2 ms·

> It will show up somewhere in the tax filings. There's no such thing as discreet payments unless it's in such small amounts that it comes from petty cash. Cre

> It will show up somewhere in the tax filings. There's no such thing as discreet payments unless it's in such small amounts that it comes from petty cash. Create a shell company in some remote tax haven with lax disclosure laws, have them pay the ransom, and close the shell company afterwards. Companies are already good at dodging taxes this way.

lelanthran 2y ago
> Create a shell company in some remote tax haven with lax disclosure laws, have them pay the ransom, and close the shell company afterwards. Companies are already good at dodging taxes this way. That only works for hiding income, not hiding expenses. You create a shell company in Malta (for example). Now how do you get $$$ into that company so that it can pay the ransom? Okay, so you assign your payment to $MALTA-COMPANY the line-item of 'consulting fees'. It only takes a few companies to do this before the tax authorities are wise to it. After all, even for relatively tiny amounts companies still have to perform KYC on customers!. Think about it this way: if it was that easy to hide expenses from authorities, embezzlement schemes would be a lot simpler than they are now.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Okay, so you assign your payment to $MALTA-COMPANY the line-item of 'consulting fees'. It only takes a few companies to do this before the tax authorities are wise to it. Tax authorities already don't give a fuck about where a company shifts its money to. As long as there's a proper entry in the books, at least. There are schemes involving up to six different legal entities [1]. A measly million dollars or two is a minor rounding error for a multibillion dollar company. > Think about it this way: if it was that easy to hide expenses from authorities, embezzlement schemes would be a lot simpler than they are now. Embezzlement is easier the higher the embezzler is in the command chain. When the CFO orders something to happen - say, a monetary transfer or the creation of a shell company - it will usually be executed without question by the lower levels. Maybe, given the rise of impersonation attacks, the underlings will follow protocol and call the CFO back to verify that it is really the CFO ordering that thing, but that's it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

lelanthran 2y ago

> Create a shell company in some remote tax haven with lax disclosure laws, have them pay the ransom, and close the shell company afterwards. Companies are already good at dodging taxes this way. That only works for hiding income, not hiding expenses. You create a shell company in Malta (for example). Now how do you get $$$ into that company so that it can pay the ransom? Okay, so you assign your payment to $MALTA-COMPANY the line-item of 'consulting fees'. It only takes a few companies to do this before the tax authorities are wise to it. After all, even for relatively tiny amounts companies still have to perform KYC on customers!. Think about it this way: if it was that easy to hide expenses from authorities, embezzlement schemes would be a lot simpler than they are now.

mschuster91 2y ago
> Okay, so you assign your payment to $MALTA-COMPANY the line-item of 'consulting fees'. It only takes a few companies to do this before the tax authorities are wise to it. Tax authorities already don't give a fuck about where a company shifts its money to. As long as there's a proper entry in the books, at least. There are schemes involving up to six different legal entities [1]. A measly million dollars or two is a minor rounding error for a multibillion dollar company. > Think about it this way: if it was that easy to hide expenses from authorities, embezzlement schemes would be a lot simpler than they are now. Embezzlement is easier the higher the embezzler is in the command chain. When the CFO orders something to happen - say, a monetary transfer or the creation of a shell company - it will usually be executed without question by the lower levels. Maybe, given the rise of impersonation attacks, the underlings will follow protocol and call the CFO back to verify that it is really the CFO ordering that thing, but that's it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement