception' is a great example of arbitrary law. If it were applied universally I'd expect most adtech firms would be out of business.

How is it arbitrary? Deception seems like a pretty objective measure to me. If it would put most adtech firms out of business then that’s a problem with adtech, not with the law.

I only donate to help and protect animals. I found myself not very sympathetic toward humans.

lol

Humans are animals that have the greatest capacity for suffering.

True, but since so much of it is self-inflicted, it's sometimes harder to want to help them (us).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com