Fake Cohiba Majestuosos. A $20 Million Dollar Scam?

[BrightonCorgi]

3 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I guess they take the position that every vendor is responsible for what they do. If a vendor sells fakes they alone reap the consequences. I can tell you that if I were an honest LCDH I wouldn't want the name tarnished and would be putting pressure on the distributors and HSA to clean this stuff up.

That is the worst franchise management policies they could have.  Like McDonalds letting franchisees selling Whoppers and not caring.  Bad for the consumer as well.  When you go into any franchise, there is an expectation of a unified product and service.

Does anyone know what the franchise costs are to maintain use of LCDH?  Maybe it's just a nominal fee once B&M established?  Some of the stores are quite small, so how much could HSA charge for that?  Many of the most famous Habanos resellers are not LCDH's.

[ATGroom]

Just so nobody gets the cart before the horse, there has been no suggestion from HabanoNews that his cigars came from an LCDH. 

 

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

True, being a LCDH doesn't really have any inherent benefits other than the perception of legitimacy, which is only that--perception. 

The benefit is increased allocation, especially of high end and specialty items.

Beyond that you are also listed on the HSA website, on the distributor website, and generally will be marketed by them as an official shop.

You also would get access to training programs, get to attend certain events, maybe be invited to host a launch event or similar, get access to new releases before other places etc etc. Part of the family.

 

38 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

 Some of the stores are quite small, so how much could HSA charge for that?  Many of the most famous Habanos resellers are not LCDH's.

There are a set of requirement to becoming an LCDH. It varies region to region, but your staff have to have a certain level of training, your shop needs to be a certain size, carry only Cuban, have a lounge, certain number of lockers etc. So that is probably what excludes some well-known retailers. Or they just don't want to pay the fee.

[BrightonCorgi]

2 minutes ago, ATGroom said:

There are a set of requirement to becoming an LCDH. It varies region to region, but your staff have to have a certain level of training, your shop needs to be a certain size, carry only Cuban, have a lounge, certain number of lockers etc. So that is probably what excludes some well-known retailers. Or they just don't want to pay the fee.

How many LCDH's are maintaining that standard?  25% at best?

[El Presidente]

18 hours ago, ATGroom said:

There are a set of requirement to becoming an LCDH. It varies region to region, but your staff have to have a certain level of training, your shop needs to be a certain size, carry only Cuban, have a lounge, certain number of lockers etc. So that is probably what excludes some well-known retailers. Or they just don't want to pay the fee.

Size/lockers and Carrying only Cubans has been thrown out the window as a requirement. 

I understand that the concept is being revised again to meet modern realities. 

From an independent retailer perspective there is little economic sense these days now that NC's are permitted.  While there are professional privateers in the LCDH game, many are distributor owned and plenty are vanity purchases/trinkets. 

[NSXCIGAR]

16 hours ago, ATGroom said:

Just so nobody gets the cart before the horse, there has been no suggestion from HabanoNews that his cigars came from an LCDH. 

Correct. Only ever referred to by HabanoNews as the "shop". 

16 hours ago, ATGroom said:

 

 

16 hours ago, ATGroom said:

Beyond that you are also listed on the HSA website, on the distributor website, and generally will be marketed by them as an official shop.

They may get a bit more support from HSA but aren't all clients of a distributor on their website? And Habanos Point and Habanos Specialist shops are listed about as "officially" as LCDHs on the HSA site.

17 hours ago, ATGroom said:

your staff have to have a certain level of training

I've been in quite a few LCDHs and I wouldn't trust some of these people to run the fryer at McDonald's. 

The bottom line is that I think there's no inherent security benefit to buying from a LCDH vs. a non-LCDH that's also a distributor client. The advantage of an LCDH would be increased access to some premium products and some supposed employee training and a closer relationship with HSA but I think if you're up on things you'll know more than they do. 

[Corylax18]

Here is the Latest Chapter in this story. Long video short, He has now started legal proceedings in a Cuban Tribunal Court. 😂 Good luck with that.

Habanos has inspected and declared the box fake, so his thinking is that if a court in Cuba verifies that it will give him more leverage over the shop that sold it to him. Who knows how much money he has dumped into this already, but it isn't over yet. I appreciate him sharing more info as the story progresses, but I just keep seeing Harry Carey when he talks, those glasses are too much. Haha. 

 

 

[MrBirdman]

6 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

Habanos has inspected and declared the box fake, so his thinking is that if a court in Cuba verifies that it will give him more leverage over the shop that sold it to him. Who knows how much money he has dumped into this already, but it isn't over yet.

Seems like this is personal. Some people just can’t stand feeling like somebody got one over on them and got away with it. Sometimes you just have to let go for your own good. What makes this a bit silly is that the store offered a refund. Now he’s turned down $15,000 for a box everyone agrees is fake. Though one has to question why they’d offer that unless they planned to sell it to someone else.

Bottom line is he did the CC world a big favor exposing how deeply rooted and sophisticated the fake trade has become. Without a few trivial misspellings he’d be none the wiser. 

Good hunting Captain Ahab Carrey!

[01Vert]

3 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

Seems like this is personal. Some people just can’t stand feeling like somebody got one over on them and got away with it. Sometimes you just have to let go for your own good. What makes this a bit silly is that the store offered a refund. Now he’s turned down $15,000 for a box everyone agrees is fake. Though one has to question why they’d offer that unless they planned to sell it to someone else.

Bottom line is he did the CC world a big favor exposing how deeply rooted and sophisticated the fake trade has become. Without a few trivial misspellings he’d be none the wiser. 

Good hunting Captain Ahab Carrey!

He said he wanted a replacement and would take the refund only if the box was also destroyed. The box if resold as real would be over 20k so the shop is making money again on a known fake. His principles are on point and luckily he has the cash to continue to pursue the case. He knows they are going to dupe someone else and he won’t allow it.   

[MrBirdman]

3 hours ago, 01Vert said:

He said he wanted a replacement and would take the refund only if the box was also destroyed. The box if resold as real would be over 20k so the shop is making money again on a known fake. His principles are on point and luckily he has the cash to continue to pursue the case. He knows they are going to dupe someone else and he won’t allow it.   

My point is that expecting a replacement is a bit pie in the sky and that his case is clearly about more than money.

[Baccy]

I probably missed it somewhere in all the details, but did these bands have the "super micro print" or was that even mentioned?

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

My point is that expecting a replacement is a bit pie in the sky and that his case is clearly about more than money.

I'll have to rewatch his 2nd video again to see if he was actually requesting a replacement as I agree that's not something the shop could control. If all the boxes are owned there aren't any replacements to be had. 

It seems his sticking point is the destruction of the box. The shop was willing to give him $15K but insisted on the box back to--in his mind--potentially resell to another unsuspecting buyer. I can appreciate his concern for other BOTLs but I think it would have been more economical to keep the box, take the $7,500 hit and destroy it himself. 

5 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

Seems like this is personal.

Yes, I think perhaps now his main goal is to expose the shop and so as not to run afoul of any slander laws get the Cuban tribunal decision that the box is fake to insulate himself from potential legal action from the shop once he names them, or at least get the leverage to force the shop to accept his terms in full lest he publicly expose them. 

[Fugu]

11 hours ago, 01Vert said:

He said he wanted a replacement and would take the refund only if the box was also destroyed. The box if resold as real would be over 20k so the shop is making money again on a known fake. His principles are on point and luckily he has the cash to continue to pursue the case. He knows they are going to dupe someone else and he won’t allow it.   

I see it the same way. That guy has cojones. It’s not just about his money. He puts his principles before that - and kudos to him! He doesn’t want to let them get away with this. Shops all around the world will have to learn that there IS an inherent risk selling fakes. Too many are shamelessly making big money with these scams.

I wish him all the luck - no, I actually wish him to succeed!

 

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I can appreciate his concern for other BOTLs but I think it would have been more economical to keep the box, take the $7,500 hit and destroy it himself.

[Shop requires the goods to be returned upon refunding.] Edit: didn’t read properly 🙄

9 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

My point is that expecting a replacement is a bit pie in the sky and that his case is clearly about more than money.

Irrespective of what is in fact theoretically possible, normal legal business practice in the case of a lack of warranted characteristics (which aren’t met with a fake obviously): Either rectification of defects. Or in case that’s not possible, a replacement with a fully functional item meeting the properties originally agreed upon, or a full refund of the buying price (redhibition), plus potential compensation (for loss of profit / opportunity costs / reimbursement of current replacement value). Whereby the latter may be falling under specific terms and conditions of that business, and/or a country’s jurisdiction (to be settled in a mutual agreement or/and through litigation). There are examples/precedents in the arts realm.

Point is - asking for a replacement might sound a bit in vain, but legally, the seller has to be given that opportunity.

Still, that seller would have the option to acquire a legit item on the secondary market - the very situation the original buyer is confronted with today...

[Arabian]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

Point is - asking for a replacement might sound a bit in vain, but legally, the seller has to be given that opportunity.

Still that seller would have the option to acquire a legit item on the secondary market - the very situation the original buyer is confronted with today...

Personally I wouldn't take a replacement from a shop that sold me expensive fakes. I've mentioned before that its all about his principals, but he has some difficult strings attached in his case, a legitimate box with the fakes being destroyed. Perhaps this is on purpose to escalate the case even further. It must be nice to be setting on a disposable income for things like this.

I'm also surprised that a fake box made it to the Swiss market.

[Fugu]

3 hours ago, Arabian said:

I'm also surprised that a fake box made it to the Swiss market.

You forgot to add the , didn’t you?

 

3 hours ago, Arabian said:

Personally i wouldn't take a replacement from a shop that sold me expensive fakes. I mentioned before that its all about his principals. but he got some difficult strings attached in his case, a legitimate box with the fakes being destroyed. perhaps this is on purpose to escalate the case even further. it must be nice to be setting on a disposable income for things like this.

Your post only shows how much we are already used to these shenanigan behaviours in the cigar business. That guy is just following normal commercial practices. He insists on his rights, nothing wrong about that. Though, admittedly a difficult undertaking with the particular market participants involved.

[Drguano]

I happen to be lucky enough to be a friend of this gentleman and can vouch for his honesty and the fact that he is not doing any of this out of vengeance. He is in person exactly as you see him in the video. He simply would like to wind up with a legitimate box of Majestuosos at the price he paid and to make sure that this fake box does not get resold as the real thing. 

He also would like to make the point that there is a huge amount of money to be made by someone making a lot of these sorts of humidors... $20,000,000 for an identical run of Majestuosos. 

[Corylax18]

9 hours ago, Baccy said:

I probably missed it somewhere in all the details, but did these bands have the "super micro print" or was that even mentioned?

The Taino heads on the bands weren't even aligned. At that point, I'm not wasting my time looking for micro printing. These where good fakes, but not nearly as great as many people are insinuating. Hell, they didn't even have a serial # to check. That alone would be enough for me to walk away from a box this expensive. His friend identified the 2nd box as fake (with some help from another friend) in a matter of minutes. I've gotten worked up by a rare or hard to find box in an LCDH before, so to some degree I understand the "buck fever" that can happen in a case like this. But an experienced buyer should be able to get over that and examine the the situation objectively. 

One thing people seem to be missing is his mention of an LCDH in Switzerland having a real box of Majestuosos for sale mid 2022 for $35,000 dollars, so even at the $15,000 offer, he is still, theoretically, out $20,000. Add to that the shop refusing to admit the box is fake and refusing to destroy it and his position makes a lot more sense. I completely agree with him that this box should never go back out into the wild. 

I'm still puzzled as to why he would think that leveraging a Cuban court's decision is his path to success here. Cuban courts aren't exactly known for setting world wide precedent on any issues, let alone business law. He mentioned in this video that he is nervous about Swiss libel law, but again, does a ruling in a Cuban court protect him from that? Maybe we'll find out, but that just seems like an expensive dead end in my opinion. 

[NSXCIGAR]

14 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

I'm still puzzled as to why he would think that leveraging a Cuban court's decision is his path to success here.

Assuming he hasn't spoken to a Swiss lawyer it's possible it's a bluff in the sense that he may think once he has this decision he could persuade the shop he is protected from a libel suit if he names them and is prepared to do so unless his conditions are met. 

14 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

they didn't even have a serial # to check.

Yeah, I think he kind of blew it on that. An experienced buyer should immediately recognize that as problematic on a box like this for several reasons. I also think an argument could be made that without a serial his box (if legitimate) would be worth considerably less than the market value of $30K or whatever they're now at. Any serious buyer should realize that.

14 hours ago, Drguano said:

the fact that he is not doing any of this out of vengeance.

I think "vengeance" is probably the wrong word. I think anyone who feels legitimately wronged by a business would be justified in doing the same thing. I don't see anything wrong with his actions. He clearly wants the shop to cough up the dough even if that means he ends up in the red. I can respect that as well as his consideration of others who could become victims. 

There's a reason there's a thing called F-you money" and it's generally not advisable to get on the bad side of people that have it. They will spend enormous amounts to get you to pay just $1 on principle. I'm not saying this guy has that kind of money but he certainly has enough to not care about ending up in the black after all is said and done. People like that are not the kind you want to try and get over on. 

[Corylax18]

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Assuming he hasn't spoken to a Swiss lawyer it's possible it's a bluff in the sense that he may think once he has this decision he could persuade the shop he is protected from a libel suit if he names them and is prepared to do so unless his conditions are met. 

He mentioned in one of the earlier videos that he spoke to "his lawyer", I would assume swiss based, but who knows. I'm far from an expert in Swiss law, but the pile of paper work he got from HSA confirming that everything is fake (the box, cigars, bands, stickers, everything) would be more than enough evidence to call the vendor out here in the states. 

12 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Yeah, I think he kind of blew it on that. An experienced buyer should immediately recognize that as problematic on a box like this for several reasons. I also think an argument could be made that without a serial his box (if legitimate) would be worth considerably less than the market value of $30K or whatever they're now at. Any serious buyer should realize that.

Yep. As we've discussed with much less expensive boxes, provenance is everything on the resale market. Even if the box was real, that lack of a fully traceable history should have a downward affect on its resale value. 

[BrightonCorgi]

Swiss laws can be interesting.  I know if you make a contract and someone rips you off you still have to pay them. You then go to court and go the money back. You cannot stiff someone in CH (from I am told).

[NSXCIGAR]

11 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

but the pile of paper work he got from HSA confirming that everything is fake (the box, cigars, bands, stickers, everything) would be more than enough evidence to call the vendor out here in the states. 

In the US no doubt. Any shred of evidence would be enough to protect against defamation. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. But almost everywhere else the burden of proof is on the defendant. That's why I'm assuming his lawyer may have suggested getting the tribunal decision. I can't imagine he'd think to go that route on his own. 

And to me simply explaining to the shop that he's going down that route to position himself to protect against defamation when he publicly exposes them would be enough to get the shop to understand that eventually they will be exposed if they don't give in to his demands. The shop has to realize that this is coming and should probably take his deal of $15K with box destruction. 

[MrBirdman]

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The shop has to realize that this is coming and should probably take his deal of $15K with box destruction

I think the tribunal thing may partly be intended to eliminate any and all plausible deniability from the shop about authenticity, in which case they would have no honest grounds on which to refuse destruction. Worth noting that defamation in Switzerland is still technically a criminal offense. So his lawyer may have suggested the tribunal as a CYA for a client who might go public. 

Also, there’s some fundamental misunderstanding on the thread about how damages work (i.e. how much the shop “owes”). Absent specific statutory provisions, common law rules would apply (Switzerland uses civil law but common law rules for contracts are still frequently the default). The typical remedy for a breach like this is restitution damage - in short, a refund of the purchase price. What this guy wants is called specific performance (“provide me the cigars I actually paid for”). However, specific performance is typically only granted in a goods transaction when the good is unique and/or irreplaceable. Neither applies here, and I’d be very surprised if Swiss law provided otherwise for retail goods.

You could maybe make a fraud claim to get consequential damages, possibly up to the present value of the box. But you’d need to prove that the shop knowingly made a deceitful statement and that the buyer justifiably relied on it. However this guy a) knew the seller wasn’t a licensed Habanos shop; b) is a season Cuban cigar purchaser well aware that fakes exist, and c) bought a box with a covered serial number. So even if there was a deceitful statement, all of those factors would mitigate against his reliance being justifiable.

TLDR: Absent more information, he’d be pretty unlikely to win anything more than a refund in a US/UK court, and probably in Switzerland too. 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

this guy wants is called specific performance (“provide me the cigars I actually paid for”). However, specific performance is typically only granted in a goods transaction when the good is unique and/or irreplaceable.

Did we confirm that he actually wants a replacement? I agree it's not going to happen but didn't he say he was good with $15K and box destruction? 

And I'm curious--if specific performance is granted but an item is "irreplaceable" doesn't that preclude replacement? One would think a replacement is more reasonable if an item is more common, not less common. 

2 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

However this guy a) knew the seller wasn’t a licensed Habanos shop; b) is a season Cuban cigar purchaser well aware that fakes exist, and c) bought a box with a covered serial number.

I don't think we know if this is an LCDH or not. And even if it's not it's likely listed on the HSA site as a HS or HP retailer. Almost all reputable shops are. That's all it might take to give the shop the HSA imprimatur. 

And he could argue that obscured or removed serials are standard gray market practice and present experts to confirm it, although the belief this box could have ever been gray market is probably unreasonable to any experienced buyer (but would be difficult to establish that). And it's likely it was brought up and the shop said something to assuage his concern effectively representing the box as genuine. 

2 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

The typical remedy for a breach like this is restitution damage - in short, a refund of the purchase price.

That's what I had originally thought but someone above had disagreed. I just thought it unlikely that the shop would be obligated to give him more than the purchase price based on the idea that the box has appreciated between the time he bought it and subsequently discovered it was fake. Is there any legal justification for something like that? 

[MrBirdman]

On 12/14/2023 at 3:14 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

And I'm curious--if specific performance is granted but an item is "irreplaceable" doesn't that preclude replacement? One would think a replacement is more reasonable if an item is more common, not less common. 

I know, it can seem a bit counterintuitive. Irreplaceable here means that the buyer could not actually go out and buy the good at any price (ie there is no market for it), but presumes the original seller still has the item (and they reneged on the contract for sale). Also, this limit on specific performance pertains only to goods transactions. It is used more liberally as a remedy in other types of contracts (like a business purchase, see Twitter v Musk). 

Ultimately contract law (like all law) is about policy choices. I can get into the reasoning more if you wish, but there is some logic to it. Suffice it to say that restoring the buyer to his original condition (a refund) is considered more fair. If this were a commercial transaction where the buyer lost profit. we would analyze it a bit differently and probably would grant damage worth the difference in price, though he’d need to actually buy a real box. I know this also seems unfair but, again, policy choices.

 

On 12/14/2023 at 3:14 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

he could argue that obscured or removed serials are standard gray market practice and present experts to confirm it, although the belief this box could have ever been gray market is probably unreasonable to any experienced buyer

I think this would be a valid argument to undermine justifiable reliance. Habanos says you should only buy their products from licensed shops (even though tons of people buy elsewhere), and has a serial code verifier online. Yeah, it’s easily faked, but that hardly matters - buying a box with no number at all is a calculated risk on the buyer’s part.

What’s more, this guy holds himself out as something of an expert - he runs a YT channel called Habano News for crying out loud. Think a court wouldn’t take that into account when determining reliance? Trust me, they would. Not to mention his failure to pick up on spelling mistakes on the insert suggests he didn’t inspect the box very closely (his English seems good enough to make that argument).

My bottom line is that, while I like what this guy is doing to raise awareness, I do not find his argument for anything more than a refund very compelling. But I certainly respect that he’s refused much more money than that without a guarantee the box will be destroyed. 

[Lamboinee]

Did he smoke any of those things? I think I'd want to. I wonder what they tasted like. It looked like a pretty cigar.  Would I feel even worse if my fake uberluxe cigars tasted better than the real ones? I really don't know.

It is interesting what can get passed-off as a "legit error" by HSA and which errors they don't/can't cover up.

Misspell Connoisseur on one part of the packaging for one vitola and it can become a unique traditional aspect of a cigar. Fail to apply UV code to the backs of some new Cohiba and it can be a new advanced security feature sans security feature. 

But, thou shalt always use spell check on your fancy box inserts.

Perhaps these humidors were so limited that any attempt to pass off the misspellings was doomed to fail? Perhaps this guy is just that dang important.

I guess HSA really does care. I think we just had a breakthrough.

[Fugu]

On 12/15/2023 at 4:02 PM, MrBirdman said:

..., I do not find his argument for anything more than a refund very compelling.

C’mon guys, this is not your normal ‘box’ of cigars, and we all know it! The direction of this open debate here in fact is doing the man a disservice. I don’t know what it is that makes you judge that way (maybe an attempt to play devil’s advocate?), but you’ll certainly know better. Will try to take on a different perspective in order to shift the picture a tad bit back out of its distortion:

This here is a typical collector’s item. Most of the cigars in such collective humidors are not going to be smoked soon, or be smoked at all. They are mostly bought as an investment with the proved prospect that they will appreciate over time. The simple fact that it’s limited and numbered and highly sought-after draws to that fact. It might not be the rarest edition - but still, fact is (we may like it or not) releases like these will often be used as an asset. And in this argumentation, he has got the long-term market and quite a few well-respected publications on his side to back that up. Offering the man his “money back” is a stale joke.

Now, arguing that he should have known better in the first place had he done his due diligence (cause he seems to be versed) is a totally flawed argument - what much more will you then have to say about a legitimate long-standing and “trusted” vendor at place Geneva?! (listen carefully and you learn that he was buying there for more than 25 years, always trusted them and had no reason to suspect a fake). Side note - shop is still insisting they were not being fake... So “seems” not that easy, even for a long-term vendor, to identify a fake, no? If it was that easy (and in fact it is in this case, for a connoisseur), the shop should have known as well. Which in turn doesn’t make the situation any better for the seller’s party. So one cannot simply free the shop from its responsibilities.

Sure, it may all be speculative, but that’s really not the point here. Buying corporate stock is speculative, too: How would you react if you gave your broker a buying order for a certain company share that tripled in value, only to learn at hindsight that he got you some rug-pull crypto instead? The financial loss is higher than the (non-) invested money.

Why he is taking this to court in Havana? Well, the Swiss shop is accusing him of lying. Now, all the experts who provided him with the various expertises and reports are in Cuba (with the exception of the Vrijdag people). Those are his main attestors in the lawsuit. So, it is more than logical to begin from that end and start in Cuba.

 

(Disclaimer: All provided the facts are as stated by the man. So far we’ve just heard his perspective)