There is no such thing as a victimless crime. If there was no victim, then by definition there is no crime. The two words cannot coexist together. If a crime is committed, then there IS a victim, albeit not always a readily identifiable one. In your example, however, the crime is being committed by the seller of the bag who is defrauding the consumer by passing off the bag as if it is made by the Hermes manufacturer. Whether I as the consumer know it’s fake or not does not make that any less of a crime at all. This is why, for example, street vendors who sell fake merchandise are routinely arrested and/or have their merchandise confiscated. It is a crime to sell a product to a consumer under the pretense that the product is a brand that it is not. Thus the victim is the manufacturer of the real brand who lost out on a sale to a knock-off. Whether that consumer would have purchased the real item or not does not diminish that fact. Simply saying that because the consumer could not afford the real product does not mean the manufacturer has not been victimized. Additionally, if the consumer is NOT aware that he/she has been duped, then that would make them the 2nd victim in your so-called victimless crime.

Crime is defined (from dictionary.com) as an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

Thus if a crime is committed we can reason that the victim is either a person, a group of persons or animal, an institution, organization, company or other such entity – public or private, or indeed morality itself. Including the morality of the perpetrator. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Just like there is no such thing as free. Someone pays in the end, the middle or the beginning. In a crime, someone or something is hurt in the beginning, the middle or the end.