I sold a diamond ring on Craigslist and now the buyer is threating to arrest me

[mbear71]

Arizona. I sold a diamond ring on craigslist and now the buyer has called me telling me the ring is a fake and is threating to have me arrested. He works for the police department and he ran my background last night, and he says that I sold him a fake diamond ring and that if I don't refund his money he will have his officers come and arrest me, can he do this, the ring was real as far as i knew.

 

[CraigFL]

The sale was as-is unless you guaranteed it some way. The buyer should have gone to a jeweler and had it verified/appraised in front of you and him before the purchase. How do you know that he isn't responsible for the mixup or trying to scam you?

 

[Zigner]

The sale was as-is unless you guaranteed it some way. The buyer should have gone to a jeweler and had it verified/appraised in front of you and him before the purchase. How do you know that he isn't responsible for the mixup or trying to scam you?

Not so fast. If the ad said "diamond ring for sale" and it WASN'T a diamond ring, then the OP may very well be "on the hook". However, I seriously doubt this is anything but a civil matter.

 

[Antigone*]

Arizona. I sold a diamond ring on craigslist and now the buyer has called me telling me the ring is a fake and is threating to have me arrested. He works for the police department and he ran my background last night, and he says that I sold him a fake diamond ring and that if I don't refund his money he will have his officers come and arrest me, can he do this, the ring was real as far as i knew.

Take the ring back and give the guy his money.

 

[The Occultist]

Take the ring back and give the guy his money.

I agree. For whatever reason, the buyer isn't happy with the purchase, and is threatening to make things worse unless you take the very easy route and give a refund. Make sure you get the ring back, and also make sure that it is the same ring you sold. Then simply sell it to somebody else.

 

[Adalaide78]

It is entirely possible that this person did something devious like take the diamond out and replace it with a CZ. Personally if I were in this situation I would call around and get a free consultation with a local lawyer to cover my butt. Under no circustances would I cave to someone making threats without knowing my rights.

 

[justalayman]

It is entirely possible that this person did something devious like take the diamond out and replace it with a CZ. Personally if I were in this situation I would call around and get a free consultation with a local lawyer to cover my butt. Under no circustances would I cave to someone making threats without knowing my rights.

did you read the OP arguing the claim that the ring may not have actually been a real diamond.

the ring was real as far as i knew

.

So, what would have led the OP to believe it was a real diamond? How would the OP ever know if the buyer did replace a real diamond with a CZ? He apparently had no proof, or even support that there was a real diamond in the ring to begin.

If it is not a real diamond, OP would simply be best served by refunding the money and accept the ring in return. At this juncture, it can be accepted as a mistake. Once OP is notified the ring is not a real diamond and refuses to remedy the problem, then, it does start to wander into criminal territory.

 

[JakeB]

At this juncture, it can be accepted as a mistake. Once OP is notified the ring is not a real diamond and refuses to remedy the problem, then, it does start to wander into criminal territory.

Not true. If he's notified of the mistake after the fact and refuses to accept a return, it's not a crime because he had no intent when the transaction took place. It's just a breach of contract action.

A prosecutor would need to prove that there was no mistake.

 

[justalayman]

Not true. If he's notified of the mistake after the fact and refuses to accept a return, it's not a crime because he had no intent when the transaction took place. It's just a breach of contract action.

A prosecutor would need to prove that there was no mistake.

not true. Once he has been notified it was not as presented, then, if he fails to remedy the situation he is then in a position where is becomes apparent that the intent was to defraud the customer. Proving it is much easier at that point./

 

[Adalaide78]

did you read the OP arguing the claim that the ring may not have actually been a real diamond.

Sure did. Then again, what makes you think that the scenario I posed isn't just as likely? Why would a consultation with a lawyer be a bad thing before acting? If a cop started threatening to arrest me I have to say that contacting a lawyer would be on the top of my to do list.

 

[CraigFL]

Just to muddy the water some more....Are we saying it might be a man-made diamond (CZ) rather than one made by nature? Remember, CZ is exactly the same composition as a real diamond -- carbon. But the bottom line is that this case will be very difficult to prove.

If a person sells a "gold" ring does this mean it's gold colored? 24ct gold? 14ct gold? gold filled? or gold plated? Isn't it really the responsibility of the buyer to determine this?

And.. is a "diamond" a VVS1, S1, industrial quality or CZ??

I only commented because I have a friend whose wife took her diamond wedding ring to the jeweler she got it from for a cleaning. It was six months later when another jeweler looked at the ring and told her it was fake. The original jeweler had switched the diamond during the cleaning. After the ring left the possession of the OP, we don't really know what happened.

 

[justalayman]

?

I only commented because I have a friend whose wife took her diamond wedding ring to the jeweler she got it from for a cleaning. It was six months later when another jeweler looked at the ring and told her it was fake. The original jeweler had switched the diamond during the cleaning. After the ring left the possession of the OP, we don't really know what happened.

but the OP states "as far as I know" it was a diamond. OP has apparently no supportive proof it actually was a diamond so making a claim of the old switcharoo is going to be tough. It is possible but how do you support a claim of such with no proof you ever really had a diamond?

Isn't it really the responsibility of the buyer to determine this?

he did and it came back it was not a diamond. Now, OP must remedy the situation and refund the money or argue the buyer is pulling a fast one on him but again, with no supportive proof, how do you do that?

OP represented the stone as a diamond. That makes it a false representation. As long as OP takes care of things, no problems. If he refuses, then it starts to look like fraud and since the buyer is a cop, the buyer has the ear of the DA. Who wins?

 

[JakeB]

not true. Once he has been notified it was not as presented, then, if he fails to remedy the situation he is then in a position where is becomes apparent that the intent was to defraud the customer. Proving it is much easier at that point./

My post is 100% correct, and your response doesn't refute it.

But can a refusal to remedy the situation be used prove that there was no mistake? That's extremely weak evidence (certainly not enough to convict).

 

[justalayman]

My post is 100% correct, and your response doesn't refute it.

But can a refusal to remedy the situation be used prove that there was no mistake? That's extremely weak evidence (certainly not enough to convict).

does it prove it? No. Does it put enough question in a juries mind so they believe there was intent? I wouldn't want to be in the defendants chair with that against me.

Not true. If he's notified of the mistake after the fact and refuses to accept a return, it's not a crime because he had no intent when the transaction took place. It's just a breach of contract action.

A prosecutor would need to prove that there was no mistake.

you are presuming there was no intent. How do you know the OP is legit? How do you know he was not intentionally attempting to defraud the buyer.

If the OP wants to gamble the DA believes him, that is his gamble. If the DA does not believe him, OP will, at a minimum, be investigated quite thoroughly. If the DA sees enough evidence, OP gets arrested.



OP has a simple solution. Either he takes it or gambles. His choice.

btw: there are and have been plenty of innocent people convicted with some extremely weak evidence.

 

[CdwJava]

Not knowing the state or states this might have occurred, in, it is hard to speculate on what - if any - crime can be alleged.

In general, however, the crime of fraud requires that the intent to defraud the victim be established. It is not fraud if I sell something as a diamond if it is not. It IS (or, rather CAN be) fraud if I sell something that I say is a diamond and I KNOW it is not. In this case, no matter which scenario you look at, the state will have to show intent. Lacking intent, this is a civil issue.

I strongly suspect the police will punt on this one.

- Carl