[Moooookie]

It was brought to my attention over the weekend that a buyer made a purchase on-site, some months ago.. and while the service seemed good in the beginning, in the long run the service didn't live up to it's name, and when the buyer attempted to file a deal dispute against said seller.. that the seller basically blackmailed them, telling them if they don't close the dispute that they were going to take a further action against said buyer.

While I can't say whether the buyer is telling me everything that took place, I do believe them.. as they detailed everything that took place, and I don't really think he has a reason to lie about it, as not everything he told me was made to make him look like a victim, he merely explained the situation and his frustration.

I do fault the buyer a little bit, for doing deals with a seller with multiple open deal disputes, but either way that's no excuse for the seller blackmailing the user months later. Not every Seller, stands behind their brand. Some are merely here to get sales by any means, even if it means their customer isn't happy. Buyers need to be careful who they do business with, as once things go bad.. they typically stay that way, and won't get reversed. We have seen it time and time again.

Timeline of events as explained to me:

- Buyer contacts Seller in regards to purchasing one of his services.

- Buyer & Seller open a contract, and complete said deal.

- Service completed, contract closed.

- This is where the Buyer made a crucial mistake. Since the first deal seemed OK, he automatically trusted the seller and started doing deals with them off-site. Seller didn't recommend going back on-site, and completing the deals thru a contract.. he was content with staying off-site, this way if anything goes wrong, he won't be held accountable for it.. which we're going to see shortly..

- Buyer sends the seller $1.5k off-site for multiple other services.

- Some of the services he paid for were completed, while others weren't. So he wasn't given the full service for the $1.5k - this was all off-site, so nothing can be done about that, just sharing this information for context since it's part of the timeline.

- Things were reversed on the the first deal they did on-site.

- Buyer contacts the seller in regards to the first service, since things were reversed. Seller refuses to do anything about it.

- Buyer opens Deal Dispute.

- Seller contacts Buyer and tells them if they don't close the Deal Dispute, that they were going to contact the person who Buyer bought the service against(Ban Service), and tell them that they paid to get their account disabled. On top of this, the Seller is threatening to disable the Buyers personal social media account. All this because the Buyer opened a deal dispute?

I'm not expert on the subject, but I'm pretty certain that falls under blackmail? Keep in mind, Social Media Ban services are sketchy in nature as they are.. I have the capability to ban accounts on almost every platform, and as you see I don't advertise ban services anywhere on the forum. Why? Because any account that has been disabled thru a "method" can easily be unbanned.. whether thru a paid service, or whether it's done thru the sites Support. But either way, these accounts CAN and sometimes do get unbanned. But the point of this thread wasn't to speak about why you probably shouldn't be buying ban services, the point of this topic was discuss blackmailing your own customers after selling to them.

From what was described to me, it honestly sounds like the Seller had no reason to blackmail the Buyer. Why? Because when he sold him the service, he told him there was no guarantees that the account would remained disabled. He could of merely replied to the dispute stating this, and the dispute would of likely gotten closed after that. He could of even re-explained that the service was sold as no guarantees, and offered to reBan the account at a discount. Instead, the Seller threatened to tell the target that the Buyer paid to get their account disabled, as well as threatened to disable the Buyers own personal account. Blackmailing I'm pretty sure is against the rules, but even if it 's not.. it's a pretty fucked up way to deal with one of your own customers, who has sent you well over $1.5k.. especially considering not all the services he paid for, were even rendered.

So while there is nothing I, or anyone can do to get this guys money back or reverse the situation.. it's imperative situations like this are brought to the light, so users are aware of why it's important to STAY ON-SITE when conducting business, and to ALWAYS use a contract when doing deals with other users from the site. Just because a deal goes good the first time, or appears like it went good the first time.. that's no reason to start automatically start trusting said seller.

Who is the seller? It's not for me to mention their username. I'll let them speak up for themselves, if they feel like they did nothing wrong. On the other hand, if he knows he was wrong, then he won't respond.. and users can do the math on their own, and figure out who the seller is.

Buyers Please Protect Yourselves, and Stop Automatically Trusting People.

• Stay on-site for all deals
  
• Use a contract for all deals
  
• User a middleman for any amount of money you're not comfortable losing
  

[jcole]

I'd like to know the username, but where's the evidence? This is all text

[Money-]

Is this the drama in secret society telegram days ago lol?

[Moooookie]

I'd like to know the username, but where's the evidence? This is all text

If the Buyer wants to elaborate on the situation further, they can certainly chime in. If the Seller wants to defend their side of the situation, that's up to them as well. I'm merely relaying the situation, and warning users to stay on-site and use a contract for all their deals.

As I said in the OP, I don't know if there are parts of the situation that are being left out.. as they dealt off-site for parts of it. But they had the first deal on-site, hence the reason for the deal dispute. The Buyer already knows they're not going to get their money back. This isn't about a refund. It's about the Seller blackmailing the Buyer after he opened the Deal Dispute. The ban came with a ReBan guarantee, and from what I was told the Seller did attempt to ReBan the account, but was unsuccessful and basically told him he was SOL after that. That's why the Deal Dispute was opened.

Is this the drama in secret society telegram days ago lol?

I'm not in contact, or aware of anything on Telegram with any users from HF.

[_V0X]

Meh. Service needs to be outed and given the chance to correct/reply. Realistically it is a form of harassment which Omni stated he won’t be tolerating on the site anymore - but again without concrete proof and both members given the chance to share, it’s unlikely that anything will happen.

[Jekill21]

Yes, I was the one who contacted a reputed individual on this platform to request a ban service with a contract. The contract specified a very solid ban. The account was banned 48 hours after payment, which satisfied me and built trust. As a result, we proceeded with several transactions for Instagram accounts, paying directly in Bitcoin without contracts. The last transactions totaled $1,050, involving Telegram and two Instagram accounts.

After a month, there were no results on Telegram. He then offered to replace it with another Instagram ban. I agreed. However, the banned accounts only lasted a week and came back online after 24 hours. I expressed my dissatisfaction, and he insisted that his bans were solid and claimed he wasn’t responsible if people pay to get unbanned.

Later, I opened a dispute regarding the initial contract. In response, he blackmailed me on Telegram, threatening to expose my personal information to other victims if I didn't cancel the dispute. I refused to give in to the blackmail. The platform closed the dispute just three hours later without any explanation. When I contacted support, they claimed I hadn’t responded, but I never received anything to respond to—and three hours seems unusually short for a dispute.

Here are some screenshots from our most recent conversations. He deleted the rest from Telegram.
Link picture
https://postimg.cc/gallery/rVWZhbP

[K1.]

Later, I opened a dispute regarding the initial contract. In response, he blackmailed me on Telegram, threatening to expose my personal information to other victims if I didn't cancel the dispute. I refused to give in to the blackmail. The platform closed the dispute just three hours later without any explanation. When I contacted support, they claimed I hadn’t responded, but I never received anything to respond to—and three hours seems unusually short for a dispute.

Here are some screenshots from our most recent conversations. He deleted the rest from Telegram.
Link picture
https://postimg.cc/gallery/rVWZhbP

Honestly, I think your dispute only got closed because you didn't leave any information about the dispute

[Jekill21]

Honestly, I think your dispute only got closed because you didn't leave any information about the dispute

During the contract we had correctly mentioned the IG account to be banned, during the argument I explained that the account had indeed been banned and that now it has been restored :( and that he did not want to ban again because he considers that the IG account paid someone. for the other bans outside the contract I am aware that it was a mistake and that the site It is normal that they cannot do anything.

[gnojedkire]

Pff trouble in paradise... I cant help anyway

[Moooookie]

Later, I opened a dispute regarding the initial contract. In response, he blackmailed me on Telegram, threatening to expose my personal information to other victims if I didn't cancel the dispute. I refused to give in to the blackmail. The platform closed the dispute just three hours later without any explanation. When I contacted support, they claimed I hadn’t responded, but I never received anything to respond to—and three hours seems unusually short for a dispute.

Just reading that is troubling. Guy sells you low quality services, and when you call him out for it, he refuses to make it right, and when you open a deal dispute.. turns around and threatens to tell the targets you paid him to ban their accounts. About as low quality as one can get.

Honestly, I think your dispute only got closed because you didn't leave any information about the dispute

I agree. At first I was wondering why it was closed, now that you mention it.. the dispute did lack any information in regards to the situation.

During the contract we had correctly mentioned the IG account to be banned, during the argument I explained that the account had indeed been banned and that now it has been restored :( and that he did not want to ban again because he considers that the IG account paid someone. for the other bans outside the contract I am aware that it was a mistake and that the site It is normal that they cannot do anything.

Yes, but what K1. is saying, is that when you opened the Deal Dispute.. you didn't include enough details about the situation, so Staff closed it due to not knowing why you were opening it in the first place. Now that you've gotten some insight from others, if this is still something that you're having an issue with.. I would advise you to open a new Deal Dispute, and make it detailed.

The same way you explained in detail in here, and in the PM with me.. do the same in the Deal Dispute, so the people and Staff understand the whole issue.. as this Seller is still on the site attempting to peddle these same services, and as we can see.. he didn't have the heart to address this thread.. because he knows he is in the wrong. I'm not going to be the one to put him on blast, as it's not my deal.. it's yours. But if you opening a Deal Dispute can get some resolution, and prevent other users from going thru the same thing.. then it would be worth the time doing. It would be one thing if he just sold you a low quality service, but the whole black mailing you and threatening to tell the target your personal information and that you paid to get their account disabled is unacceptable.