5 ms·

>guilty of not being zealous enough at being a quasi-law enforcement agency and investigating its customer transactions... Did we read the same article? >West

by josu 10y ago

>guilty of not being zealous enough at being a quasi-law enforcement agency and investigating its customer transactions... Did we read the same article? >Western Union (...) admitted "to aiding and abetting wire fraud" by allowing scammers to process transactions, even when the company realized its agents were helping scammers avoid detection Furthermore: >Between 2004 and 2012, the Colorado-based company knew of fraudulent transactions but failed to take steps that would have resulted in disciplining of 2,000 agents, authorities said. If the prosecutors were able to prove that WU was aware that the transactions were fraudulent your comment makes no sense. They didn't need to be "a quasi-law enforcement agency" because they already knew that the transactions were fraudulent.

tibbe 10y ago
Did they know of specific instances of fraud or just more generally that it was going on?
- iamdave 10y ago
  even when the company realized its agents were helping scammers avoid detection I'm inclined to say on the record here that actively assisting and rendering aid to someone seeking avoid fraud detection kind of answers that question right off the bat
  - valuearb 10y ago
    Yea, this could mean that a WU employee explained to a customer why they were being refused service, and explained how they'd have to redo their request in order to send money. The prosecution will spin it as in cahoots, when it could have just been good customer service explaining a bunch of stupid rules.
13of40 10y ago
> were able to prove It's not 100% clear they were able to prove anything versus being able to corner WU into a settlement.
- andylei 10y ago
  if WU agreed to a settlement of this size, its pretty safe to say that there's at least a good chance it would have been proven.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Or the settlement is well under the profit made from the crime.
    - geon 10y ago
      That is irrelevant. They wouldn't settle if they could get away with not paying anything.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        Say you rob a bank for 1 million. The federal government offers you a deal that if you pay 100k you will be free and clear of all charges. You don't take that deal? You'd prefer to risk a decade in prison (at 10k a year)?
        cm2187 10y ago
        That decision should be independent on whether there was 1 million or 10k in the bank when you robbed it. The proceeds from the robbery is a sunk cost (well in this case a profit). Your decision should be purely based on forward cash flows and outcome, you pay 100k or you do not and you take the risk to do jail time.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I never considered it that way but that makes sense.
        sjy 10y ago
        Whether you stole 1M or 10k makes a big difference to the expected utility of a 100k loss, which is obvious if you consider someone who doesn't actually have 100k left to spend on a fine.
valuearb 10y ago
You realize you are taking the prosecutions press release at face value, don't you? If a few WU employees helped a few customers navigate the compliance hurdles, and some of those customers happened to be scammers, the press release would say the same thing.

by josu 10y ago

tibbe 10y ago

Did they know of specific instances of fraud or just more generally that it was going on?

iamdave 10y ago
even when the company realized its agents were helping scammers avoid detection I'm inclined to say on the record here that actively assisting and rendering aid to someone seeking avoid fraud detection kind of answers that question right off the bat
- valuearb 10y ago
  Yea, this could mean that a WU employee explained to a customer why they were being refused service, and explained how they'd have to redo their request in order to send money. The prosecution will spin it as in cahoots, when it could have just been good customer service explaining a bunch of stupid rules.

13of40 10y ago

> were able to prove It's not 100% clear they were able to prove anything versus being able to corner WU into a settlement.

andylei 10y ago
if WU agreed to a settlement of this size, its pretty safe to say that there's at least a good chance it would have been proven.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Or the settlement is well under the profit made from the crime.
  - geon 10y ago
    That is irrelevant. They wouldn't settle if they could get away with not paying anything.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Say you rob a bank for 1 million. The federal government offers you a deal that if you pay 100k you will be free and clear of all charges. You don't take that deal? You'd prefer to risk a decade in prison (at 10k a year)?
      - cm2187 10y ago
        That decision should be independent on whether there was 1 million or 10k in the bank when you robbed it. The proceeds from the robbery is a sunk cost (well in this case a profit). Your decision should be purely based on forward cash flows and outcome, you pay 100k or you do not and you take the risk to do jail time.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I never considered it that way but that makes sense.
        sjy 10y ago
        Whether you stole 1M or 10k makes a big difference to the expected utility of a 100k loss, which is obvious if you consider someone who doesn't actually have 100k left to spend on a fine.

valuearb 10y ago

You realize you are taking the prosecutions press release at face value, don't you? If a few WU employees helped a few customers navigate the compliance hurdles, and some of those customers happened to be scammers, the press release would say the same thing.