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.'"
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.
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.
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!”
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?
People are prosecuted for receiving stolen goods all the time. How is this much different?
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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
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.
"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
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 ----
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.
CG Pin-Ups?
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.
>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.
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"
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.
> 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.
> 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.