Slashdot Mirror
Feds Charge 61 People In Indian-Based IRS Phone Scam Case (consumerist.com)
BUL2294 writes: Following the arrests earlier this month in India of call center employees posing as IRS or immigration agents, USA Today and Consumerist are reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice has charged 61 people in the U.S. and India of facilitating the scam, bilking millions from Americans thinking they were facing immediate arrest and prosecution. "According to the indictment (PDF) -- which covers 20 individuals in the U.S. and 32 people and five call centers in India -- since about 2012 the defendants used information obtained from data brokers and other sources to call potential victims impersonating officers from the IRS or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services," reports Consumerist. The report adds: "To give the calls an air of authenticity, the organization was able to 'spoof' phone numbers, making the calls appear to have really come from a federal agency. The callers would then allegedly threaten potential victims with arrest, imprisonment, fines, or deportation if they did not pay supposed taxes or penalties to the government. In instances when the victims agreed to pay, the DOJ claims that the call centers would instruct them to go to banks or ATMs to withdraw money, use the funds to purchase prepaid stored value cards from retail stores, and then provide the unique serial number to the caller. At this point, the operations U.S.-based counterparts would use the serial numbers to transfer the funds to prepaid reloadable cards. The cards would then be used to purchase money orders that were transferred into U.S. bank accounts of individuals or businesses. To make matters worse, the indictment claims that the prepaid debit cards were often registered using personal information of thousands of identity theft victims, and the wire transfers were directed by the organizations using fake names and fraudulent identifications. The operation would then use 'hawalas' -- a system in which money is transferred internationally outside of the formal banking system -- to direct the pilfered funds to accounts belonging to U.S.-based individuals.
In phone rooms the owners often tell the staff that it is a moral wrong to leave stupid people with a penny in their pocket. I really never agreed with that. But this IRS scam is so stupid and transparent that anyone who feel for it has to be so stupid that they really are a menace to society. Money gives the really stupid a certain amount of power. I almost agree with the phone room owners in this case. If anything prosecute these jerks for making annoying phone calls. Obviously phone room prosecutions are symbolic in nature and not intended to shut down a crooked industry. Most years the feds prosecute about 20 phone rooms. They go after the big dollar scams as a rule. For Lauderdale easily has over 1,000 phone rooms going on any given day. There are zero honest rooms. Some of the schemes are so complex that the staff doesn't even know they are involved in a criminal enterprise. Sometimes it is done by running one room that makes tiny sales and another room across town that uses the leads from the tiny sales to recall the buyer and sock it to them big time with a scam. The first room never knows that the second room exists. One clue that you are about to be taken is when you are asked to write a check with the company names initials. In other words the friendly salesman says make the check out to N.M.I. instead of National Mortgage incorporated. That check will then be cashed by National Marketing Inc.. So if the feds do come knocking national Mortgage claims no knowledge and they just happened to rent space to a marketing company that closed down and left town. These companies never sell in their own states. That way they only have to worry about the feds.
The things that make them 'rather obvious scams' to you may not indicate 'rather obvious scam' to someone in a different situation, regardless of any 'mental health issues'. The fact you can't understand that is a character flaw on your part, not theirs.
Things that mark it as 'obvious scam':
They called you instead of sending a letter, etc. - Maybe the person already has debt problems and is used to getting collection calls demanding payment. Whats one more caller? Maybe the person actually HAS tax problems and has received a letter, but has not taken any action.
Indian caller who barely speaks english - 25 years ago if you called customer service for any company you spoke to someone in the US who could speak english. Then companies started contracting out those call centers to India. There was no great announcement that this was happening, but when you called the same number you always called you were now talking to someone in India. Everyone knows their are government contractors. Is it entirely beyond reason that the government would do the same as those companies did? No.
Method of payment - 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable to pay McDonalds or a vending machine with a credit card, now it is commonplace. A very short time ago it would be unthinkable that you just tap your phone and a payment is made, now it is commonplace. It used to be if you wanted a CVS gift card you went to CVS, now you can buy a CVS card at Lowes. Maybe the method of payment requested seems unusual or odd, but is it really any more odd than buying a Coke with a phone?
In short, the more changes you have witnessed in your lifetime the less 'odd' any new changes seem. Things that to YOU may be giant red flags are just another change in an endless stream of changes.
And even if they DO think something is odd they may pay anyway. Most older people are risk averse, and the things they value most are their home and their independence. Threaten to take either of those away and you have triggered a very strong fear response. The risk of losing a little money to a scam pales in comparison to losing their home or independence, so they pay.
So why don't they ask for help if they suspect a scam? Because of assholes like you that think that is a sign they need to be 'taken care of and protected', thereby losing their independence.