SCAMMED BY @SonicRefs

[438]

1. @SonicRefs created the transaction environment
@SonicRefs entire defense tries to separate himself from the Pana bank sale - but this fails immediately because:

• @SonicRefs instructed me to create a group chat with his worker
  
• The worker was introduced, authorized, and positioned by @SonicRefs
  
• The transaction happened inside @SonicRefs operational structure
  

This is critical:
❗I did not independently find the worker - the worker was assigned by @SonicRefs
Therefore:

• The worker is not a third party or “solo actor” like @SonicRefs claims
  
• The worker is an agent acting under @SonicRefs service
  

 
2. Service relationship overrides payment technicalities
@SonicRefs argues:
“I didn’t personally receive the payment”
This is a weak argument.
Under normal service logic:

• A provider (@SonicRefs) is responsible for actions of their workers
  
• This applies even if payment was not directly received by the provider
  
•  Liability depends on control and representation, not who received the money
  

And here:

• The worker acted under @SonicRefs
  
• The worker operated in a @SonicRefs-created group
  
• The worker was fulfilling the exact service @SonicRefs initiated
  

From my perspective:

• I came to @SonicRefs for a service
  
• I followed the exact steps I was told
  
• I paid the person @SonicRefs put in charge
  

❗ You don’t get to avoid responsibility just because the money went to your worker instead of you.
 
3. You allowed the worker to deal directly (and were clearly active)
You’re saying:
“I never do worker -> customer deals”
But in this case, you literally did:

• You explicitly created that structure
  
• You remained in the group while it happened
  
• You never intervened or warned me
  

That means:

• You allowed and facilitated the transaction
  
• You implicitly approved the worker’s actions by your presence
  

And more importantly:

• I was actively pinging you during the process
  
• You were responding by reacting (?) to messages
  
• You even reacted the same minute I reported the money being withdrawn
  

❗ So you were clearly present and aware in real time
That’s not being uninvolved - that’s being actively there while it happened.
❗ That is approval, whether you want to call it that or not.
 
4. This was clearly part of your normal service flow (1 of 24 openups)
You run an open-up service that includes 24 different options.
Pana is one of those 24 options.
So from my perspective:

• I was already inside your service flow
  
• Your worker recommended Pana (one of your listed options)
  
• The worker provided pricing and set it up
  

​​​​​​​❗ There is no distinction between this and any other service you offer
It looked exactly like:
the normal process, just handled by your worker
There was nothing that suggested:

• this was a separate deal
  
• this was unofficial
  
• or this was outside your responsibility
  

​​​​​​​❗ It’s literally one of the services you advertise.
So saying:
“that wasn’t my sale”
doesn’t make sense when:

• it’s your service category
  
• your worker is fulfilling it
  
• and it’s happening inside your system
  

​​​​​​​❗ Any reasonable person would assume this is part of your standard service.
 
5. I did everything right
​​​​​​​
I:

• Asked if it was safe to deposit
  
• Used the account your worker provided
  
• Followed instructions step-by-step
  

And still got drained in minutes.
I had no independent control:

• The bank account required SMS verification
  
• The worker retained that control
  

​​​​​​​❗ I was placed in a position where loss was inevitable due to your system
This is not user error - this is a broken and unsafe setup.
 
6. Your own team admitted fault
Your worker literally said:

• The account was used
  
• I am 100% not to blame
  
• “If we make mistakes, we pay”
  

THIS ALONE SHOULD SETTLE IT :)
 ​​​​​​​❗ This confirms internal acknowledgment of fault
​​​​​​​❗ It confirms the loss resulted from your side
You cannot admit fault internally and then deny it publicly. 
 
7. Your Terms of Service do NOT protect you
You rely heavily on your TOS, but they fail for multiple reasons:
a. No valid separation
Your TOS says:
Not responsible for dealings not conducted directly with @SonicRefs
But:

• The deal happened inside your group
  
• The worker was introduced and authorized by you
  
• You were present during the entire process
  

​​​​​​​❗ This is a direct dealing in practice
Also:
​​​​​​​❗ If I had independently contacted your worker, without your involvement or knowledge, then your TOS argument could apply
But that is not what happened here
You created the chat, added the worker, and stayed present
So this was clearly within your operation.
 
b. Your behavior overrides your TOS
Even if your TOS says one thing:

• You directed me to the worker
  
• You stayed in the group
  
• You allowed the transaction to happen
  

​​​​​​​❗ You cannot:
Create a system -> benefit from it -> then deny responsibility when it fails
 
c. The Pana disclaimer does not apply
The disclaimer says:
“If you lose funds we are not responsible”
But:

• The loss was not random
  
• The account was controlled by your worker
  
• The worker had SMS access
  

​​​​​​​❗ This is not “risk” - this is negligence or misconduct
 
8. Your system directly caused the loss
Let’s be real about what happened:

• Your worker provided the bank account
  
• Your worker kept SMS access
  
• I deposited funds
  
• The funds were gone within minutes
  

​​​​​​​❗ Only someone with access could do that
​​​​​​​❗That’s your worker or your system
Either way, it is on your side - not me
​​​​​​​❗ This is NOT a case where I independently contacted your worker from a previous deal and tried to run something behind your back
 
9. This logic is dangerous for the community
If your argument is:
“If my worker takes the money instead of me, I’m not responsible”
Then what’s stopping this from happening again?
That would mean:

• You route deals through workers
  
• Something goes wrong
  
• You say “not my responsibility”
  

​​​​​​​❗That is exactly how people get scammed
Even if that’s not your intention, that’s how it functions in practice.
 
10. The Amazon account should also be refunded
I also paid $70 for the Amazon account.
Even if it was delivered:

• The entire service it was meant for failed
  
• The setup it was part of resulted in a loss
  
• I cannot use that account for its intended purpose anymore
  

​​​​​​​❗The service was incomplete and unusable as a whole
So I should also be refunded for that, not just the bank-related losses.
 
11. Request to forum admins regarding TOS transparency
I would also ask forum admins to require @SonicRefs to clearly display his Terms of Service on his listing.
There are concerns in the community that:

• TOS may be changed depending on the situation or scam reports
  

​​​​​​​❗ But even in this case, with the TOS provided, they still do not protect him
So full transparency should be required moving forward.
 
 
At the end of the day, I didn’t go outside the system, I followed it exactly as it was set up by @SonicRefs. The worker wasn’t a random third party, but someone introduced, trusted, and actively present under @sonicrefs’ service. The fact that the deal was carried out by a worker instead of directly by @SonicRefs doesn’t change the reality that the entire process happened inside his operation, with his oversight, and using one of his own advertised services. The loss didn’t happen by chance - it happened because of how that system was structured.
If responsibility can be avoided simply by shifting transactions to workers, then there’s no real accountability at all. That’s not a fair or reasonable standard.
​​​​​​​❗I relied on the service, followed the process, and got burned because of it - so the responsibility still falls on @SonicRefs to make it right.

IF YOU ADVERTISE AS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ACT LIKE ONE :)

---

Also,  there is no need to be angry and vulgar towards your employees and call them the n word. They are a reflection of your service so be mindful of that :).

the chat export of the order group and the dms between me and mrdawson submitted proves MY defense and NOT HIS!

because if you go through the parts you need to check in the chat export you will find out:

1. @kayyashtrayy quoted the price
2. @kayyashtrayy handled the payment
3. @kayyashtrayy processed the sale entirely on his own 

i never processed any order like that & every single sale i make for a bank open up/aged account/refund or anything else i sell on my site i always do on dms first!!!

anyone including mrdawson who ever deal with me before knows this!!! like i said before i dont do this even with my top 3 workers even though i trust them so much

i never have anyone other than me process payments it either have to go through me or my payment portal (which can be sent by me in dms or our @SonicBookings_bot on telegram)

it is a clear condition that you need to deal with @s0nicrefs first. it is plastered everywhereeee:

look on the TOS of my site 
link: https://sonicrefs.su/refunds/tos
screenshot: https://ibb.co/XHzKnBr

my point is the payment is never NEVER RECEIVED BY THE WORKER PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS

i have a strict system where the transaction is first processed by me but in this case:

mrdawson agreed -> transferred the money -> proceeded on his own accord with @kayyashtrayy

@kayyashtrayy if anyone knows is someone who is an AGGRESSIVE seller and is active on all chats trying to sell his open up banks and other kyc stuff (everyone active in the com knows this) but i just utilize him for a select few orders 

this is how i like to work:
i get the best workers in their selective fields and utilize them for a select few orders that I MYSELF would have higher degree of responsibility! i dont necessarily have a leash on him as he is his own provider too...

its not realistic for me to stop him from going for sales on even people i previously dealt with. it is impossible for me to do this 

1. @kayyashtrayy was someone i assigned few orders to, that does not mean i am 100000% responsible for every independent action he chose to take outside of my process 

2. mrdawson and @kayyashtrayy made this deal entirely between themselves and JUST i was in the group for a previous account sale (the $70 pre verified amazon account)

customer then deposited $2,860 into an account he knew was SMS controlled by someone else. he then asked twice if it was safe and proceeded anyway 

he trusted @kayyashtrayy not in me!!! 

despite me having no obligation to do this i stepped in and spammed @kayyashtrayy dms furious on what happened. i tried so hard to get him to refund mrdawson but he said its not his fault and its the mule's

i did not have to do that but because i genuinely care about my customers

mrdawson while its shit some people think i am scammer now because of this dispute... i still wish this didnt happen to you and i bare no animosity toward you

⎝ STILL BROKE? ⎠
START MAKING MONEY WITH OUR SERVICES

[45]

will respond within 24h. keep thread open

[477]

Yo,I feel like if the worker doesn't refund the funds should come out of sonics pocket or the deposit he has made on site. (my fuckass 2cents)

[438]

Yo,I feel like if the worker doesn't refund the funds should come out of sonics pocket or the deposit he has made on site. (my fuckass 2cents)

but he chose the vendor on his own volition for this respective sale. i didnt sell him the bank i just sold him the amazon pre-verified account 

he decided on his own based off of what KAY offered him and not me

like i said before and im going to reiterate again @kayyashtrayy is aggressive as fuck with sales. he is in refunding chats speaking to everyone and trying to sell them whatever he can 

in my chat right here i just search the keyword "kay" once and i find all sorts of discussion related to kay:
https://ibb.co/zTtyFSCL
https://ibb.co/21CXFY0Y
https://ibb.co/Nd1cCDyc
https://ibb.co/6JGwgbRt

(almost all of it being BEFORE the scam report was opened against me)

he tries to dm and post ads everywhere he can and just sells his banks that way, and none of this is my concern nor my responsibility (other than the ones i had him do for me of course) 

i am not his father, i dont have him on a leash and just because i hired him for a few orders, which add up to being literally less than 8 (this bank not being part of them) doesnt mean im now liable for everything he does.

you cant cut me out the deal completely and then drag me back in only when it goes bad. either im part of it from the start and you pay me or im not part of it at all and not responsible for anything that happens after

mrdawson opened a report on me just when he was scammed but what about my payment? i scammed you, so there has to be a payment outgoing toward me right? there is none. mrdawson never paid me for the bank

i literally didnt make shit from the sale because i didnt sell it!!! simple as that!!!

take a look at the chat exports again and see that i only sold him the pre-verified account, which @kayyashtrayy delivered successfully: https://limewire.com/d/Uv9HF#Aub2NngXaM

the title of the thread being "SCAMMED BY @SonicRefs" and the entire notion and idea and of the report stems from "sonic sold a bank and customer got drained" makes me look like the worst scammer in history of refunding

but if you just take a look at the group export you can see that its not me who sold him it. i am not responsible for him being drained

⎝ STILL BROKE? ⎠
START MAKING MONEY WITH OUR SERVICES

[45]

This will be a lengthy response but I think all of these points are important to mention, because if the simple logic flow is not clear that I reached out to @SonicRefs first directly, and followed his instructions in the transaction environment that he created with his employee and was left scammed is not clear, I suppose it needs a logical breakdown. Because at the end of the day this is your services internal matter, since YOUR worker/employee, whom you introduced and directed to deal with me lead me to losing my money. So the company/service bares responsibility and how you recover that money is an internal matter of your service. 
Let’s keep this professional and focus on the actual facts. Here are the following 20 points responding to what @SonicRefs responded in this thread in the last 24h.
 
1. Your “chat export proves my point” argument is misleading
You’re saying the logs prove:

• @kayyashtrayy quoted the price
  
• @kayyashtrayy handled payment
  
• @kayyashtrayy processed the sale
  

But this does not prove your defense - it actually reinforces mine.
❗ Because all of this happened:

• Inside a group you created
  
• With a worker you introduced
  
• While you were present and active
  

So yes - the worker handled it.
❗ But he handled it inside your system, not outside of it.
 
2. Your “I only process deals in DMs” rule is irrelevant here
You keep repeating:
“I always process orders in DMs”
But that’s not what actually happened.
What matters is:

• What the customer experienced
  
• What you allowed in practice
  

In this case:

• You created the group
  
• Your worker started offering a service you provide
  
• You stayed in the chat
  
• You did not stop or correct the process
  

❗ If your rule was strict, you had every opportunity to enforce it
You didn’t.
❗ So your actions override your claimed system.
 
3. This was NOT me “proceeding on my own accord”
You claim:
“mrdawson agreed -> transferred -> proceeded on his own”
That is false.
❗ I never left your system.

• I was in your group
  
• With your worker
  
• While you were present
  

This is NOT:
customer independently contacting a worker
This is:
customer following the exact environment you created
❗ That distinction completely breaks your argument.
 
4. Your presence = awareness and approval
You were not unaware.

• Your worker was pinging you during the process
  
• You were reacting (?) to messages
  
• You responded the same minute the funds were withdrawn
  

❗ You were clearly watching everything in real time
If this was “not your deal,” you could have:

• Stopped it
  
• Warned me
  
• Redirected me
  

You did none of that.
❗ That is implicit approval.
 
5. “He’s an aggressive independent seller” makes your position worse
You said:

• He’s aggressive
  
• He sells to everyone
  
• He’s not fully under your control
  

❗ Then why introduce him into a customer transaction?
If you know this:

• Why add him to my group?
  
• Why let him pitch services inside your system?
  
• Why not warn me?
  

You cannot:
❗ knowingly introduce risk -> then deny responsibility for it
 
6. “I can’t control him” is not a valid defense
You said it’s impossible to control him.
That doesn’t remove responsibility.
❗ If you can’t control someone, you should not:

• Assign them to customers
  
• Let them operate in your service
  
• Allow them to handle transactions OR EMPLOY THEM AND INTRODUCE THEM AS WORKERS
  

Responsibility comes from:
❗ who you bring into the process
 
7. I trusted your service - not a random worker
You said:
“you trusted him, not me”
That’s incorrect.
❗ I trusted your service structure.
Because:

• You introduced the worker
  
• You placed him in the process
  
• You stayed present
  

❗ In that context, the worker represents you.
 
8. The setup itself was unsafe
You said I knowingly deposited into an SMS-controlled account.
But:

• I asked if it was safe
  
• I relied on your worker’s guidance
  
• The account came from your system
  

❗ I had no control over it
And:

• The worker had SMS access
  
• Funds were drained immediately
  

❗ That proves the setup was fundamentally unsafe
This is not user error - this is a flawed system.
 
9. Your TOS does NOT protect you
You rely heavily on your TOS, but it fails here.
 
a. This was NOT an independent dealing
Your clause says:
no responsibility for dealings not conducted directly with you
But:

• You created the group
  
• You added the worker
  
• You were present the entire time
  

❗ This was conducted within your system
Also:
❗ If I had independently contacted your worker without your knowledge, your TOS could apply
But that is NOT what happened.
 
b. You implicitly approved the transaction
You say payments must go through you.
But:

• You were present
  
• You were active
  
• You did not intervene
  

❗ That is implicit authorization.
 
c. You created the exact situation your TOS tries to avoid
Your TOS tries to prevent:
customers dealing directly with workers
But:
❗You created that exact situation
You cannot:
❗ create it -> allow it -> then deny responsibility
 
d. Your own worker is violating your TOS
By your own rules:

• Payments must go through you
  
• Workers should not process transactions
  

But in this case:
❗ Your worker:

• Quoted the price
  
• Took payment
  
• Completed the deal
  

❗ That directly violates your own TOS
So either:

• Your system is not enforced
  
• Or your workers are operating outside your rules
  

❗ In both cases, that is still your responsibility
You cannot:
have rules -> allow them to be broken -> then use those same rules as a defense
 
e. Your own TOS defines you as the intermediary
You state:
“we act as intermediaries”
❗ That means you are responsible for how the service is delivered
And your worker delivered that service.
 
f. Your responsibility never ended
Your TOS says responsibility ends after completion.

• I never received a refund
  
• The service was never completed
  

❗ So your responsibility never ended.
 
10. Suspicious TOS update
It is also worth noting:
❗ Your TOS was updated on April 4th - one day after this incident
That raises serious concerns because:

• The timing directly follows this dispute
  
• It suggests changes may have been made to protect your position
  

❗ Even with the updated TOS, it still does not protect you in this case
But the timing itself is questionable.
 
11. “Outsourcing” vs reality
You keep trying to frame this as:
“I outsource providers”
But that’s not how this was presented to me.
❗ You introduced @kayyashtrayy as your worker
Not as:

• an independent third party
  
• not as someone separate from your service
  

But as someone:
❗ acting within your operation
So from my perspective:

• He is part of your service
  
• He represents your service
  
• He is your responsibility
  

❗ You cannot reframe him as “independent” after something goes wrong
 
13. I did NOT “choose the vendor on my own”
You keep saying:
“he chose the vendor himself”
That’s simply not true.
❗ I did not independently find or reach out to @kayyashtrayy

• You introduced him as your worker PART OF YOUR ORGANIZATION
  
• You added him to the group
  
• He was already actively helping me with the process
  

❗ From my perspective, he was the person YOU assigned
There is no “independent choice” here.
❗ I continued dealing with the only person you put in front of me.
 
14. Who received the payment is irrelevant
You keep repeating:
“I didn’t get paid”
But that does not remove responsibility.
❗ Responsibility is not based on who received the money
❗ It is based on who created and controlled the transaction environment
A simple comparison:
❗ If an employee takes payment directly from a customer and something goes wrong, the company cannot say:
“we didn’t receive the money, so it’s not our problem”
That’s not how responsibility works.
 
15. This was one continuous service - not separate deals
You are trying to split this into:

• Amazon account (your deal)
  
• Bank account (separate deal)
  

But that’s not how it happened.
❗ This was one continuous process:

• I came to you for a service
  
• You set up the structure
  
• You introduced the worker
  
• The worker continued the process
  
• The bank was recommended within that same flow
  

❗ There was no clear break or separation
From my perspective, this was all part of the same service.
 
16. Your own description of the worker shows negligence
You described @kayyashtrayy as:

• Aggressive
  
• Constantly selling
  
• Acting independently
  

❗ That is not a defense - that is a problem.
If you are aware of this behavior, then:
❗ Introducing him into a customer transaction without control or warning is negligent
You cannot:
❗ knowingly expose customers to that risk -> then deny responsibility when something goes wrong
 
17. “I only used him a few times” does not matter
You said you only used him for a small number of orders.
That is irrelevant.
❗ Even one instance is enough
What matters is:
❗ You introduced him in THIS transaction
That alone establishes responsibility for what happened here.
 
18. You were already part of the deal from the start
You said:
“you can’t cut me out and bring me back when it goes bad”
But that’s not what happened.
❗ You were never “cut out”

• You created the group
  
• You introduced the worker
  
• You stayed present the entire time
  

❗ You were part of the deal from the beginning
I’m not bringing you in after the fact - you were already there.
 
19. The Amazon payment is part of this situation
You also said:
“you never paid me for the bank”
That ignores the bigger picture.
❗ I DID pay you:

• $70 for the Amazon account
  

And that transaction:

• Started the relationship
  
• Led directly into the rest of the process
  
• Put me into the system where this happened
  

❗ The bank deal did not happen in isolation
It happened as a continuation of a paid service.
 
20. The issue is your system - not just the worker
You keep focusing on:

• who sent messages
  
• who received payment
  

But that is not the core issue.
❗ The issue is:

• You created the system
  
• You introduced the worker
  
• You allowed the interaction
  
• You were present while it happened
  

❗ That system led directly to the loss
So the responsibility still traces back to you.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point, your argument comes across as avoiding responsibility rather than addressing what actually happened.

You are trying to reduce this to:

“my worker did it, not me”

But that completely ignores the reality:

❗ You introduced the worker - an employee of your organization who you are responsible for as an employer.
❗ You created the group
❗ You stayed in the chat
❗ You were actively responding while it happened

And now you are trying to shift 100% of the responsibility onto that same worker.

That is not how responsibility works in any normal setting.

Simple real-world comparison

If a company assigns an employee to a customer, and that employee mishandles the transaction:

❗ The company is still responsible.

The company cannot say:

“that employee acted on their own, not our problem”

Especially when:

The company introduced the employee
The transaction happened under their supervision
The company was present during the process

❗ That would be completely unacceptable in any legitimate business.

The core issue

This is what it really comes down to:

You run a service
You brought in a worker to fulfill part of that service
That worker’s actions directly caused a loss
You were present while it happened

❗ And yet you are taking zero accountability

Instead, your argument is:

“I wasn’t paid directly, so I’m not responsible”

❗ That is not a logical or reasonable position.

The bigger concern

What makes this even worse is your own statement:

You described this worker as:

Aggressive
Independent
Someone who actively pushes sales

❗ And yet you still:

Introduced him into my transaction
Let him handle part of the process
Allowed him to operate in your group

If you are aware that a worker behaves like this - or could potentially act in bad faith — then:

❗ It is completely unreasonable to expose customers to that risk

You cannot knowingly bring in someone unreliable, let them interact with customers, and then say:

“not my responsibility”

You directly told me to deal with him

This is also a key point you’re ignoring.

❗ You introduced me to @kayyashtrayy specifically to handle the Amazon account

So from my perspective:

You told me to deal with him
He was already helping me inside your service
Everything was happening in the same group

❗ Why would I suddenly assume he would scam me on the Pana part?

There was zero separation between:

the Amazon setup
and the Pana setup

❗ It all looked like one continuous service flow under you

You literally directed me to him - so how is it now my fault for trusting that process?

Final point

Blaming your own worker entirely, while you:

introduced them
told me to deal with them
allowed them to operate
and observed everything in real time

is not a valid defense - it is avoiding responsibility.

❗ If you run a service, you are responsible for the people you bring into it.

That’s the standard everywhere.

Conclusion

Your argument isn’t just weak - it goes against basic logic of how responsibility works.

❗ I followed your process
❗ I stayed within your system
❗ I dealt with the person you told me to deal with who you INTRODUCED AS YOUR EMPLOYEE/WORKER
❗ You were present the entire time

And the result was a loss caused by that setup.

❗ So the responsibility still falls on you to make it right.

[438]

this is a very poorly written response and clearly over reliant on chatgpt

you made it wayyy too long for anyone to absorb any sort of meaning or main points from. you also just made your worst point so far by saying:

"you introduced and directed to deal with me lead me to losing my money."

me introducing you to him through a previous deal ≠ me now being responsible for any losses or issues occurred after

i didnt instruct you or directly tell you to buy something and i also didnt sell it myself through him (him processing the sale as a worker), you literally purchased it on your own separately 

im just responsible for the amazon pre verified account i sold you for $70 because you paid me for it, any sale made outside of that (most importantly not by me) you would have to take it up with @kayyashtrayy as its no longer my responsibility 

if everyone's responsible for any loss encountered by someone they have introduced someone to then everyone would be deemed a scammer by this logic. 

and that is so unrealistic and impossible to maintain/abide by  

⎝ STILL BROKE? ⎠
START MAKING MONEY WITH OUR SERVICES

[45]

keep thread open will respond in 24h

---

Your argument would only make sense if this was a random introduction but it wasn’t. You didn’t just “introduce someone” you placed your worker inside an active transaction, kept him in the process and were present while he dealt with me as part of your service. That’s a completely different situation. When you run a service and assign a worker to a customer inside your own setup, that worker is acting as part of your operation, not as some unrelated third party. So no, this isn’t about “being responsible for anyone you’ve ever introduced” it’s about being responsible for someone you brought into a live transaction, allowed to operate under your watch and let handle part of the service you initiated. Trying to reduce that to a casual introduction is just ignoring how your own system actually works.

He is your employee hence your responsibility. This is simple logic. I wrote out the big response for the admin since I can see you are ignoring many aspects of my argument and just repeating that your employee is not your responsibility, which is an argument that wouldn't uphold anywhere.  :). I break down your argument and makes my point pretty clear, maybe give it a read. And to your point, quite the opposite, it would be SCAM LAND over here if everyone behaved based on your logic, anyone scams anyone within an organised service and no-one shares responsibility well because it wasn't you who did it. If you want to benefit from running a large operation, you leverage labor=employees. That is the only reason yo can operate at scale, so THEY are in fact your responsibility. Good comes with the bad. I guess you have bad apples running at such scale, but that is completely your problem not mine. Or otherwise don't call them your employees/workers :) And you truly try to distance your self from your worker, but unfortunate to you, you did present him as literally your "employee" so I guess it will be a lesson to be more careful with you wording in the future. Two of your workers admitted that your team messed up. Screenshots are attached. That's the reality of it. It wasn't just an introduction like "hey maybe use this guy for this and that but deal carefully and i am not responsible for anything". You literally participated in a group chat with your employee. No one would assume otherwise.

[438]

the only "active transaction" i was part of is the amazon pre verified account sale for $70 which you can verify by checking the export: https://limewire.com/d/Uv9HF#Aub2NngXaM

i assigned the worker to deliver the pre verified amazon account. why are you not even mentioning this or being truthful about that part? you purchased the bank from him using the same group but i didnt sell it to you myself  

my responsibility is to deliver anything i directly sell and i directly profit from. if you decided on your own volition to purchase a bank not from me but from a third party which i sometimes use, then its not my responsibility (i only had kay deliver 8 banks approximately) 

if i sold you the bank and the worker used to deliver the bank drained you then that would be a different conversation

but i wasnt the one you sold you it!!! this is the most important part!!!

i am a service provider and i sell products, i am not a forum owner/admin where i hold a responsibility of making sure everyone in the community is safe.

although, yes i did use him to deliver the amazon pre verified account, i did not use him for the bank sale nor offer you the bank directly 

i am in over 1k order groups (check here to see screenshot):  

https://ibb.co/1JJC9FfW 

and after i deliver what the customer paid me, i sometimes dont even check the order group to begin because i did my part of the deal which is deliver the product THAT MYSELF am responsible for delivering

if you encountered any issues regarding the amazon pre verified account then i would have been responsible for resolving those issues 

i never deliver a bank before getting payment even to people ive dealt with before yet you paid kay and not me, and then expected me to now be responsible for it? not only did you not pay me for it but u didnt even pay after it was delivered (right before you were drained) 

i only take upfront payments for bank account sales and no one can prove otherwise. even my mentorship members who have exclusivity go through this process 

i would really appreciate it if the moderator/s reading this would really understand and read this main point i would like to end with:

every single bank sale i make goes like:

i receive payment from customer —> i instruct customer to make group with worker —> worker delivers product

i never:
have worker receive payment from customer —> he delivers product

the only place you will ever see my wallets or a wallet related to me is either

1. my dms
2. @SonicBookings_bot (my bookings bot)

⎝ STILL BROKE? ⎠
START MAKING MONEY WITH OUR SERVICES