The jewellery industry has always attracted unethical and illegal activities.
Traditionally, those threats came in familiar forms, such as shoplifters, burglars, counterfeiters, and even organised crime.
Today, some of the industry’s most sophisticated scammers and criminals never step inside a jewellery store. Instead, they invent one online.
Picture this: A jewellery store closes its doors. The owner posts an emotional farewell online, thanking loyal customers for years of support before announcing a final clearance sale. Within days, thousands of shoppers begin placing orders, convinced they’re helping a struggling small business rebound.
There’s only one problem – the store never existed!
New day, new problem
Increasingly sophisticated online scams are exploiting the trust consumers place in local businesses, blurring the line between legitimate retailers and convincing digital imposters.
Among the more concerning schemes are the so-called ‘ghost stores’.
This new type of scam involves websites that are crafted to mimic genuine Australian businesses while concealing the reality of their operations through polished design, fabricated stories, and blunt yet effective digital marketing tactics.
These scams first attracted widespread public attention around 12 months ago; however, they continue to evolve and represent an ongoing threat not only to unsuspecting consumers but also to legitimate jewellery retailers.
The concept of ghost stores entered the national spotlight in May 2025 after The Guardian published an investigation identifying more than 140 online retailers allegedly operating in this manner.
While the tactics vary, most ghost stores follow a familiar and overlapping blueprint. Scammers establish e-commerce websites that appear genuine but falsely present themselves as Australian businesses with physical retail stores.
To reinforce the deception, these websites often feature AI-generated images of storefronts, a fabricated owner history, and emotional backstories designed to prompt an immediate connection with potential customers.
Indeed, it’s increasingly clear that the most sophisticated scammers are not simply selling inexpensive products at marked-up prices; they are selling a ‘story’. Many of these scammers will claim their business has suffered a personal tragedy or financial hardship and is reluctantly closing its doors, prompting a supposed clearance sale with discounts across every product.
The sob stories differ from website to website, but the objective remains the same. These are subtle pressure tactics designed to manufacture trust, create urgency, and encourage impulse purchases before consumers ever consider verifying the retailer’s legitimacy.
Pushing the envelope
Some scammers, however, have demonstrated a willingness to push these tactics far beyond misleading marketing.
Earlier this year, a second ghost store was exposed after allegedly attempting to capitalise on the tragedy at Bondi Beach.
Australia was left stunned on 14 December when a terrorist attack targeted a Jewish community event at Bondi Beach in Sydney, leaving 16 people dead and 40 injured.
In the aftermath of the attack, an online retailer claiming to be connected to the tragedy attracted national attention and prompted warnings from consumer protection organisations.
Those warnings were later repeated after the media identified a second website making similarly false claims.
It’s important to understand that scammers rarely invent entirely new forms of deception.
More often, they identify legitimate systems that already work – like the relationship between consumers and jewellery stores - and inject themselves like parasites. As retail has moved online, so too has retail fraud. Ghost stores are not revolutionary; they are evolutionary.
From the consumer’s perspective, products advertised as premium or handcrafted are, in reality, inexpensive, mass-produced goods readily available on other platforms.
In some cases, orders never arrive, and these websites are suspected of harvesting payment details and personal information.
The broader implications extend further. Ghost stores compete directly with legitimate businesses for discretionary spending at a time when affordability has become one of the strongest drivers of purchasing decisions.
More concerning still, these scammers frequently steal content, imagery and branding from genuine businesses, undermining the trust that independent retailers may spend years establishing. It’s a cruel imbalance.
Many ghost store scammers demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of website design, social media advertising, and e-commerce optimisation, yet they face none of the overheads associated with operating a genuine business.
Legitimate jewellers, by contrast, must manage physical stores, online operations, staffing, inventory management, and customer service while competing against businesses that exist solely to deceive.
Media moved on, scammers did not
As recently as June, Tasmania’s Consumer, Building and Occupational Services (CBOS) warned consumers that ghost store operators continue to target Australian consumers.
The consumer watchdog detected a surge in deceptive websites imitating Australian retailers.
Bradley Wagg, acting director of consumer affairs and fair trading for Tasmania, described the scam websites as mimicking legitimate businesses.
“In reality, these operators are often based overseas, not closing down and typically drop-ship low-quality products,” he said.
“While items are advertised as high-quality and heavily discounted, consumers frequently receive cheap, mass-produced goods that fail to match the advertised description.”
This warning in Tasmania followed two public statements issued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The first came in July and the second in December, ahead of the critical holiday shopping period.
Deputy chair Catriona Lowe warned that while artificial intelligence is making deceptive websites increasingly convincing, digital platforms also have a responsibility to detect and remove fraudulent activity.
“It’s enormously important that platforms are proactively seeking to track what’s occurring on their platforms as well as providing tools to consumers to report to them and get responses in a timely manner,” she said.
Lowe added that AI can “help criminals make more realistic scams and make them more difficult to detect.”
White lies that blur the lines
When it comes to deceptive conduct online, the boundaries are not always obvious. Closer scrutiny often reveals many of the same warning signs that consumer advocates have cautioned against on websites that appear otherwise legitimate.
Said another way, deceptive online retail exists on a spectrum. While some scammers simply resell inexpensive products with misleading marketing, others use more subtle techniques that blur the line between exaggeration and misrepresentation.
One business that illustrates just how complex that landscape has become is Illicium London.
At first glance, the UK-based online jewellery retailer appears rather unremarkable. The business maintains a website, an active social media presence, and the kind of digital footprint expected of a modern e-commerce jewellery brand.
Indeed, it only appeared on Jeweller’s radar through an unusual sequence of events.
According to Companies House records in the United Kingdom, Illicium London was registered as a private limited company in October 2021 using a residential address in England.
The business was once listed as ‘specialising in the retail sale of watches and jewellery’; however, that has since been changed to ‘retail sale via mail order houses or via Internet’.
The company was registered by its owner, Arthur Bolotovsky, whose background is vaguely outlined on the company’s website. Illicium London maintains accounts across Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, and LinkedIn.
Its Instagram account has attracted more than 14,000 followers, while its Facebook page, created in August 2019, has accumulated approximately 12,000 followers.
The Facebook transparency page reveals another interesting detail. Before becoming Illicium London, the account previously operated under the name ‘Imperium London’ and is administered by two accounts based in the United Kingdom and one in Pakistan.
None of this, on its own, is especially unusual. Unlike the typical ghost stores, Illicium London does not claim to operate a physical jewellery store in London, nor does it rely on elaborate stories about financial hardship or closing-down sales to attract customers. Its social media administration also includes users located in its claimed country of origin.
A closer examination of the business, however, reveals an increasing list of inconsistencies that raise broader questions about how online retailers present themselves to consumers.
One of the first curiosities is surprisingly simple. Despite presenting itself as a London-based jewellery business, the website repeatedly uses American English rather than British English, referring to “jewelry” instead of “jewellery”.
While hardly conclusive on its own, this becomes more significant when viewed alongside other inconsistencies. The website features a profile of the business owner accompanied by an image of a man examining what appears to be a diamond.
A reasonable consumer could easily assume the photograph depicts Arthur Bolotovsky - it does not! In fact, the image is a stock photograph produced by LightField Studios and is available through Shutterstock. It was created in 2020.
Further examination reveals similar examples throughout the website. One section of the website introduces the people behind the business, accompanied by a photograph of a man and a woman working together at a bench.
“At Illicium we are a passionate and skilled team of creatives dedicated to creating exquisite handmade jewellery,” the website details.
“With a shared love for design, artisanal craftsmanship and attention to detail, we bring together a diverse range of talents, expertise, and artistic perspectives. Every member of our team is driven by a deep appreciation for the art of jewellery-making. We pour our heart and soul into every piece we create.”
The accompanying image, however, is AI-generated. This particular image was added to replace another stock photograph sourced from a commercial image library.
Rather than depicting jewellers, it was described as showing a “small business manager in his workshop”.
Indeed, a close look showed the workshop itself appeared to be dedicated to leather goods, with the man seemingly creating a handbag rather than jewellery.
Who are you?
Collectively, these examples tell the story of a business misrepresenting its reality to consumers. Jeweller became aware of Illicium London following contact from Daniel Gajetic, who identified himself as the company’s digital marketing director.
Initially, Gajetic asked whether he had the correct email address for an editorial enquiry. Over the following two weeks, the email exchange became increasingly difficult to reconcile.
The correspondence shifted to questions about advertising rates before becoming a request to contribute an article to the magazine as a ‘jewellery industry expert’. After those discussions concluded, Bolotovsky - the owner of the business - was contacted directly.
One of the first matters addressed with him was Gajetic’s position at the company, at which point Bolotovsky advised via email that he no longer works at Illicium London. This claim was undermined by a LinkedIn account that still lists Daniel Gajetic as ‘Digital Marketing Director at Illicium London’. Regulator records list Gajetic as an officer of the business.
Bolotovsky then went to great lengths to explain his background: ”I am 32 years old and completely self-taught and got into the jewellery industry about five years ago thanks to a good friend of mine who is a very well-established jeweller with a workshop in Hatton Garden in London,” he explained.
“He first introduced me to the jewellery game, and I was massively intrigued by it. From that, I saw a gap in the market where there was a lack of high-quality, meaningful, unique and affordable jewellery for men. As such I niched into this part of the market, hence our broad variety of interesting and unique designs.”
Asked about the inspiration behind the jewellery and which products had proven most popular, Bolotovsky highlighted the Ancient Collection, identifying the Archangel St Michael and the Eye of Horus pyramid pendants among his favourites.
“These are pieces which I think hold meaningful significance and we have portrayed them in a unique and beautiful way but at the same time fairly understated and versatile in the size and design,” he said.
“Our design inspiration for the ancient collection is drawn from three key areas, mythology, ancient culture/history, and religion.
“I feel all three of these inspirations give the pieces a special and powerful feel that combines meaningful symbolism and a unique magical sense for the wearer.”
Illicium London’s eBay store — House of Illicium — states that all products are “handmade” in London.
However, reverse image searches of the jewellery identified by Bolotovsky as the company’s best sellers revealed identical products being offered in bulk across numerous online marketplaces, including Amazon, Etsy, eBay, AliExpress and Shein, frequently for around 10 per cent of Illicium London’s asking price.
Jeweller asked Bolotovsky why the same designs appeared to be widely available from unrelated sellers. Bolotovsky stopped responding to emails.
What do you do?
The investigation became even more troubling when examining the company’s supposed custom-made jewellery portfolio. Among the featured projects is a striking gold and sapphire ring accompanied by the following description:
”This bespoke gold sapphire band ring was crafted exclusively for one of our long-term clients, blending timeless elegance with a personalised design that they wanted”.
The accompanying images, however, are not photographs of a commissioned piece. They are stock images supplied by digital artist Alex Vyshnikov through Adobe Stock.
More significantly, they do not depict a real ring at all!
“My portfolio showcases the work of a professional AI prompt designer, a pioneer in leveraging advanced AI technologies to
create stunning visuals,” Vyshnikov explains.
“Each image and photo you see here is not the result of traditional photography or graphic design, but the output of cutting-edge AI algorithms.”
The same pattern emerges elsewhere within this jewellery gallery, where additional examples appear to rely on stock imagery rather than photographs of completed commissions – each accompanied by a ‘heartwarming’ story about the customers the piece was supposedly created for.
The bigger picture
Illicium London is not a ghost store. That’s besides the point. This single investigation demonstrates that many of the techniques associated with ghost stores — misleading visual representations, unverifiable claims, and marketing that creates impressions unsupported by readily available evidence — are not limited to outright scammers.
The digital marketplace has become considerably more complex, and distinguishing between legitimate businesses and those that rely on false claims is increasingly difficult for both consumers.
Perhaps the more pressing question is who is responsible for preventing these scams. Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive Erin Turner has previously argued that responsibility cannot rest solely with consumers.
“Platforms like Shopify and Instagram are making money as these ghost stores pay for advertising and support,” she said.
“We should call this what it is: digital retail fraud. Without coordinated action from digital platforms and regulators, these fraudsters will keep gaming the system.”
The ACCC has contacted Facebook, Instagram and Shopify regarding the operation of ghost stores; however, there is little evidence to suggest the problem is diminishing. It’s not difficult to see why these companies may struggle to find the motivation to stop this problem.
Meta’s business model is built on advertising. Every day, billions of users engage with Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, generating enormous volumes of behavioural data that allow advertisers to target remarkably specific audiences.
For legitimate jewellery retailers, these platforms have become an indispensable part of modern marketing. Unfortunately, the same technology also enables fraudsters to place convincing advertisements directly in front of the consumers most likely to respond.
See you in court
The question of ‘where does the buck stop’ is now beginning to extend beyond consumer protection and into the courtroom.
Earlier this year, a 20-year-old New Zealand entrepreneur commenced legal proceedings in Australia against Shopify, alleging that the platform failed to remove two ghost stores that copied his website and designs.
Ryan Billington’s business ships products internationally, including to Australia. Before commencing proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane, he had reportedly submitted 45 infringement notices to Shopify regarding websites he alleged had copied his business.
According to The Guardian, court documents filed in May allege his work was replicated 3,929 times across the infringing websites. These proceedings raise an increasingly important legal question.
Court documents reveal that in April, Billington’s solicitor contacted Shopify’s legal team requesting the removal of the websites, describing the process as frustrating. According to those documents, Shopify did not respond.
Billington said he supplied evidence establishing ownership of the original works, including source files, but continued to receive standard legal responses. Both websites were removed nine days after proceedings were filed and one day after media enquiries were directed to Shopify.
While the ACCC confirmed it had received responses from both Meta and Shopify regarding the issue, it declined to release the correspondence after objections.
What can we learn?
Whether Billington’s case establishes a legal precedent remains to be seen.
What is already apparent, however, is that the sophistication of online retail deception continues to evolve far more rapidly than the systems designed to police it.
Perhaps the defining characteristic of modern retail fraud is that products are no longer the primary deception — the story is.
In an era where consumers buy identity rather than product, ghost stores have learned that manufacturing authenticity can be more profitable than manufacturing jewellery.
Before they try to sell the product, they sell the fake business. The workshop, the craftsperson, the family business, the years of experience, and even the emotional connection consumers feel when supporting local retailers can now be faked with ease.
Some scammers use fabricated closing-down sales to exploit, while others invent business owners, workshops, histories, and even tragedies. Increasingly, artificial intelligence, stock imagery, and highly targeted advertising allow them to fabricate the appearance of legitimacy.
For genuine and authentic jewellers, the message is straightforward. Reputation remains one of the industry’s greatest competitive advantages; however, it is also one of its most vulnerable assets.
Retailers cannot stop criminals from building convincing websites or inventing compelling tales. What they can do is continue to demonstrate the qualities that cannot be fabricated so easily: genuine expertise, accountability, long-term customer relationships, and reputations earned over years rather than faked overnight.
In an increasingly artificial marketplace, authenticity may prove to be the jewellery industry’s greatest enduring competitive advantage.
Read eMag