... process is neither fraudulent nor illegal, by any definition of which I am aware. If Sam Heppler bids on an item which he fully intends to buy and does so if he's the high bidder, the motivation for entry of the bid is legally meaningless. Under those circumstances, David Whalen's purpose in having Sam bid is also legally meaningless.

I'm not even sure this practice violates eBay's bid manipulation rules, a copy of which follows below. Note the prohibition against "artificially" raising the bid levels, which would not apply to a bidder who intends to and does complete the auction by buying the item if he's the high bidder.

>> Shill bidding, deliberate: The deliberate use of secondary registrations or associates to artificially raise the level of bidding and/or price on an item.

>> Many multiple bids from one bidder to one seller.
Bidder rarely wins, or the high bidder suddenly does not buy and the second highest bidder is offered the item at that bidder's last bid.
Bidder usually has low feedback compared to bidding level.
Bidder and seller usually (not always) live fairly close to each other.
Bidder usually raises the level of bidding an unusual amount.
If it is an alias, the bidder's information will be falsified.

>> ACTION: First offense: 30 day suspension of primary account and indefinite suspension of all alias registrations.
Second offense: Indefinite suspension of primary account. <<

I think it would be wise to use with care an accusation that someone is doing something illegal -- and then only if you're damn sure you are factually correct.

As I said in another post, this doesn't look much different to me that bidders agreeing not to outbid each other or to make a "joint" bid designed to hold the top bid price down.

Just one lawyer's opinion. <g> ----- jim o\-S