On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:28 PM William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > Ay, very interesting.
I think by "precedent" they must mean -- the publication of this result in the news should help deter other bad actors from trying the same shenanigans. The result of an arbitration does not set "legal precedent" in the sense regarding a matter of law -- that only comes from a question going to an appellate or other high court. Fraud is illegal without any precedent being needed though. And whether someone is forging sworn papers to qualify for a loan, or sworn papers to qualify for IP addresses, or something else... the fraudulent misrepresentation or entering a contract in bad faith can lead to resulting contract becoming void. I read the situation as involving some claimant attempting to pursue protective orders from a judge against ARIN to prohibit ARIN revoking allocations made and later invoking an arbitration right provided for ARIN Subscribers in the RSA against ARIN in order to try to use dispute resolution to stop ARIN from taking negative actions for fraud. Then the matter comes to actual arbitration but ultimately the claimant failed to make any kind of argument, and finally allowed a motion to go forward from ARIN unopposed that effectively closed the matter and gave ARIN their legal fees, plus return of IP addresses. On the other hand: it sounds as if the fraudsters got off with no other real penalty. "Some of the resources sought and fraudulently obtained had been transferred to bona-fide purchasers out of the ARIN region." Kind of makes you wonder... Could the profits from "Bona-fide purchasers outside of ARIN region" by the fraudsters have exceeded what they were ordered to pay? > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:10 AM Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > I found this to be an interesting article and perhaps others on the list > > would appreciate knowing about it. > > https://www.news-journal.com/ap/national/arin-wins-important-legal-case-and-precedent-against-fraud/article_ceb57140-e574-5355-a8b3-c8f8c70a439e.html > This is indeed interesting and good news. One thing about the article > confuses me: what precedent was set here? That ARIN can enforce a signed, > written contract as normal under the law? Was that ever in doubt? > Regards, > Bill Herrin -- -JH _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
