[jacquesm]

It's an escrow service, not a wiretransfer company.

The bit that I don't get is that escrow.com (the one party that didn't actually do anything wrong here) now has acted in a way which they probably should not have done, from their point of view the transaction actually is legit (buyer has control of the domain name, so funds should be released).

If Escrow.com can't be trusted to release the funds when the recipient has the goods then what point is there to use them in the first place?

[epsylon]

That's what surprised me as well, but maybe the FBI intervening in the case was what pushed them to not honor the wire transfer.

[nick_14]

I use Escrow.com a lot as a domainer, so I was initially concerned that a hold could be placed on the wire transfer after receiving the domain. The whole point of Escrow.com is that you are not able to cancel wire transfers and run away with my domain. However, it looks like they were operating under special circumstances due to the FBI investigation. Brandon Abbey is the president of Escrow.com and said “Escrow.com is holding the funds based on the proper legal authorities filing the necessary paperwork with the judicial system. We strictly follow the Escrow Law. That is what licensed escrow companies do.” Looks like it was just not explained correctly in the initial article.