Squeezing unlimited money from Amazon using the Empty Box method? What am I missing? 11-25-2022, 02:09 AM
#1
This is my plan:
1. Purchase a fake ID with a generic name for $100.
2. Purchase an aged Amazon account with order history and 1 month of Prime from z2u.com for $1.00 and change the name to that on the fake ID. Using VPN + MAC Address Spoofer + DuckDuckGo whenever handling these accounts of course.
3. Purchase an Apple Watch Series 8 (non-cellular so no IMEI) for $400 and have it shipped to a post office. Pick up with fake ID.
4. After receiving the Apple Watch, claim Empty Box and receive a refund.
5. Sell the Apple Watch for $320, for a profit of over $200. Even more money per account if I use the double dip or triple dip methods from SocialEngineers.net.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 ad infinitum, buying a new fake ID with a new name and using a different post office each time.
I was thinking of maybe using each fake ID 2-3 times by using different accounts with different variations of the same name so I can use the same fake ID (John Smith, Johnny Smith, Jonathan Smith). Slightly riskier but much more profitable.
This all hinges on the Empty Box method still having a very high success rate in early 2023 when I would be doing it. How is this not unlimited money? Have I innovated something novel here? Am I making a mistake by sharing this on a public forum where others might abuse it and ruin it for me? Or is this already the standard/meta operating protocol of the SE world?
What are the flaws in this plan?
I would constantly be spending and refunding money using a (non-b@nk-affiliated) virtual card. I've never used a virtual card but it's safe to assume that the charge for filling up the virtual card is displayed on my b@nk account history, and the refund is also listed once it clears. Is this a serious issue that would prompt an investigation? I can get around this by only paying using Amazon gift cards that I purchase irl then getting either a replacement item or a gift card balance refund. This would be less profitable but removes one of the only vulnerabilities I can think of.
Please let me know if you have any constructive criticisms of this plan!
1. Purchase a fake ID with a generic name for $100.
2. Purchase an aged Amazon account with order history and 1 month of Prime from z2u.com for $1.00 and change the name to that on the fake ID. Using VPN + MAC Address Spoofer + DuckDuckGo whenever handling these accounts of course.
3. Purchase an Apple Watch Series 8 (non-cellular so no IMEI) for $400 and have it shipped to a post office. Pick up with fake ID.
4. After receiving the Apple Watch, claim Empty Box and receive a refund.
5. Sell the Apple Watch for $320, for a profit of over $200. Even more money per account if I use the double dip or triple dip methods from SocialEngineers.net.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 ad infinitum, buying a new fake ID with a new name and using a different post office each time.
I was thinking of maybe using each fake ID 2-3 times by using different accounts with different variations of the same name so I can use the same fake ID (John Smith, Johnny Smith, Jonathan Smith). Slightly riskier but much more profitable.
This all hinges on the Empty Box method still having a very high success rate in early 2023 when I would be doing it. How is this not unlimited money? Have I innovated something novel here? Am I making a mistake by sharing this on a public forum where others might abuse it and ruin it for me? Or is this already the standard/meta operating protocol of the SE world?
What are the flaws in this plan?
I would constantly be spending and refunding money using a (non-b@nk-affiliated) virtual card. I've never used a virtual card but it's safe to assume that the charge for filling up the virtual card is displayed on my b@nk account history, and the refund is also listed once it clears. Is this a serious issue that would prompt an investigation? I can get around this by only paying using Amazon gift cards that I purchase irl then getting either a replacement item or a gift card balance refund. This would be less profitable but removes one of the only vulnerabilities I can think of.
Please let me know if you have any constructive criticisms of this plan!
![[+]](https://sinister.li/images/modern/collapse_collapsed.png)
![[Image: AD83g1A.png]](http://i.imgur.com/AD83g1A.png)
