Well, that didn’t take long

Received this weekend from, it says, irs.us (ha!):

Over 130 million Americans will receive refunds as part of President Bush program to jumpstart the economy.

Our records indicate that you are qualified to receive the 2008 Economic Stimulus Refund.

The fastest and easiest way to receive your refund is by direct deposit to your checking/savings account.

Please follow the link and fill out the form and submit before May 10th, 2008 to ensure that your refund will be processed as soon as possible.

The link, I need hardly point out, doesn’t go to the government; it goes to a site in South Korea.

This last touch, though, is almost charming in a cynical sort of way:

NOTE: If you received this message in you SPAM/BULK folder, that is because of the large amount of e-mails we are sending out or because of the restrictions implemented by your ISP.

© Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.

It is to laugh.


  1. localmalcontent »

    4 May 2008 · 10:33 pm

    Frightening to imagine just how many elderly, unsavvy email readers will though~

  2. fillyjonk »

    5 May 2008 · 7:14 am

    I once received one claiming I was due a rather large refund from the IRS that could only be processed if I sent my account number. The e-mail actually originated in France. I wonder if “my” would-be phisher has emigrated…

    I tend to think that if these guys get caught, they should be hung upside down by their toes and pelted with partially-thawed frozen haddock. Or does that violate the Geneva Convention?

  3. McGehee »

    5 May 2008 · 10:15 am

    It does, Fillyjonk — under “Impermissible Acts of Cruelty to Haddock.”

  4. Dan B »

    5 May 2008 · 1:13 pm

    I love using the numbers from closed bank accounts/credit cards on these jokers. The account numbers, routing numbers, and check-sums all look good because they were once real, but there is not a penny to be gained from those numbers.

    I wonder how many phishers have been executed by the Russian mafia because of bad numbers.

  5. CGHill »

    5 May 2008 · 1:27 pm

    Not enough, Dan-O, not enough. :)

RSS feed for comments on this post