Tax refund!!!!

[Masood]

Whoop whoop!!!

 

[rpm]

That is so bad it`s awful.

 

[townfanjon]

Even my 6 year old granddaughter would laugh at that

 

[Rickster123]

Ohhh im wantings the monies for spendings please very much thank you please.

 

[Ch4 plumbing]

You would have to be a complete moron to fall for that!! What idiot actually thinks that would work!

 

[Rickster123]

You would have to be a complete moron to fall for that!! What idiot actually thinks that would work!

Erm...

 

[Ch4 plumbing]

Erm...

Sorry APP......how much did you get:skep:

 

[Atouchofgas]

Well after 15 months you should be due another!

 

[Toxic Ted]

I can't believe the amount of luck you get Mas......if only i could get a refund like that.......:biggrin:

 

[jtsplumbing]

Well they got the last bit right, the tax office love helping , (Themselves to your money)

 

[Ray Stafford]

That is so bad it`s awful.

Even my 6 year old granddaughter would laugh at that

You would have to be a complete moron to fall for that!! What idiot actually thinks that would work!

Believe it or not, the errors are probably deliberate.

In that line of business, the initial email shot is incredibly cheap, but the next stages of the scam are quite labour intensive.

The scam has several more stages to go, each of which will test the credibility of the mark.

Lets say thay they send out 10 million emails, which are carefully crafted, very credible and without the obvious mistakes.

They might get 1 hundredth of 1 percent responses, but thats still 1,000 responses, which is beyond their capacity to handle effective. These include a high percentage of people who are quite gullible (ie, they fall for the initial email) but not so gullible that they make it to the end of the scam without realising. These gullible-but-not-quite-that-gullible people represent a massive expense to the scammer.

The errors are therefore introduced deliberately to the email so that only the tiniest fraction of the population - those who can't tell a scam when its screaming SCAM in their face - will respond. Although the response rate is much lower - perhaps only 20 or 30 people answering 10 million emails, they contain a lower proportion of false positives.

There is a sick logic to it.

Levitt and Dubner (the authors of "Freakonomics") have done quite a study.

 

[joni os]

In the good old days you could just blag a wages van. Now life is more complicated.

 

[Stanios]

Looks legit. My Nigerian cousin told me it is.

 

[lame plumber]

Believe it or not, the errors are probably deliberate.

In that line of business, the initial email shot is incredibly cheap, but the next stages of the scam are quite labour intensive.

The scam has several more stages to go, each of which will test the credibility of the mark.

Lets say thay they send out 10 million emails, which are carefully crafted, very credible and without the obvious mistakes.

They might get 1 hundredth of 1 percent responses, but thats still 1,000 responses, which is beyond their capacity to handle effective. These include a high percentage of people who are quite gullible (ie, they fall for the initial email) but not so gullible that they make it to the end of the scam without realising. These gullible-but-not-quite-that-gullible people represent a massive expense to the scammer.

The errors are therefore introduced deliberately to the email so that only the tiniest fraction of the population - those who can't tell a scam when its screaming SCAM in their face - will respond. Although the response rate is much lower - perhaps only 20 or 30 people answering 10 million emails, they contain a lower proportion of false positives.

There is a sick logic to it.

Levitt and Dubner (the authors of "Freakonomics") have done quite a study.

Now I know Ray is in on the act, I wont need to repond ti his invoices

 

[Ray Stafford]

Now I know Ray is in on the act, I wont need to repond ti his invoices

Trade only Lame.

Clue's in the name.