Slashdot Mirror


FBI To Prosecute "Money Mules"

An anonymous reader writes "A top FBI official said today that the agency is planning a law enforcement sweep against so-called 'money mules,' individuals willingly or unwittingly roped into helping organized computer crooks launder money stolen through online banking fraud, writes Krebsonsecurity.com. The author says he has interviewed more than 150 money mules, and find most fit into one of two camps: the not-so-bright, and those who suspect something's not right, but do it anyway. From the story: 'I find most mules fit into the latter group, and you can usually tell because these individuals often will admit to having set up a new account for the job separate from where they keep their meager savings or checking. When pressed as to why they did this, if they're honest most will say they weren't sure about the whole arrangement and wanted to protect their investments just in case their employers turned out to be less-than-honest.'"

215 comments

  1. What? by butterflysrage · · Score: 4, Funny

    You want me to cash this cheque and you will give me 5%? How can I lose?!?

    --
    the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    1. Re:What? by hypergreatthing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know... if stupidity was illegal just about everyone would be prosecuted.

      I always thought that intent was important when being charged with a crime.

    2. Re:What? by subanark · · Score: 0

      If its too good to be true, it probably is.

    3. Re:What? by EdtheFox · · Score: 0

      If it's counterfeit/forged/stolen you can lose big.

    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmmmm, "If it is X, it probably is X."

      Profound!

      I think you meant, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is."

    5. Re:What? by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm surprised that these "money mules" actually get money from this operation. While looking for a job, I received these emails all of the time. I always thought the check was fake, and they were hoping you wired the money before the bank discovers it isn't legit.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    6. Re:What? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say that Everyone would be prosecuted. We all have our moments where we just didn't think things threw, or let your emotions get in the way of good reason... Sure a lot of people on slashdot will deny this. Because they built their reputation on seeming that they are smarter then everyone else... However in reality we all do stupid things... Especially if there is a pretty woman asking you to do it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all have our moments where we just didn't think things threw

      Like that right there, you didn't think that through before you posted did you?

    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If it seems needlessly pedantic, it probably is Slashdot.

    9. Re:What? by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I swear, we really need a -1 Retarded mod for comments like the parent.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    10. Re:What? by dubbreak · · Score: 5, Funny

      We all have our moments where we just didn't think things threw

      And then that thing throws some feces your way...

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    11. Re:What? by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no. In this case, if it is needlessly pedantic, it is Slashdot.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    12. Re:What? by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always thought that intent was important when being charged with a crime.

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'd just as soon see someone who well-meaningly did something stupid get slammed even harder. At least those with ill intentions are predictable.

      I don't think that's a very good idea, but at least your heart's in the right place.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    13. Re:What? by DevConcepts · · Score: 2, Funny

      We all have our moments where we just didn't think things threw,

      Especially if there is a pretty woman asking you to do it.

      Spelling Nazi's be damned! He just had a pretty woman ask him to post that!

    14. Re:What? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know... if stupidity was illegal just about everyone would be prosecuted.

      I always thought that intent was important when being charged with a crime.

      Once upon a time that was true. I just read a column that talked about how over the last few years (5-20, I don't remember the time frame more closely than that) more and more laws don't take any notice of intent. I wish I could remember where I saw it.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    15. Re:What? by drew30319 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I always thought that intent was important when being charged with a crime.

      For some crimes it matters but not for all. Drunk driving, trespass, and in many states statutory rape are all examples of strict liability crimes. Check out the wikipedia article on mens rea for an explanation and more details.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

      --
      JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
    16. Re:What? by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      planning a law enforcement sweep against so-called "money mules," individuals willingly or unwittingly roped into helping organized computer crooks launder money stolen through online banking fraud

      So, what are they going to do? Arrest all the Wall Street executives? Invade the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Luxemburg, Switzerland, etc. etc. etc.

    17. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      not anymore they have laws where if you do something without knowing your doing something your guilty. i know a man who bought a car with a legal title or so he thought. turns out that the title was to a different car and had 5 previous owners and he was charged with possessing a car stolen 15 years ago. for unknowingly buying a car that the only way it was found out was becuase the car broke down and they had to replace the entire engine and found out that two of the three vin numbers were replaced.

    18. Re:What? by Technician · · Score: 1

      I hope the FBI is up to date on the sport of scambaiting. To waste scammer's time, money and resources, some people pretend to be a victim to collect fake check wallpaper. These are never deposited.
      here is one person that posted his collection of fake checks on youtube.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEsC4cD9FEU
      Some scambaiters do get visits from the feds and many feds are getting an education in the sport of baiting.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    19. Re:What? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I know a guy who drove a bloke home from the pub and got four years in gaol

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    20. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes. In Missouri, in 2003, a 35-year-old man was convicted of statutory rape and unlawful sexual deviancy with a minor (or similiar) when he was raped, at gunpoint, by a 16-year old male, and sent to prison. I don't have the case numbers on hand, just the article from the KC Star.

      Yes, when HE WAS A RAPE VICTIM.

    21. Re:What? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      This post was brought to you by the Tautology Squad.

      Tautology Squad: Live forever or die trying!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    22. Re:What? by Plunky · · Score: 4, Funny

      Some scambaiters do get visits from the feds and many feds are getting an education in the sport of baiting.

      I think you will find that the feds are master baiters themselves..

    23. Re:What? by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      Even the ones who "suspected" something wasn't right (but fell for it anyway) fall into the "not so bright" category.

      You know... if stupidity was illegal just about everyone would be prosecuted.

      Apparently, that's the plan.

    24. Re:What? by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Just because you didn't mean to kill the person doesn't mean you walk away, but it is taken into consideration.

    25. Re:What? by bestalexguy · · Score: 1

      You need to have a way to protect society from extreme stupidity. Either you treat the guy as if he had human mental capabilities, or you reduce his rights: getting a driving license, right to sign contracts and so on. The only unworkable solution is letting him do whatever passes through his (half) mind without negative consequences for him.

    26. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Something like this happened in Ireland. A friend of mine was almost roped into it some years back.

      He got offered a job with a Korean company that were selling PC/Computers and were in the process of setting up an office there. He had an interview and all with a person (which later turned out to be not their offices). They explained due to some legal tax reason as they were not Irish nationals they could not open business accounts.

      So they hire the person to create a business account (ie. Bank account), then they transfer funds into it from customers. At that point it would of been his job to withdraw the money and send by Western Union while keeping a percentage for himself.

      Sounded too good to be true. So we searched for information on the company and found the website in question was fake. 1-2 main pages worked but nothing else. Address was fake too. So he didn't go through with it. Based on the horror stories coming out from scams he didn't even ring the guy back.

      Later found out that what happened is when the cops finally realize someone is going down they follow the money trail to the sap who gets the percentage. They end up getting charged for it and the con-men get away with the cash.

    27. Re:What? by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My favorite was that Major League Baseball player a few years back. As I remember the case, he met a girl in a bar. She had used a fake ID to get into the bar, but was actually under age.

      He was convicted anyway. Even though she was in a 21+ place, with a fake ID, apparently its not unreasonable for the state to expect men in bars to check ID before they take girls home, and do a better job than the bar at catching fake IDs.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    28. Re:What? by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I actually had some fun with this a while back.

      I got a scammer hitting me up when I posted an ad for a room. I had seen this trick before, so I just went along and kept my ad up.

      They sent a pack of money orders, nice ones. I never acknowledged they arrived. He sent another pack.

      Then I told him that I knew what was up, and I had seen better forgeries (the last scammer who tried this same act). He immediately dropped that and decided to try and recruit me! "I need packages sent out from a US address. We send you a package of envelopes, all you have to do is mail them and we will pay you $500". He also asked if I was interested in buying counterfeit currency. This man was a real entrepreneur.

      I agreed of course, more "wall paper" as you say. Now, I figured they would be smart enough to have a few "canaries" on there so that they could tell if I actually sent out the envelopes or not, and would want to not pay me if I didn't send them out (since there was no way in hell) so i tried to talk them into putting the money in the package for payment upfront. I even offered to take payment in the counterfeit bills, at a premium of course.

      I chickened out when he wanted my phone number to talk on the phone. I should have gotten a skype line and continued. I really wanted to rip off a scammer. What was he going to do, call the police?

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    29. Re:What? by pnutjam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What was he going to do, call the police?

      That would be the best possible outcome, if he were able to locate you.

    30. Re:What? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      The operator shall maintain target thickness throughout the runs.

      More likely, hire a local associate to pay you a visit

      But I never gave him my real address, you say. Well how much work is it to have someone wait outside the post office and follow the gentleman carrying the large green package with the red stripe across it.

    31. Re:What? by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. Send the link or it didn't happen.

    32. Re:What? by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      That was really dumb. If he has been under a search warrant on his email account or a wiretap equivalent, you might have been in some deep shit with prosecutors. I'm not saying that you would have been convicted, but that would have been a big headache trying to get out of that jam when they had emails from you accepting to work with him.

    33. Re:What? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      And some people wonder why others have no respect for the law...

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    34. Re:What? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the time a cop pulled me over because of an "illegal exhaust" on my completely-unmodified-from-when-I-bought-it-from-CarMax vehicle.

      I'm just lucky he let me off with a warning.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    35. Re:What? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > That was really dumb. If he has been under a search warrant on his email account or a wiretap equivalent, you might have been in
      > some deep shit with prosecutors.

      I think you give them way too much credit. Sure its international fraud, but thats half the problem, These guys operate out of Ghana. Since they steal from individuals a few grand at a time, the feds tend to have bigger and easier fish to fry.

      Plus, at worst, they would start watching me, and waiting for me to get the package. They would probably be quite disappointed to see me take the money out and toss the rest in the nearest garbage bin. If they did find that they had enough to go after me on, well... as my sister says "freedom is what you do with whats done to you". Throw me in jail, I still know what I did wasn't wrong, so I will still sleep like a baby at night.

      In the end, isn't that what matters? Besides, as Thoreau said "Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.". I see no reason to cower in fear that some thug might come and try to oppress me.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    36. Re:What? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Throw me in jail, I still know what I did wasn't wrong, so I will still sleep like a baby at night. In the end, isn't that what matters? Besides, as Thoreau said "Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.". I see no reason to cower in fear that some thug might come and try to oppress me.

      In prison, plenty of thugs would be oppressing you at night. You'll get no sleep!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    37. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But isn't Missouri the show-me state? Maybe it was because he had to show his private parts to get raped?

    38. Re:What? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but, c'est la vie. As my sister is so fond of saying "Freedom is what you do with whats done to you".

      Using state power in a ridiculous and arbitrary way against me would pretty much just validate my current opinion of how badly the system is setup. So, its pretty much what I figure I should expect could happen anyway since I live in a place where justice is a game and there are so many laws that its barely possible to take a shit without violating one.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  2. The criminals aren't stupid by benjfowler · · Score: 2

    They will find a way around a general crackdown on money mules. A lot of the east Europeans running these massive crime operations have MBAs and PhDs, and are untouchable because of political connections. They are certainly not stupid. Still, nice try.

    Anyway, why leave a crackdown on money mules so late? The FBI aren't stupid either -- what advantage is there to not busting mules?

    1. Re:The criminals aren't stupid by SoTerrified · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anyway, why leave a crackdown on money mules so late? The FBI aren't stupid either -- what advantage is there to not busting mules?

      As the article says, there are two camps. And while the latter camp is dirty and know it, the former camp are retirees who answer "Make money in your spare time" ads or unemployed people desperate for work who think it's legitimate. And any crackdown will wind up dragging these people in, many who are going to be very sympathetic.

    2. Re:The criminals aren't stupid by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You needn't find a way around the crackdown. You just have to put a few more layers of confusion around it and you'll find enough people stupid and gullible to fall for it.

      People are stupid. It's how we want them to be. If they wouldn't be stupid, they wouldn't be good consumers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:The criminals aren't stupid by jon3k · · Score: 1

      "have MBAs and PhDs, and are untouchable because of political connections"

      Who? Name some. Otherwise I call "bullshit".

    4. Re:The criminals aren't stupid by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Funny

      All the ones who get chicks. duh.

    5. Re:The criminals aren't stupid by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you realize that most people who post on Craig's List are PhDs and MBAs from Europe and are above the law? It's a fact. Just accept it. This is Slashdot.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    6. Re:The criminals aren't stupid by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Probably. English grammar wasn't my forte, I'm better with German and French.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:The criminals aren't stupid by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      >"have MBAs and PhDs, and are untouchable because of political connections"
      >>Who? Name some. Otherwise I call "bullshit".

      Lloyd Blankfein, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Vikram Pandit, John Mack, Alan Greenspan, Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Richard Fuld, Edward Liddy . . .

      I'm sure that a lot of these guys are lawyers, but I think you could easily find a few hundred MBAs and PhDs involved in mortgage and securities fraud who are untouchable due to their political connections.

    8. Re:The criminals aren't stupid by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Oh please. People will consume whether they're so called "smart" or "stupid" Consumption is part of human nature. Smarter consumption will lead to shit that breaks less often, which is good. Stuff that lasts longer, works better. Maybe not as cheap. But that all averages out over time.

  3. Yay! stupidity outlawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the agency is planning a law enforcement sweep against so-called "money mules," individuals willingly or unwittingly roped into helping...

    See usually if your the victim of fraud, you're considered the victim, the FBI thinks it would be better to prosecute them however.

    1. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People are prosecuted for receiving stolen goods all the time. How is this much different?

    2. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by tattood · · Score: 5, Informative

      Being a victim of fraud means that someone stole your identity and then took money out of your account. Money was taken from YOU. Money laundering, even if it is unknown to the person doing the laundering, is an accessory to a crime. You are helping them "clean" the money they have already stolen.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    3. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only when there was reasonable expectation that the goods were stolen. If you acted in good faith you don't get prosecuted, you just lose your stuff.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, let them lose their stuff. Off with their heads/hands/wallet/years, I say.

    5. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      That's like saying a drug dealer should not be prosecuted if their boss rips them off.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    6. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Shimbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you acted in good faith you don't get prosecuted, you just lose your stuff.

      As the original article says, the majority of mules know they are doing something slightly shady. They just don't know exactly what. I think it's reasonable to prosecute and let the court decide the degree of culpability.

    7. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      As the story says, the people responsible for this activity can be viewed as either "not too bright" or "it seems like they knew something wasn't right." My money (no pun intended) is on most of them being a member of Club I'll Pretend I Didn't Know This Was Wrong. There's bound to be some crossover between the two groups, but always remember: criminal stupidity is largely defined by actions, not the capacity to know right from wrong (yeah, there are some cases where someone can't be held criminally liable due to mental deficit, but it's far from the norm). Ignorance is an entirely different topic, and not something I believe most of these can claim if they got past kindergarten.

    8. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      People are prosecuted for receiving stolen goods all the time. How is this much different?

      There's a difference between stolen goods and stolen money. Imagine you own a store, and someone who (unknown to you) makes a large purchase after just having robbed a bank. In the transaction, you have received stolen money. Should you be prosecuted?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    9. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, that's probably worse than the punishment. If you have to give back what was transferred into your account and don't get back what you transferred out via Western Union, then you're out of quite a lot of money.

    10. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, what is money laundering?

    11. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 0, Troll

      He-haw! It is much easier to go after the victims. They usually reveal themselves, so they are easy to find. They want to tell everyone agbout it, so a confession is easy. And they are a snap to prosecute, remember they are Victims! Guilt? Not-guilty? "Not my job, besides, everybody is guilty of something. After all, we are born guilty with original sin and damned without redemption."

    12. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The entire universe is an unknowing accessory to every crime.

    13. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by sjames · · Score: 1

      They, like far too many in law enforcement long ago ceased to give a damn about any of truth, justice, or the American way. They care only for "busting dirtbags" where dirtbags = anyone not in their particular branch of law enforcement no matter how innocent and never includes people in their particular branch of law enforcement no matter how dirty.

      They know damned well that a simple and brief conversation with an agent in their home will set well over 90% of these unwitting mules on the strait and narrow for life, but that doesn't show up on their stats, so they'll prosecute instead, practically guaranteeing that some of them will end up turning to harder crime.

    14. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only when there was reasonable expectation that the goods were stolen. If you acted in good faith you don't get prosecuted, you just lose your stuff.

      Hell, sometimes you get to keep the stuff. I know a car dealer that purchased an exotic (acura NSX) from some dude. Turns out that "some dude" stole it from the real owner via fraud - gave the guy a bogus cashiers check and his bank sat on it for a month before telling him it was bogus. After tracking the car down at the behest of the original owner, the FBI 'declined' to confiscate the car, instead left it up to the local DA, who let the dealer keep it. The only way the real owner got compensated was because his insurance eventually paid for it because it was theft.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      These people aren't shopkeepers. They're being paid for virtually nothing aside from serving as a pass-through conduit for money. Please reference my other post for a more detailed reply on the matter.

    16. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Money laundering, even if it is unknown to the person doing the laundering, is an accessory to a crime. You are helping them "clean" the money they have already stolen.

      Unless you intended to make a very subtle distinction between a lack of knowledge of money laundering specifically versus a general lack of knowledge of a criminal act, I vehemently disagree. There is no such thing as a "strict liability" accessory crime in the United States.

      Accessory statutes descending from English legal tradition, such as those in the U.S., require at least some form of knowledge of a criminal act (just not necessarily the criminal act committed by the principal). Do you know why? Because if being an accessory to say, money laundering, was a strict liability offense, then in the following:

      A. Money launderer obtains proceeds of criminal endeavor
      B. Money launderer buys plasma TV at Best Buy
      C. Money launderer sells plasma TV on eBay to an arms-length buyer at market price.

      all of Best Buy, eBay, and buyer are accessories to a felony. Full stop. This is patently ridiculous -- nobody could buy anything from an ordinary third party, or arguably broker a third party sale, for fear of becoming an accessory to a criminal act. Anything not purchased from the OEM would be suspect to varying degrees, and if your due diligence was both reasonable and wrong then you'd still an accessory.

      The distinction the FBI is drawing is between those few who cannot be charged because they just didn't suspect ("are simply not the sharpest crayons in the box and really did get bamboozled"), and those who can be charged because they had some form of knowledge and intent (as evidenced by things like separating their own funds from the funds they were handling). Mere sympathy does not excuse those in the first group from criminal liability -- the lack of of a sufficient mens rea excludes them from criminal liability.

    17. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > As the original article says, the majority of mules know they are doing
      > something slightly shady.

      Perhaps, but the stated "evidence" merely indicates that they know they are doing something slightly risky, as in "Maybe this is legit, or maybe these guys have some scheme to rip me off. I'll open a separate account just to be safe."

      It is not a crime to be prudent.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    18. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > ...those who can be charged because they had some form of knowledge and
      > intent (as evidenced by things like separating their own funds from the
      > funds they were handling).

      Except that such separation is merely common (and prudent) business practice. If it isn't your money why would you not keep it in a separate account?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    19. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks are required to document large cash deposits for precisely this reason; the funds may have been acquired illegally. I'm not sure about retail stores, but I'd bet that a large purchase made in cash might be flagged for review or manager's approval.

    20. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Ok, I will send you a check, cash it, send me the money, I will give you 5%.

      To me, this seems very fishy.

      Why don't I just cash the check myself? Why don't I get a family member of friend to do it?

      I think this falls under the view that all reasonable people would suspect there is something wrong with that. Getting $100s or $1000s to do something as trivial as cashing a check.

    21. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by mgblst · · Score: 1

      all of Best Buy, eBay, and buyer are accessories to a felony.

      This is the problem. If Best Buy, or ebay only sold items to money launderers, then they would have a case to answer for.

      If you are cashing checks all the time, for 100s of people, and a couple end up dodgy, then they have no case. If all the checks you cash for other people are dodgy, then you are doing something wrong.

      Can you not see that?

    22. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      If you are cashing checks all the time, for 100s of people, and a couple end up dodgy, then they have no case. If all the checks you cash for other people are dodgy, then you are doing something wrong.

      Can you not see that?

      That's a "known" or "should have known" (willful blindness/subjective recklessness) argument -- page 227 of the linked material. You've admitted my original point -- if accessory was a "strict liability" offense, even with only a couple that end up dodgy, they would have a case.

    23. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by NewsWatcher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a journalist, and once interviewed a guy who received an email telling him he could make $500 if he sent them his bank details.

      He had a vacant account and figured, 'what do I have to lose?' so sent them the details.

      He received a second email saying that they were going to deposit $1000 and he had to just forward $500 to an account with the details they sent him.

      In a few days sure enough, $1000 ended up in his account and he forwarded on the $500.

      He then got an email saying that because things went so well, they would up the amount.

      They sent him $40,000 and asked him to keep $5000, sending $35,000 to a nominated account.

      He went ahead and did it, and then he contacted the authorities.

      He was never prosecuted, and he never heard whether anyone else was, but hey, he got to keep the $5,500.

      Never did he receive any more emails from the group though.

      --
      If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    24. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by baileydau · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that such separation is merely common (and prudent) business practice. If it isn't your money why would you not keep it in a separate account?

      Correct.

      Even if this were a perfectly legal thing, I would personally do it via a separate account just to keep my personal finances separate from my business finances.

      --
      Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again?
    25. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      He had a vacant account and figured, 'what do I have to lose?' so sent them the details.

      I think that's where this plan is going, give them a good answer to "what do I have to lose?"

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    26. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      After all, we are born guilty with original sin

      Most protestant beliefs state that Jesus absolved all believers from the original sin and since we're talking about the USA I don't think catholic beliefs are carried by many.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    27. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      WTF? Yeah right...

      So if you go to a e.g. bicycle market, buy a bike, get a invoice for it, a cop notices you driving around on that stolen bike, and you show him whom you bought it from, they prosecute YOU? Sure. Riiight...

      That would be very fucked up. I was in this situation twice (both times it turned out that the bike was not the stolen one, but only the same model). And both times, I just told them: Look, here’s the invoice. That’s the dude I bought it from. If it’s stolen, please kick his ass, and get my my money back! And both times you saw that that was how they usually handled things, since the thief is normally knowingly not using the bike but selling it to someone who does not know that it is stolen. So the cops also know that it would be wrong to fuck someone over, who just got fucked over. Also the law is still to assume innocence until proven guilty.

      In short: I don’t believe a word you’re saying.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    28. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      Trying to compare your situation to countless others where people were convicted of things like receiving stolen property, money laundering, and other assorted offenses is ridiculous.

      I do believe every word you're saying, but you cannot be in your right mind to believe the majority of people involved in the kind of operations described in this story are innocent. Then again, this is what we have the courts for. While the justice system is far from perfect, it's certainly the best option tried thus far.

    29. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What usually happens in this case:

      He gets 40000, he forwards 35000.
      A few days later, the transaction with the 40000 is canceled/ rolled back, because that account was stolen.

      Your friend is now at -35000, the people that received the 35000 already extracted the money and can't be caught.

    30. Re:Yay! stupidity outlawed by tattood · · Score: 1

      all of Best Buy, eBay, and buyer are accessories to a felony.

      By your example, Wells Fargo and Western Union would be accessories also. My argument was related to the person doing the check cashing, not the institution who enabled them. The person doing the check cashing/TV buying is the accessory, not the bank/retail store.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
  4. But wait by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're going to have to arrest every member of the federal reserve... And what the hell do they think Wall Street is?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:But wait by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

      legal money laundering

      The government gets taxes out of it in most cases, so they don't mind so much what happens on wall street or who they steal it from.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:But wait by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      But you know they won't-- largely because many of the regulations that would otherwise have restrained unnecessarily risky activity were legislated out of existence or poorly enforced in the past 40 years. The stuff the fat cats did was technically legal, if morally and ethically wrong.

      The difference between the comparison you and others are making is accessory to crime, versus a corrupt institution with many friends in Congress.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    3. Re:But wait by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know they can't-- This is kind of thing is the very heart of the economy at large. It quite literally is untouchable. What's being done here to the people they are after is entrapment, or very close to it. And a convenient public distraction.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. financial fraud? by drDugan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So let's make sure we're all clear: The FBI, the federal US law enforcement, is cracking down on financial fraud. Great.

    They are going after dumb people who set up a bank account to launder a couple thousand dollars?

    But they're not going after institutional traders who now offer co-location services with enhanced market data feeds, fueling high frequency trading? They are not going after the banking cartels who manipulate the whole economy? They are not going after Paypal for (among numerous things) blatantly lying about international exchange rates? or on and on and on from examples of large, institutionalized financial fraud?

    1. Re:financial fraud? by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're going for money laundering, i.e. schemes set up to hide the origin of illegally gained money. No matter what crap banks pull with their money, it's at least legally gained and not relevant for money laundering investigations. Checking financial markets is a different department.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:financial fraud? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Whose says they aren't doing that as well? I'm pretty sure they are, just ask Jack Abramoff

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:financial fraud? by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey Hey Hey... you know? When it's 4:00pm on Friday afternoon, and you've got a big fishing trip planned for the weekend, and you just want to see your wife after a long day of paperwork, and your boss comes in and says:

      Hey buddy, I got a project for you. I want you to bust some of these financial fraud guys. We have some names you can start with here. On the first list, there are suspected money mules, and on the second list are a bunch of insanely-powerful superbankers that, upon learning of your very existence, will hire a small country of thugs to make sure you and your family never sleep again. Just try to get at least a few of these guys contacted by the end of the day, and give me a status report before you leave. Great. Awesome. [pat on the back]

      Which list will you end up "getting around to" before the clock strikes 5?

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    4. Re:financial fraud? by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      They're going for money laundering

      Money laundering? Legalize victimless activities and the "money laundering" problem goes away. As do most of the other problems associated with those activities.

    5. Re:financial fraud? by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This makes sense.

      A high-profile well-publicized investigation may make people more aware of the tactics that fraudsters use to recruit mules and could decrease the pool of people available purposes of laundering ill-gotten gains. It also serves the purpose of potentially scaring off mules that are very aware that they are laundering money for someone else but are nervous of being investigated by the Feds...

    6. Re:financial fraud? by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Money laundering? Legalize victimless activities and the "money laundering" problem goes away. As do most of the other problems associated with those activities.

      What an astute observation. Legalize identity theft, online fraud, and credit card theft, becuase that's what this article is about, and that's where the money mules are an issue. What? The hell you say! You didn't read the article before opening your big mouth and suggesting a moronic solution? I'm shocked! I have grown to expect so much more from Slashdot intellectuals. I'm disappointed.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    7. Re:financial fraud? by dissy · · Score: 0

      Money laundering? Legalize victimless activities and the "money laundering" problem goes away. As do most of the other problems associated with those activities.

      What an astute observation. Legalize identity theft, online fraud, and credit card theft,

      ...
      Just the very fact you think identity theft, fraud, and credit card theft has NO VICTIMS - That pretty much rules out any weight to your opinions or comments on the subject I'd say

    8. Re:financial fraud? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1, Funny

      What? The hell you say! You didn't read the article before opening your big mouth and suggesting a moronic solution? I'm shocked! I have grown to expect so much more from Slashdot intellectuals. I'm disappointed.

      Ummmm, hi. I noticed you have a really low uID, so I needed to ask, have you been asleep for a very long time? Maybe a secret undercover flight to say... Mars? Perhaps a little time spent frozen in a glacier and only recently woke up?

      People don't read articles on /. anymore. Sorry to burst that bubble.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    9. Re:financial fraud? by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This should be obvious, but since you may not realize it, high frequency trading is not illegal. Money laundering is. It is the job of the FBI to go after people for doing illegal things. There is nothing wrong going on here.

      If you don't like it, complain to your congressperson to make a new law. Then high frequency trading will be illegal. And the FBI will prosecute it. And you can be happy.

      --
      Qxe4
    10. Re:financial fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA? He didn't even read the summary - "stolen through online banking fraud" doesn't sound victimless to me, either.

    11. Re:financial fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, because they have the resources (read=money) to defend themselves. We the proletariat, don't.

    12. Re:financial fraud? by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      And the fact that you can't see facetiousness pretty much rules out any weight to your opinions or comments on the subject, I'd say.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    13. Re:financial fraud? by ErikZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct.

      It's the same reason why the police like to bust pot smokers. It's easy and not dangerous.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    14. Re:financial fraud? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The investigation makes sense, and I'm fairly sure if federal agents show up at these people's doors, they will never take part in any such scheme again. They will probably be more than happy to share what little they know about their employers.

      So why prosecute unless they do it again (proving they are knowingly participating in crime)?

      As for the two camps, it's a far cry form wondering if it might be an advance check scam, so setting up a separate bank account to see how it goes and being sure it's money laundering. Perhaps once a few transactions go through, these people decide it is actually legit. Yes, they're naive for thinking that, but that's no crime. If the FBI shows up at their door, they certainly won't think it's legit again.

    15. Re:financial fraud? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      But they're not going after institutional traders who now offer co-location services with enhanced market data feeds, fueling high frequency trading?

      High frequency trading is good for the market. Just as is short selling. (I throw that in there because many who dislike the former also knee-jerk about the later).
      High frequency trading has significantly increased liquidity, putting many "market makers" (trading houses who guarantee to purchase and sell a specific company's shares) out of business. Do to their unique position of being able to dictate bid and ask prices for low-volume stocks, market makers were widely reviled as a major source of abuse of small investors.

      Everything in life has its upside and downside, but high frequency trading has significantly reduced a major type of institutionalized rent-seeking, making the markets over all a more level playing field.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    16. Re:financial fraud? by Enzo1977 · · Score: 1

      I'm very troubled by the fact your post is not ranked higher. Thank you for taking the time to explain to /. that the FBI is interested in pursuing money launderers, not examining the ethics of legal financial markets.

      --
      I hate all sigs, even this one.
    17. Re:financial fraud? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      But I don't want to go fishing?

    18. Re:financial fraud? by Shadukar · · Score: 1

      if only there was "+1 want to belive this" moderation option.

    19. Re:financial fraud? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Which list will you end up "getting around to" before the clock strikes 5?"

      Neither, I'd knock of early in the expectation of seeing a story about the police commisoner snorting coke off a hookers arse in Monday's paper.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:financial fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're not going after institutional traders who now offer co-location services with enhanced market data feeds, fueling high frequency trading? They are not going after the banking cartels who manipulate the whole economy?

      We've got a saying around here: Hang the small ones and let the big ones go free.

      Face it, there is no equality. The more powerful and richer you are, the less likely you are to get prosecuted for your crimes. This whole "democracy, everyone's equal" nonsense is effectively a sham.

    21. Re:financial fraud? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I applaud your astute ability to detect sarcasm. Well done!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    22. Re:financial fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      They're going for money laundering, i.e. schemes set up to hide the origin of illegally gained money. No matter what crap banks pull with their money, it's at least legally gained and not relevant for money laundering investigations.

      Deceiving investors, telling them to 'buy' crappy stock while the same bank's own proprietary trading desk secretly sells the same instrument by the billions is by no means legal.

      'Front-running' investors by getting a few milliseconds of glimpse into the future by having your order server on the trading floor routed ahead of all the other traders (and using this advantage to make 100% sure bets) is by no means legal either.

      Electronically tracking all the orders (and intended/private orders) of small-time investors and tricking them out of their money by selectively withdrawing/applying liquidity (while the small-time investors think the loss due to the price fluctuation was their own fault/bad-luck) is by no means legal either.

      Pretending that the economy is about to collapse and get a trillion dollars blanc-cheque bailout while secretly working the markets as a pack of wolves to make sure all the prices reflect this self-fulfilling disaster is by no means legal either.

      Having 63 profitable trading days out of 63 trading days with 100 million dollars of profit per day (Goldman Sachs's last quarter) is by no means legal.

      Today's markets are not a fair match between consenting adults. Large parts of the financial markets are in essence a sophisticated financial scam of historic proportions.

      The only difference is the order of magnitude of the theft really. Steal a thousand bucks from a single person and you are a petty criminal who will be prosecuted vigorously. Steal billions of dollars from millions of people and you are one of the big banks on the 'street who donate millions of dollars to both parties.

    23. Re:financial fraud? by kronosopher · · Score: 1

      The problem is that this policy will be selectively enforced. This is meant to "crack down" on little fish who are just imitating the big fish, namely, international banking corporations. The banks are going for broke, outright pillaging and looting countries on the regular. Fact is, we have a corporate culture which encourages profit regardless of moral or ethical guidelines. From the ground up to the very top, criminals gather and discuss the best way to exploit everything around them. The establishment is a giant scam, surrounded by a ton of littler scams. The banks rely on the FBI as an enforcement arm but refuse to undergo the same scrutiny.

    24. Re:financial fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why prosecute unless they do it again (proving they are knowingly participating in crime)?

      To discourage other people from doing this:

      wondering if it might be an advance check scam, so setting up a separate bank account to see how it goes and being sure it's money laundering. Perhaps once a few transactions go through, these people decide it is actually legit.

      I don't see why giving everyone one get-out-of-jail-free card is a good idea.

    25. Re:financial fraud? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because the odds are they had no actual criminal intent. The purpose of law enforcement is NOT supposed to be put as many people in the slammer as possible. If a simple visit will scare them straight, that's exactly what should be tried.

      If someone is found to be involved after such a visit, then we may assume criminal intent and prosecute.

      Turned around the other way, if they're naive dupes (quite probable), why should we spend a hundred thousand dollars each to jail them and limit their ability to get gainful employment for life (possibly forcing them to turn to crime) when a simple visit would be just as educational for them and cost us a hell of a lot less.

      I'm sure the local news would still be full of warnings about how answering that spam will get you a visit.

    26. Re:financial fraud? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Identity theift (including stealing credit cards) and fraud are crimes against people, and should be investigated and solved. Put the fraudster in prison for fraud; no need to investigate the laundered money. Can't? Then you're an incompetent cop, no more competent than Elliot Ness who couldn't put Capone in prison for murder and had to jail him for tax evasion.

  6. Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind! by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Either we want stupid people because they're easier to control. Or we want smart people because they don't fall so easily for con artists. Make up your mind government! It's unfair to cultivate stupidity and teach everyone that you're better off stupid (and if your stupidity causes you harm, sue someone because he didn't protect you from being stupid enough to hurt yourself, while at the same time being "too stupid to do it" is a valid excuse, while knowing "how to do it" can be incriminating) and then go and punish them for doing what's expected from them!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a crime to purchase or accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft . The crime is separate from robbery, extortion, or theft. Receiving stolen property is a crime in order to deter people from aiding or rewarding thieves by buying stolen property, and to deter theft in general. Receiving stolen property may be a misdemeanor or felony.

    In Order to Be Convicted of this Crime, the Prosecution Must Show

            * That the property was in fact stolen
            * That you were aware, or should have known, that the property was stolen

    http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-stolen-property.html

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0

      It is a crime to purchase or accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft.

      This, by the way, is why the folks that bought the iPhone are on the hook. The "finder" made no attempt to locate the actual owner, and instead sold it to that Web site for $5000. In other words, technically stolen property. The Web site knew or should have known, as reasonable people, that it was technically "stolen". They paid $5000 for it. Certainly not the act of a legitimate "news organization".

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    2. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It is a crime to purchase or accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft

      But the property stolen isn't cash. It's TVs which are sold for cash. The cash is ill-gotten, but itself was not stolen, so isn't a stolen good. If they aren't laundering money from a bank robbery, then chances are they aren't laundering "stolen" money.

      There may be crimes against such laundering, but they wouldn't be the laws against receipt and possession of stolen property.

    3. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So anyone receiving tax dollars for goods or services is a criminal? Even government employees?

    4. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The "finder" made no attempt to locate the actual owner,

      .. except that the finder DID contact the actual owner - Apple. Next time, please RTFA, mkay?

    5. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      The "finder" made no attempt to locate the actual owner,

      .. except that the finder DID contact the actual owner - Apple. Next time, please RTFA, mkay?

      OK, there's like three (3) problems with that claim.

      And that ignores the fact that you're taking as prima facie truth the word of people under criminal investigation.

    6. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > There may be crimes against such laundering...

      The crime is "money laundering", one of many deliberately vaguely defined crimes.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      "A friend of Hogan's then offered to call Apple Care on Hogan's behalf, according to Hogan's lawyer. That apparently was the extent of Hogan's efforts to return the phone." For all we know, said friend didn't even call Apple's tech support line.

      Except that the guy DID call Apple. And Apple admitted to opening up a support ticket, but saying that nothing would come of it.

      If you know the name of the guy the phone belongs to (and they did), why on Earth would you call some tech support guy in India? You expect the Apple Care guys speak for Apple on the issue of iPhone prototypes?

      Because at they time they didn't know the guys name, silly - and it turns out that the guy wasn't the owner - Apple was, so they contacted Apple. If Apple hadn't bricked the phone, maybe they'd have had it back quicker?

      You're supposed to turn it over to the police if you can't reach the original owner (either Apple R&D or the engineer who lost it).

      False. In that jurisdiction, only property with an apparent value of $100 or more - something that looks like a bricked knockoff of an iPhone doesn't qualify.

      And that ignores the fact that you're taking as prima facie truth the word of people under criminal investigation.

      "Your papers, citizen, after all you have nothing to hide!" Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

      So, what's a bricked phone worth? Not much as a phone. And when the guy found it, there was no way to tell that it was a prototype - it was in a gimmicked-up G3 case, but wasn't a G3 - which made it more likely that it was a knock-off. Not worth more than $100 working (and less bricked).

      Don't take Wired as gospel either - there were plenty of other sites that gave other aspects of the story.

    8. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Still, one wonders why the Apple employee didn't simply call the lost phone's number and ask that it be returned.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    9. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you were to actually READ about the situation you're commenting on, you'd find that the guy who found the phone did attempt to contact Apple. Multiple times. Thanks for talking out of your ass, though!

    10. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "So, what's a bricked phone worth? Not much as a phone. And when the guy found it, there was no way to tell that it was a prototype - it was in a gimmicked-up G3 case, but wasn't a G3 - which made it more likely that it was a knock-off. Not worth more than $100 working (and less bricked)."

      And yet for some reason they offered this worthless peice of hardware to a magazine and got $5K for it? They and the magazine certainly can't be accused of high moral standards but IMHO to tie up resouces by turning this into a criminal matter seems a bit over the top.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      So ... every single one of Bernie Madoff's professional investors should face the music?

      They should have known that 10+% RoI year after year is impossible, and the money they got were in fact stolen from other investors.

    12. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by bestalexguy · · Score: 1

      In Order to Be Convicted of this Crime, the Prosecution Must Show

              * That you were aware, or should have known, that the property was stolen

      Being an idiot or looking like one is the best line of defense. Actually, the next-best thing to being a genius.

    13. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the test for "should have known" is what a "reasonable person" would have known.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    14. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      And yet for some reason they offered this worthless peice (sic) of hardware to a magazine and got $5K for it?

      The offer was several WEEKS after Apple was contacted, and after plenty of rumors of a lost iPhone prototype. What part of "it's no longer lost if I've contacted the owner (Apple) and they aren't interested" do you fail to understand?

      Laws covering lost property deal with, you know, LOST property. The owner doesn't want it, sucks to be them.

      You lose your wallet, but you don't notice. I find it, call you up, and tell you I've found your wallet. Since you "know" you haven't lost your wallet, you tell me to f*** off because you think I'm a scammer, keep the stupid wallet.

      3 weeks later you finally notice your wallet missing. You realize I wasn't a scammer. You call me back. "Where's my wallet?" "My guess - in a land-fill."

      I'm under no obligation to take care of your crap after you've renounced ownership.

      If he had been smarter, he would have dissected it himself, and sold the video + pics for $5k, along with letting them look at (and photograph) the pieces. - after all, SEEING it opened up, there's no question that it's the prototype. And then send the pieces back to Apple by registered mail in a box marked in BIG letters - "MISSING APPLE PROTOTYPE IPHONE". Guaranteed it gets "lost in shipping".

    15. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      Because he (or Apple IT) remotely disabled it so the guy couldn't go blindly wandering through his corporate emails and stuff.

    16. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      And yet for some reason they offered this worthless peice (sic) of hardware to a magazine and got $5K for it?

      The offer was several WEEKS after Apple was contacted, and after plenty of rumors of a lost iPhone prototype. What part of "it's no longer lost if I've contacted the owner (Apple) and they aren't interested" do you fail to understand?

      Probably the part where calling Tech Support to report lost corporate property is considered legitimate? By your logic, if I call up the Lima, Ohio Post Office and they don't know anything about the secret military plans I found, I'm allowed to sell them to Iran.

    17. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total BULLSHIT. No such thing happened. Get the facts, fanboi.

    18. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look man, in the 1990s I was able to get 11% via a mutual fund by Vanguard.

    19. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Your argument fails - even the cops would have said to call the same number ... and the USPS aren't the owner of any "military plans" - they're an independent agency, unlike the military.

    20. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      They paid $5000 for it. Certainly not the act of a legitimate "news organization".

      Paying $5000 for it (to stop it being touted around to someone more unscrupulous), and handing it straight over to Apple would have been.

      Not that they did that, of course.

      --
      FGD 135
    21. Re:What is Receiving Stolen Property? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You seem to intentionally not mention, that first, someone has to prove that you knew that it was obtained trough theft.
      Also if you only believed it, and it wasn’t actually, then that’s not a crime. Ob.vi.ous.ly.

      Unless your country is a dictatorship where “innocent until proven guilty” does not exist anymore. (I wouldn’t be surprised if according to some parts of the government that’s gone from the constitution already, or will be soon. A couple of more “terrorist attacks” [read: Dude with a couple of gas bottles in his car, or fake letter from fake Osama {who is dead by now, in case you missed it}] and “think of the children”s should suffice.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  8. Funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got a spam email "job offer," where having a bank account was a job requirement. It makes me wonder whether I've been solicited to commit a crime or whether I've just been spammed by the FBI.

  9. Bank accounts by Hatta · · Score: 1

    "I find most mules fit into the latter group, and you can usually tell because these individuals often will admit to having set up a new account for the job" separate from where they keep their meager savings or checking. When pressed as to why they did this, if they're honest most will say they weren't sure about the whole arrangement and wanted to protect their investments just in case their employers turned out to be less-than-honest."

    I keep separate a bank account for activities like PayPal. Does that mean that if PayPal is found to be fraudulent I'm going to be presumed to have known?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Bank accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep separate a bank account for activities like PayPal. Does that mean that if PayPal is found to be fraudulent I'm going to be presumed to have known?

      Or how about execs that keep a separate credit-card for business expenses or a separate bank account to cover expenses until they get reimbursed? Seems they're picking on the wrong people.

    2. Re:Bank accounts by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      No, if you'd read the blurb that you just quoted, if you got a Paypal account to use for your work, and your work turned out to be fraudulent, then yes, you would have been presumed to have known.

      Do you work for Paypal? Then yes, your hypothetical situation is correct.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    3. Re:Bank accounts by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... if PayPal is found to be fraudulent I'm going to be presumed to have known?

      It's PayPal. How could you not have known?

      --
      That is all.
  10. Maybe they could also by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    arrest all the people that worked at Enron. Clearly if you boss is doing something criminal all the employees should go to jail.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "smart people because they don't fall so easily for con artists. "

    Intelligence has little to do with getting conned.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. Procecute "unwittingly roped"? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    How are they going to do that legally or morally? If you got duped and thought you were doing something legal, its not your fault.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Procecute "unwittingly roped"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I often wonder how often organized crime is actually using the "Money Mule" format as a layer of deniability. Eg: Mob boss needs to clear some money. Henchman blasts out some money mule spam. Known independent mob contractor responds to said spam and launders the money. If he gets caught, he pleads the victim, while also helping to obscure any connection back to mob boss.

    2. Re:Procecute "unwittingly roped"? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      How many checks do you cash for people you don't know? Legally?

      If you do, can you take this package for me over to Australia, I will pay your plane fare?

      He, if you don't look in the box, how could you get in trouble, you didn't know there was a dead head in there, or drugs, or plutonium.

  13. This doesn't apply ... by 517714 · · Score: 1

    To my new friend in Nigeria who needs to move money out of the country does it?

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    1. Re:This doesn't apply ... by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, because that is a different type of fraud.

      This is the one where your bank sends someone an email saying they need to update their security details or something. They are directed to a fake bank website were they are asked to enter their login details.

      The phisher then logs in to the bank using these details, and wires some money to the money mule. The money mule then sends it by Western Union to the phisher.

      The phishing victim notices that all his money has disappeared and complains to the bank. The bank then reverses the transfer leaving the money mule's account overdrawn. Or maybe if you are very lucky, the phishing victim doesn't notice, and the transfer doesn't get reversed.

      A slightly different version of it uses stolen credit card details. They order high value equipment using the phishing victim's credit card and have it shipped to the mule. The mule then forwards it to the phisher, or probably another mule in a different country.

    2. Re:This doesn't apply ... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      This would apply to someone in the US who your friend asks you to wire the money to, first. That's how a lot of these scams work. You give them your info, they give it to someone in the US who transfers the money into their account, withdraws it, then wires the money overseas, or to some other money mule to wire overseas. I'd read in another article that they use developmentally disabled adults, because they're more honest and competent to make these sorts of transactions.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    3. Re:This doesn't apply ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happens with auction sites too. The real criminals give some money to the mule via a cashier's check for 8-20% over, tell them to write a money order to someone from ebay.

      The cashier's check turns out to be no good 3-30 days later, the MO sent to ebay bounces, and the ebay seller sues and presses fraud charges on the money mule.

      Winners: The Nigerian who got the check.
      Losers: The money mule who now has to pay the ebay seller.

  14. How about catching the big crooks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's spend a bunch of time on the little guys while the big fish run free.

    -The money used to fund the 911 attackers was never tracked back further than to say it came from Saudi Arabia.
    -The fraudsters who perpetrated the Wall St. meltdown are still walking free.

    Now we can feel safer that unwitting people who cashed checks for usually much less than $10,000 are being persecuted.

  15. The trickle up theory of crime fighting by ZeBam.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go after the little guy to stop the big-time mobsters. Oh yeah, sure, that'll work. Why didn't we think of that before? Put all the small time drug dealers in jail and it will put the big guys out of business. Put all the small-time incompetent terrorists who light their shoes or underwear on fire and put the big guys out of business. Put all the Abu Ghraib prison guards in jail and stop Pentagon Brass and civilian military leadership from being war criminals. Put Fabulous Fabrice on trial and stop finance industry mobsters from raping the planet.

    Yeah. What a good idea. Get some good headlines at least.

    1. Re:The trickle up theory of crime fighting by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      Because criminal organizations are like the hydra. You take out the leader and you just end up with two criminal organizations run by new heads.

      The only way to win is to take out the metaphorical legs.

    2. Re:The trickle up theory of crime fighting by ZeBam.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're kidding right? When has that ever worked? While the hydra has a dozen heads, it has hundreds of millions of legs. Taking out the little guys is little more than Roman Circus for law-and-order politicians to prolong their dubious careers.

    3. Re:The trickle up theory of crime fighting by bestalexguy · · Score: 1

      Go after the little guy to stop the big-time mobsters.
      Yeah. What a good idea. Get some good headlines at least.

      Yeah, insightful irony. If you can't bust Osama, why bother going after all those small time would-be-muscle hijackers.

  16. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

    So you mean that it's equally easy (in average) to con somebody with IQ 90 and somebody with IQ 140? Sure, somebody with IQ 140 or higher can be conned and I'm sure there's anecdotally evidence for that, but that doesn't mean it's equally easy to con smart(er) people.

    Of course to understand the difference between the general rule and "it can happen" you probably need to have an IQ in three digits.

    (by the way I'm using IQ as a proxy for "intelligence" only as a shortcut, I know there are problem with this measure)

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  17. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a good thing he said "smart" instead of "intelligent".

    Hopefully you are smart enough to recognize the difference...

  18. The most interesting part by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it funny that no-one ever reports the most interesting part of these scams. Most of the time they money they are laundering is stolen by botnets. These same botnets often send spam that includes some amount of recruitment of money mules. Some of these "work from home" scams involve people putting up posters and yard signs to recruit money mules. The entire scam is facilitated and organized by an automatic distributed computer program. It's like a huge ants nest. The workers don't really know what they're doing, but the network maintains their motivation to keep doing it. The strangest part of all is that often these systems are so resilient that they keep going long after the head has been cut off by law enforcement. Somewhere there's probably accounts bursting with money funneled there by unthinking dupes acting as part of an unconscious mechanism.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  19. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by krebsonsecurity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Exactly. I've interviewed doctors, lawyers and even people with a finance background that were mules. Not saying all of them believed they were doing the right thing, just that it's not dim bulbs involved in this.

  20. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by ndogg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yup, and many magicians will tell you that the more intelligent people are easier to fool.

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  21. Draconian shit! by Paracelcus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is how it is now in the land of the free, why do you think that we have the worlds largest prison system (larger by a HUGE amount)?

    Gotta keep those big prison industries happy and convince all the gun toting, flag waving, tough-on-crime,tea-partying electorate that them's is bad people!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  22. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that doesn't mean it's equally easy to con smart(er) people.

    No, sometimes it's easier. It's always easier to con the guy who thinks he's "too smart to get conned" or "it won't happen to me."

    Conning people is hard work anyhow. I'd rather work on someone smarter because it's easier to stroke their egos and fluster them with a storm of words. Stupid people is just a matter of bullying them. Sometimes it works, something they get pissed.

    Also, conning 1 smart person usually pays off better then conning multiple stupids.

  23. Who's got the money to buy protection? by maillemaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >They are going after dumb people who set up a bank account to launder a couple thousand dollars?

    >But they're not going after institutional traders who now offer co-location services with
    >enhanced market data feeds, fueling high frequency trading? They are not going after the
    >banking cartels who manipulate the whole economy? They are not going after Paypal for
    >among numerous things) blatantly lying about international exchange rates? or on and on and
    >on from examples of large, institutionalized financial fraud?

    Well of course! The dumb people don't have money for attorneys and politicians. So the FBI will go after the dumb people and then claim they did something about the problem.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  24. Why not just *keep* the money? by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why wouldn't you just keep the money? The bad guys are half a world a way and have no way to call the cops as if they would to begin with.

    Whenever I've heard of these kinds of scams (including a related one involving physical goods they send you and you ship overseas) I always wondered why people were so honest and actually went through with it instead of just keeping the money.

    It'd be like Bernie Madoff walking up to you with a suitcase of cash, asking you to go deposit it at some bank across town. Yeah, sure, Bernie. I'll call you when I'm done.

    1. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by mrbene · · Score: 1

      00:00 - Money transferred into your bank account
      01:00 - You take money out of your bank account
      01:30 - You send 92% of the money via Cash Transfer service
      03:00 - Fraud is reported by the actual victim
      04:00 - The 100% money is un-transferred from your bank account, leaving you with -92% of it.

      If you keep the money, you're not ahead - but at least you're not behind. However, at 01:30, you've not yet been burned, and are seeing a whole heap of money, so the greedy voice is saying "Do the transfer so the free money doesn't stop!"

      In short, the promise of this being a long term, low effort thing is what drives people to be "honest".

    2. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      Because the bad guys are usually organized crime with an international presence?

    3. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by mx_mx_mx · · Score: 1

      Greed I guess.
      They don't want to loose their new 'job'

      --
      Linux forever
    4. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's an excellent argument that these people REALLY DO think it's a legit work from home job. They actually think the people they're working for are a legitimate business and so it would be wrong to rip them off.

    5. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waking up with a horse head in your bed and/or busted kneecaps can be a deterrent to not carrying through with said plans. After all, you are dealing with criminals who will certainly work outside of the law to persuade you.

    6. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simple answer because these people are dumb?

      The more complex one is probably relates to people thinking that this relationship will develop into a lot more.
      That they are somehow special and by helping this person who seems to have a lot more, it will benefit them way past the a moderately sketchy act.

      The basic definition of being used (slashdot translation p0wn3d).

    7. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hehe.. that's not how the scam works. They might send you some money, but they say, "we want you to buy 20 domain names and we'll pay you X amount for each of them". When they detect that the domain names have been bought, they send you the money. Now you can cash out, but why would you? You can reinvest and keep buying domain names. Someone else is selling domain names. "They" == a botnet.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by bestalexguy · · Score: 1

      That's an excellent argument that the not-so-bright camp is actually the less populated. Pissing off a mobster, albeit remotely located, may harm your health.
      These guys tend to have buddies wherever their business is.

    9. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      Killing the golden goose. If they send me $600 and tell me to forward on $500, I could make $600 now, but I could make much more than that if I keep forwarding the money and collecting my $100.

    10. Re:Why not just *keep* the money? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It could go either way, but since this is an alleged criminal act, the benefit goes to the accused.

  25. You Mean These by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criminals?

    Yours In Smolensk,
    Kilgore T.

  26. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you mean that it's equally easy (in average) to con somebody with IQ 90 and somebody with IQ 140? Sure, somebody with IQ 140 or higher can be conned and I'm sure there's anecdotally evidence for that, but that doesn't mean it's equally easy to con smart(er) people.

    Probably easier to con a smart person than a dumb one. Just convince the smart guy that he's conning you, and he's ripe for plucking....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  27. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

    You probably assume that dumb people know they are dumb...

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  28. receiving stolen goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ever shop at a goodwill, a pawn shop, a thrift store, a yard sale, etc.?

    1. Re:receiving stolen goods by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The standard is that you can be reasonably expected to know that the goods are fishy. Stores are supposed to make sure their goods are legal so the buyer can reasonably expect that they're clear.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  29. I'm ambivalent about this by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm ambivalent about this. Clearly a crime is being committed, and that needs to be pursued, but the mule is often unaware that they are committing one. This is especially bad in a down economy, when desperate people are more likely to sign up.

    A good friend of mine was so proud that she had finally found a job, and one she could do at home (bonus) and wouldn't be kicked out of her apartment after all. It was difficult to tell her that she was being hired to be a money mule and was almost certainly laundering money from illegal enterprises.

    Often, these people aren't being dishonest or lazy, they're honestly trying to make rent. (Cross-reference to stories about low income jobs being hit hardest in this economy.) None of us here would fall for it, but they're not trying to hire IT professionals; they're trying to hire out-of-work nonprofessionals who don't have the education or life experience to know better.

    Nailing a few mules won't really affect anything except arrest records (for those keeping score). There will always be more naive people to be suckered in, and the real criminals continue their operations. It seems like a better strategy would be for law enforcement to take the mule into their confidence and use them to trap the real criminals in return for amnesty. But that would be too much like real work, wouldn't it?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  30. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by L3370 · · Score: 1

    Conning smart people isn't necessarily easier or harder... It just requires a different approach.

    Talk to professional salesmen in the auto or finance industries. The good ones will tell you that a customer (victim) is powerless in the hands of an expert closer.

  31. Who cares! I sure don't! Its a distraction. by bussdriver · · Score: 0

    The FBI has far better things to put their time into with these smart criminals who destroy nations and wreak economies for profit... Recent events should have changed their focus away from petty stuff like some people who figure something they don't understand is going on but need the money in the BAD ECONOMY and are more temped than ever to not really question if they are doing anything that bad.

    Again, the little guys will get nailed for minor stuff while the big ones go around almost with immunity to either repeat or inspire others... helping CREATE these little people as a result.

    Its like going after the addicts instead of the dealers / suppliers.

    1. Re:Who cares! I sure don't! Its a distraction. by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

      > The FBI has far better things to put their time into with these smart
      > criminals who destroy nations and wreak economies for profit...

      Yes, but they wouldn't get anywhere prosecuting the politicians they work for.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Who cares! I sure don't! Its a distraction. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The FBI only has authority in the US, they cannot go after Russian mob bosses.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Who cares! I sure don't! Its a distraction. by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      The namesake of the FBI building always found it more convenient to blackmail the politicians he worked for.

  32. It's not "money laundering" by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    The original money doesn't exist. The check they're asked to cash is ALWAYS bogus.

    This is bank fraud. It may involve check kiting, where the original cheque is from a real - but overdrawn - account, or it may just involve fake cheques printed to order, but it;s still cheque fraud, not money laundering.

    And the vast majority of people who "get taken in" are just greedy slobs who want to believe so badly that they can actually make $500 for taking a $10,000 cheque and cashing it that they lie to themselves and say "if worse comes to worse, I can always say I didn't know."

    1. Re:It's not "money laundering" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not always bogus.

      Case where I helped.

      Someone needed to setup an account to receive money from a pay-per-click advertiser who at the time did not do business with people in his country. I kept 10% for the service. Perfectly legal, the checks were real as well. He later had his account terminated for getting too greedy, but that's not my problem. :)

    2. Re:It's not "money laundering" by Relayman · · Score: 1

      This isn't the only use for money mules. Sometimes the check is in payment for a fake eBay listing. The idea is to get the money laundered before the eBay realizes that he/she has been scammed. Craigslist is also used to get checks from victims. For example, a woman put an apartment listing up for rent on Craigslist. Someone else put in an ad for the same apartment for less money per month and collected rent deposits from several people before the scam was discovered.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    3. Re:It's not "money laundering" by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You *know* now that we're going to see an uptick in those types of scams.

      Those were chicken-feed. There's a couple in the states that is renting out abandoned, foreclosed, houses. They take away all the signage, cut the lawm - the neighbors think "Oh, good, someone's moving in!" Then they rent it out and cash the cheques - no mules needed.

      They have fake paperwork saying they're the agent handling it for the real owner, who, tsk tsk, can't be traced. Do that with only a half-dozen places and you can quit your day job.

  33. Nigerians vs. Honest Criminals by billstewart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are different business models out there. Sure, if Nigeria's on either end of the deal, the check's bogus, and it's a one-shot scam (unless they can sell your name to somebody who's going to tell you they're the Nigerian National Bank's Fraud Inspection Division, trying to catch that Evil Miscreant who ripped you off, because you're now a known sucker.)

    But sometimes, the deal comes from a legitimate criminal enterprise who actually do want to launder and move money, whether they're drug dealers or extortionists or whatever, and they'd prefer to find mules they can use multiple times and it's cheaper than other ways to move the money.

    And then again, they could be longer-con scammers who are willing to pay you a few bucks on the first few checks so that you'll trust them, and then they'll send you a bigger check that really is bogus.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Nigerians vs. Honest Criminals by Zerth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or they're using another company's wire account. The money is legit, they just didn't have the right to send it. When the actual company sues you for the money, you're extra screwed with legal fees.

      That almost happened at my company, a salesguy was all excited because some sucker wanted to pay double to get the merch shipped to Australia, if only we'd pay his shipping agent, and it "couldn't bounce because it was a wire transfer, not a check".

      Fortunately, the guy used the same address repeatedly and the first result on Google was somebody complaining about it.

    2. Re:Nigerians vs. Honest Criminals by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It still should be left up to the most appropriate agency in the first instance for money laundering. In this case the IRS, when the funds are put through the account they are income and should be taxed as such, it is up to the mule to prove the 'tax deductible payment' to the fraud. So either they pay tax on the full amount, get prosecuted and penalised for not paying tax or act as a witness for the other agency, in this case the FBI.

      The tax bill for the mule's part in money laundering is likely to be far higher than a fine and the penalty for tax evasion is also likely to be worse than the penalty for being a money laundering mule. Giving the mule every possible incentive to work with authorities to catch the actual perpetrators of the crime.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Nigerians vs. Honest Criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had a similar situation at our company. The freight forwarder claimed to have an address in the US which was actually in a residential neighborhood, they responded with a form letter, and they did not have any kind of presence at all. The church which we were to "ship" the goods to existed but the address was wrong, and the pastor at the church to which the goods were intended did not actually exist at that church.

      Plus they wanted us to run a credit card and then wire the money to Ghana, and any time you see the words "Wire Transfer" and "Ghana" in the same sentence together relating to a business transaction you know it's a scam.

  34. Unjustified assumption by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > When pressed as to why they did this, if they're honest most will say they
    > weren't sure about the whole arrangement and wanted to protect their
    > investments just in case their employers turned out to be less-than-honest.

    That doesn't mean that they thought the money was stolen: just that they thought their "employers" might be intending to try to swindle them by cleaning out their accounts. They may have suspected that the money was hot but you can't conclude that just because they took precautions.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Unjustified assumption by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Spot on. I think I'm a decently sharp crayon, yet I'll confess it never occurred to me that *I* might be committing a criminal act by responding to one of those spams. And, for the record, I never have because I've always thought they're simple scams. I expected them to quickly turn into some sort of demand for money, like the old "we're having $PROBLEM, we need $AMOUNT from you, then we'll get you your money!" Yeah, no thanks. IF I were to take a chance on one of those things, setting up a separate account would seem to be a prudent way to limit my risk, and not evidence I thought I was doing anything illegal.

  35. It's bad to commingle personal and business funds by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In fact, it's the #1 mistake that small businesses and sole proprietors make, and the #1 way small businesses have their corporate veil pierced.

    If you have an LLC, you are only protected as long as you maintain your corporate veil. This REQUIRES that you have completely separate bank accounts, tax ID numbers, accounting databases, and everything. Commingling of personal and business assets is the first thing a lawyer will look for when he's trying to get to your personal assets (like your house, savings, 401k, etc) through suing your small business.

    Furthermore, if you have business insurance, it will NOT COVER YOU if your corporate veil is successfully pierced. Business insurance only covers legitimate business activities, and commingling your personal and business assets means your business is not strictly business.

    So, you would be in the "not-so-bright" category for sure if you did NOT get a separate account.

    Getting a separate account does not mean you know you're doing something wrong. It means you know you are doing something RIGHT.

  36. hmmm... by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    Now if they could just find a way to stop the Nigerian scams.

  37. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    You probably assume that dumb people know they are dumb..

    No, but you have to explain things to dumb people.

    With smart people, there's not so much annoying explanation required, since they (in general) think they're smarter than you, and see angles that you've overlooked....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  38. It's really a marketing exercise by baileydau · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I believe this is largely a "marketing" exercise. One of their main aims would be to reduce the number of people willing to be mules. This means that the "real bad guys" have to work harder to get their money clean.

    They want to let those in "the latter group" know that this is definitely illegal, instead of having the thin veil of thinking it *may* be slightly dodgy in some way, but not necessarily illegal, or even if it is, no one has ever got in trouble for it.

    If they get a few convictions, or even get some cases to court, the media will do the rest for them. Job done.

    That will work a LOT better than any traditional advertising / press release etc.

    --
    Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again?
  39. KMA by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

    >>>In Order to Be Convicted of this Crime, the Prosecution Must Show

                    * That the property was in fact stolen
                    * That you were aware, or should have known, that the property was stolen

    Sounds like you're arguing that ``ignorance of the law'' is a (good) defense?

    Here's a POV that noone here will be enlightened by, fucking slashdotters, chekit. And put it together, no hand holding. Common sense scheisse that you grow up with.

    + finders keepers, losers weepers - ahhh, but you're superbadass /dotter wisesmellmyass - so
    + possession is nine tenths of the law - ha! wtf! you confused now, gonna quote some dumb shit, right, mate, bollocks, shite, uuu cheriio - fuckyou
    + NYPD last year routinely entrapped law abiding citizens who when they found an abandoned shopping bag in the middle of a subway platform, with a cop within line-of-sight (that part mattered when they prosecuted you), took it, kept it AND did not hand it to the cop. NYPD was chastised by judge, cases overturned when a man who decided to deliver it to lost-and-found at his destination attempted to board his simultaneously arriving-departing subway train. Turned out NYC law had regs, very old regs that did not make taking possession of unowned, unlabeled objects unlawful. Hence + plus + are not so silly after all.

    1. Re:KMA by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're arguing that ``ignorance of the law'' is a (good) defense?

      No, actually, I was just directly quoting the linked legal site. The interpretation that ignorance is a defense (or any other interpretation for that matter) is all you.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  40. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Not being drawn into a con is one thing. Giving convincing reasons why is quite another, much more difficult.

    Case in point: I (IQ around 157) recently tried to explain to an old acquaintance (IQ guessed at least above 130) why no, I wouldn't join his well-known multi-level marketing scheme (which is not even illegal, just IMHO a ripoff), even if he did fairly well for himself, and I could too share in the "business opportunity".

    Unfortunately, a person's personal view of right and wrong often comes into play, with rationalisation only used after the fact to justify the emotional thinking (no, I'm probably no different). Another factor is personality: a person who wants to be obliging and pleasant finds it more difficult to say no, even if it will go against his better judgement.

    Stuff that. I guess I have to learn to say NO, like any callous bastard, without giving reasons...

    (Posting AC to protect the guilty.)

  41. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by tris203 · · Score: 0

    "smart people because they don't fall so easily for con artists. "

    Intelligence has little to do with getting conned.

    you can con a stupid man you can con a smart man but you cant con an honest man.

    --
    http://snappeh.com/blog/ - My Blog, not that any of you care...
  42. I haven't a family anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So.... I would say the big guy list. To go out in flame and beauty, or at least to be busted trying something good. I am pretty sure tehre are a few cop left which are in a similar situation.

  43. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Intelligence is different from (street) Smarts.

    If you ever worked with highly intelligent people, you surelly have noticed that some of them are hardly as successful as one would expect from their IQ - even if you have not noticed that about yourself.

    Intelligent people are in fact easier to con because:
    - They are so (over)confident in their own mental abilities and believe so much that they are thus un-connable that they won't even see the emotional/social manipulation of the conman (in a sense, they have a huge blind spot).
    - Their confort zone is often logic, not influencing people, so they cannot even recognize some of the "moves" for what they are.

  44. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by dkf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Intelligence is different from (street) Smarts.

    There are multiple facets to intelligence, not all of which are measured through IQ. Moreover, most people actually reason in a Bayesian fashion, deciding how much to believe what someone's saying by evaluating the perceived trustworthiness of the speaker. If the scammer manages to get into a position where he can say things that are believed without actually being reasoned about (or say things that will be categorically not believed, allowing converse statements to be made and so belief to be established in what the scammer wants) then the core of scam is done; all that's really left is moving it into the cash-out phase.

    An intelligent and suspicious mark will be very difficult to scam, especially if they are inclined to shut the scammer's statements out. Lots of people aren't good at suspicion it seems.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  45. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Sorry, sorry, my fault.

    Please replace "stupid" with "uneducated" in my original statement. We don't want stupid people, we just want them to know just exactly what's necessary for them to do their job. And NOTHING else. If they could handle their own life, why'd they hire "professionals"?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  46. no more big bills in the UK by oh-dark-thirty · · Score: 2, Funny

    The UK just outlawed the sale of 500 Euro notes in an atempt to combat laundering; so now they will have to use a bigger suitcase...brilliant!

  47. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by goodtrick · · Score: 1
    You think your IQ is around 157? Do you realize that that roughly puts you among the 1000 or so smartest people in the US?

    You sir have been conned.

  48. Top 10,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But that's assuming that the IQ test is calibrated to still give a perfect normal distribution at the high end of the scores, which pretty much never happens because there aren't enough data points. I got a perfect score on an IQ test when I was in elementary school, and the test claimed that corresponded to 158+.

    (posting anon so this doesn't sound like bragging - but yes, I'm as aware as the grandparent post that IQ tests evaluate skill with tester-defined abstractions, not the ability to make intelligent decisions in practical situations)

  49. gotta love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fighting crime: trickle up

    Stimulating economy: trickle down.

    God we are so fucking screwed.

  50. The FBI does NOT prosecute by bratgitarre · · Score: 1
    The FBI does not prosecute:

    The FBI does not prosecute cases. It provides investigative information to United States attorneys, who then use that information to decide whether to prosecute.

  51. Re:Huh? Have the cake or eat it, make up your mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CrimsonAvenger's right. The saying goes 'You can't con an HONEST John", not "You can't con a SMART John".