Fake Cohiba Majestuosos. A $20 Million Dollar Scam?

[NSXCIGAR]

11 hours ago, Arabian said:

personally I wouldn't ask for a replacement from a 'legitimate' shop that sold fakes. I would just ask for my money back and call it a victory.

I do find it interesting that he rejected the vendor's offer of a refund. Obviously the issues at hand are under European laws but I wouldn't think the vendor would be obligated to compensate for any appreciation of value or to exchange. 

Aside from the fact that the vendor may not even have access to another legitimate box I don't think "market value" even enters into this. The only pertinent "value" is the amount paid and I suppose possibly interest on that amount. Asking for an exchange for an item that is materially different than the one you bought (new vs. 5 years old) I just don't think is legally sound. 

If I were the vendor and the guy was coming after me for $25k I'd tell him to talk to my lawyers too. I'm with you--get your money back and call it a victory. 

[El Presidente]

10 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I do find it interesting that he rejected the vendor's offer of a refund. Obviously the issues at hand are under European laws but I wouldn't think the vendor would be obligated to compensate for any appreciation of value or to exchange. 

Aside from the fact that the vendor may not even have access to another legitimate box I don't think "market value" even enters into this. The only pertinent "value" is the amount paid and I suppose possibly interest on that amount. Asking for an exchange for an item that is materially different than the one you bought (new vs. 5 years old) I just don't think is legally sound. 

If I were the vendor and the guy was coming after me for $25k I'd tell him to talk to my lawyers too. I'm with you--get your money back and call it a victory. 

"Opportunity cost" may indeed be a legitimate claim dependent on the legal  jurisdiction. 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 minute ago, El Presidente said:

"Opportunity cost" may indeed be a legitimate claim dependent on the legal  jurisdiction. 

There may be something there. But I think with a consumable like cigars it may be a tougher sell. Obviously art or a watch isn't going anywhere. I would think there may be some kind of legal precedent in the wine world. Way beyond my ability to do legal research. 

[cnov]

I would argue that the difference in price that the customer is asking for might seem like a lot, but is probably a drop in the ocean to the vendor when you factor in the reputational harm that will come from this situation. If the had sense, they should apologise profusely, refund the customer to their satisfaction and ask for discretion.

For the record the above doesn't sit right, but if it were my business, I would be doing everything I could to protect my reputation and come out on the right side of it. Mistakes happen, how they're dealt with can often make you realise why you trust that vendor in the first place. I don't think the vendor has done enough to protect themselves or their reputation, not by a long shot. It makes you wonder just how many boxes the vendor has sold, if it were a handful, they could certainly reach out and limit reputational damage, to accuse the customer of being a liar speaks volumes.

I look forward to seeing the updates.

 

[helix]

Wow , I'll bet the criminals doing those fake Majestuosos can knock off  great US counterfeit bills as well . Fake everything these days . AI will take fake to a whole new level .  Going to require one hell of a good bullshit detector to navigate.

[Cairo]

6 hours ago, cnov said:

if it were my business, I would be doing everything I could to protect my reputation and come out on the right side of it.

That is my take.    This vendor is gambling with their reputation--if they don't negotiate a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement that would be a major blunder.   That said--it is entirely possible/likely the vendor (and their source) may be victims as well.

This was a great video--a lot of lessons here.

[MrBirdman]

The bottom line is that the quantity and quality of all Cohiba fakes are going to increase commensurate with the potential ROI, which is now enormous. When a non-special edition box of Esplendidos goes for over $2,500 it’s easy to make a killing while selling boxes that are easier to fake. 

 

On 5/30/2023 at 2:20 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

There may be something there. But I think with a consumable like cigars it may be a tougher sell. Obviously art or a watch isn't going anywhere. I would think there may be some kind of legal precedent in the wine world. Way beyond my ability to do legal research. 

I suspect that grey market retailers could start hedging against this by including disclaimers and/or click-wrap agreements stating you buy the cigars “as is” and no warranties are made about anything. Then they can refund at their own discretion. All wine auctions I’ve ever seen do the same (if you can categorically prove that you bought a fake they will often still refund your money as a courtesy to safeguard their reputation). 

[BrightonCorgi]

1 hour ago, MrBirdman said:

 All wine auctions I’ve ever seen do the same (if you can categorically prove that you bought a fake they will often still refund your money as a courtesy to safeguard their reputation). 

A group of us had to source every vintage of Croft port wine for the largest Croft vertical ever held.  A few of the vintages were bought at auction.  One vintage, which we did not think was a declared vintage (in the 1930's I recall), but auctioned as such ended up tasting like another fruit wine.  The auction house refunded the money.   No such Croft vintage that year.

Another time, two bottles of 1900 Dow that tasted like turpentine or something toxic.  Could not have been port, even if it gave the ghost.  Auction house refunded the money. 

UPS once stole wine and said the bottles broke.  Auction house refunded my money on the missing bottles.

[tjkoala]

5 hours ago, helix said:

Wow , I'll bet the criminals doing those fake Majestuosos can knock off  great US counterfeit bills as well .

I'm sure there are larger repercussions in creating counterfeit currency than cigars. Plus think about how many bills you'd need to print for $20 Million. You only need 1,966 boxes of fake cigars for the same amount and I doubt most governments give a damn about fake cigars. It could largely be used as an operation to launder money. Get a fake box made, let it sit in your store, have someone pay cash for a $30,000 box of fake smokes, and now you just cleaned a LOT of cash. Rinse and repeat.

[MrBirdman]

2 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

A group of us had to source every vintage of Croft port wine for the largest Croft vertical ever held.  A few of the vintages were bought at auction.  One vintage, which we did not think was a declared vintage (in the 1930's I recall), but auctioned as such ended up tasting like another fruit wine.  The auction house refunded the money.   No such Croft vintage that year.

Another time, two bottles of 1900 Dow that tasted like turpentine or something toxic.  Could not have been port, even if it gave the ghost.  Auction house refunded the money. 

UPS once stole wine and said the bottles broke.  Auction house refunded my money on the missing bottles.

Glad they did right by you (as well they should if they’re selling a vintage that doesn’t exist). If you’re selling tickets to one of those port tastings in the future please PM me!

[Chas.Alpha]

On 5/30/2023 at 2:30 PM, nKostyan said:

The “gray market” exists due to two conditions of Habanos S.A.:

Still need to find a way to repay your kindness for the cigar stands. The only ones I use! 🚀

[Bagman]

9 hours ago, helix said:

Wow , I'll bet the criminals doing those fake Majestuosos can knock off  great US counterfeit bills as well . Fake everything these days . AI will take fake to a whole new level .  Going to require one hell of a good bullshit detector to navigate.

Doubt it.  I think most people would easily notice a fake "Dolaar Bill"

[Nevrknow]

46 minutes ago, Monterey said:

Doubt it.  I think most people would easily notice a fake "Dolaar Bill"

Not so fast Kimosabee. School kids got in trouble for trying to use a $2 bill for lunch. I kid you not. 

[Bagman]

5 minutes ago, Nevrknow said:

Not so fast Kimosabee. School kids got in trouble for trying to use a $2 bill for lunch. I kid you not. 

I think you missed the joke.

Whats wrong with using a 2 dollar bill?  I wish they were more common.

[Nevrknow]

I got it. Throwing my own joke in there. 🤣

[Bagman]

5 minutes ago, Nevrknow said:

I got it. Throwing my own joke in there. 🤣

Did you not know that there is a 2 dollar bill in circulation?

[helix]

Receiving $2 us bill as a tip is considered good luck in the DR.

[El Presidente]

Last post was deleted. 

If you are idiotic enough to  accuse  the employees or a distributor of theft .....on a public forum....then you are not bright enough to be here. 

Pull your head in. 

[Arabian]

On 5/30/2023 at 9:03 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

 

If I were the vendor and the guy was coming after me for $25k I'd tell him to talk to my lawyers too. I'm with you--get your money back and call it a victory. 

Update:

He was offered twice the money (15K) and still hasn't made a decision yet, the shop wants the box back and he wants it destroyed. seems like taking an ethical stance, he doesn't want the shop to re-sell the box again and screw the next guy in line. what's interesting according to him is the shop still refuses to acknowledge the box is fake despite all evidence. 

I understand the ethics behind this, but he would be fully compensated if he agreed, and the guy next in line must do his research before dropping a huge load of money.

[BrightonCorgi]

2 hours ago, Arabian said:

Update:

He was offered twice the money (15K) and still hasn't made a decision yet, the shop wants the box back and he wants it destroyed. seems like taking an ethical stance, he doesn't want the shop to re-sell the box again and screw the next guy in line. what's interesting according to him is the shop still refuses to acknowledge the box is fake despite all evidence. 

I understand the ethics behind this, but he would be fully compensated if he agreed, and the guy next in line must do his research before dropping a huge load of money.

Why hasn't LCDH/Habanos stepped in to say the shop owner is in breach of their franchise agreement if franchisee owner resells that box?

[NSXCIGAR]

13 hours ago, Arabian said:

He was offered twice the money (15K) and still hasn't made a decision yet, the shop wants the box back and he wants it destroyed. seems like taking an ethical stance, he doesn't want the shop to re-sell the box again and screw the next guy in line. what's interesting according to him is the shop still refuses to acknowledge the box is fake despite all evidence. 

I understand the ethics behind this, but he would be fully compensated if he agreed, and the guy next in line must do his research before dropping a huge load of money.

Well, it's obviously up to him what kind of deal he accepts. It sounds like he's got some legal footing since he's already got them to move up to $15K however even if he won in court I doubt he'd be able to restrict what the shop does with the box once returned. It's now their property and one would think it reasonable for them to potentially do their own analysis or return it to their supplier, etc.

11 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Why hasn't LCDH/Habanos stepped in to say the shop owner is in breach of their franchise agreement if franchisee owner resells that box?

It seems that he may not have revealed the shop's identity to anyone yet. I think he's trying to resolve this with the shop without formally calling them out as that gives him more leverage over the shop. From what I gather he contacted the shop directly after being given the reports from HSA/TRI. It may not even be an LCDH.

But as we've learned recently LCDHs are not prevented from obtaining product from third party sources. It doesn't seem like HSA is really motivated to police their franchisee's behavior. Is anyone even aware of any LCDH ever being formally reprimanded or stripped? 

[BrightonCorgi]

13 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

But as we've learned recently LCDHs are not prevented from obtaining product from third party sources. It doesn't seem like HSA is really motivated to police their franchisee's behavior. Is anyone even aware of any LCDH ever being formally reprimanded or stripped? 

A what point does it not make sense to continue with owning a LCDH franchise?  If you're compelled to source 3rd party or fake products to stay in business, why pay to be an LCDH?  The most valuable asset is the location and that is not LCDH's.  Locals know the location as a cigar shop regardless of the moniker out front.  LCDH's are in prime tourist locations, so they'll find the cigar shop either way.

[Edicion]

I just watched the second video, and it got me questioning at what point the company that has the distribution rights in the market, start to proceed to take legal action as well against the shop.

There's also not much discussion about where the shop sourced the box and I think a police investigation is in order, get a team of IP lawyers to file a 10M lawsuit and things will move in the fake cigars world.

The background research done in Cuba seemed thorough. 

Substitute the product with any other product, like a luxury clothing or watch brand and it would've been a completely different story. 

[BrightonCorgi]

2 hours ago, Edicion said:

Substitute the product with any other product, like a luxury clothing or watch brand and it would've been a completely different story. 

It is weird that the product was not seized like a vendor selling fake Goyard bags on Canal St.

[NSXCIGAR]

On 6/11/2023 at 4:33 AM, BrightonCorgi said:

The most valuable asset is the location and that is not LCDH's.

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

The important relationship is with the distributor. However it's in the distributor's interest to move as many boxes as possible. And as we've seen with the Tijuana incident it doesn't appear that the distributors are that interested in what their vendors are doing.

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. 

The bottom line is that until HSA figures out an effective security feature this will only get worse. These products are just too expensive now. And unlike a Rolex that can be taken apart and examined it's virtually impossible to verify the authenticity of a bunch of dried leaves.

I'm also still a bit skeptical how Tabacuba was able to confirm the wrappers on those cigars weren't Cuban. Perhaps a botanist could chime in. I would love to know how that could be determined.