3 ms·
That almost makes sense, except that the money is paid out to the artist, so if you're using a stolen bank account, it remains 'dirty' after the round-trip. Wh
by thematrixturtle 4y ago
That almost makes sense, except that the money is paid out to the artist, so if you're using a stolen bank account, it remains 'dirty' after the round-trip.
What you'd want to do is use the dirty money for the bots that drive up the revenue, and the clean account for the artist to collect the royalties. This way the artist has plausible deniability, and if the bank account paying for the bots gets busted, it doesn't matter, you can get a new one.
- thayne 4y agoIsn't that what the parent described?
- thematrixturtle 4y agoNo, they suggested using stolen bank accounts to receive the artist royalties.
- afiori 4y agoI think they meant "stolen identities and legitimate bank account opened by the stolen identity"
- caf 4y agoThis is right - the whole point with money laundering is to have a legitimate business where extra money can come in, apparently from real but untraceable customers, that is really dirty money you control.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y agoThis. Same thing with Google Play apps and similar where you can get a clean payout and you can buy gift cards for cash. Back in the days, it was done with SMS payments and "party lines" with per-minute payments.
- mekkkkkk 4y agoWhat you are saying is that the "artist" whose account the cleaned money goes to has to be in on it? I.e. no identity theft or bank account hijacking?