Doubtful Offerings vs Scam and Fraud Ads

I want to distinguish between Doubtful Offerings, Scam and Fraud.

I don't think that a newspaper has the responsibility of verifying the validity of an advertiser's offering. This is practically impossible.

Things get a little dicey with the classic "stuff envelopes at home" ad -- what's being offered is basically worthless (instructions that tell you to do what the advertiser did, send mail to persons answering a classified offering to tell them how they can make money stuffing envelopes at home). In this case, the advertiser is trying to inflate the value of what he is offering. It's a fine line, but there's really little practical difference between this and inflating the value of a car or house for sale. There will be an exchange of goods.

Contrast this with Puppy Scam and similar ads.

Here the advertiser offers a valuable puppy at a very reduced price. The person responds to discover that there is a problem requiring a small advance payment...then another, and another. These problems and payments continue until the respondent gives up. Of course there was never a puppy to begin with.

If there is no intent to deliver an exchange of goods, that's a scam.

Similarly the Check Cashing scam. In this scam, the advertiser is a foreigner who offers to make the respondent an agent who will earn a commission by cashing checks drawn against a US bank. Of course the checks are worthless, and the agent stands to lose his shirt. This ad is an invitation to a fleecing, not to an exchange of (inflated) goods. It's a scam.

When these ads are paid for by stolen credit cards, that's a fraud.

I'll leave publishers to sort out the ethical dilemmas of doubtful offerings. I exhort publishers to avoid scams and frauds in classifieds.