3 ms·
No. If I sent you $100 you'd probably send that $100 back, since you didn't expect then and have no reason to accept money from me. If I now go to a third party
by delusional 6mo ago
No. If I sent you $100 you'd probably send that $100 back, since you didn't expect then and have no reason to accept money from me. If I now go to a third party and don't tell them about how I sent you money, I have a legitimate transfer receipt for you sending me $100.
Its both a fraud on the third party, whom I have provided incomplete information. But also on you, who have become an unwitting accomlish in my scam, at least from the point of view of the third party.
- HWR_14 6mo agoThat's what they meant by "round trip" transactions? Literally sending them a check and waiting for them to return it? And no other business relationship? And then lying about it using the received check? That must be one of the least helpful new sentences I've read in a while. I thought it just meant they were seller financing all their customers by loaning them the money and they had gotten zero real revenue.
- delusional 6mo agoWell in this case it looks like it was just regular double sided fraud. They opened bank accounts in fake names and bought their own product to boost revenue. Much less interesting. > an associate of Chidambaran, who previously worked as an iLearning vice president, incorporated and opened bank accounts in the names of several purported iLearning customers. Over the course of several years, the defendants transmitted millions of dollars from iLearning to an account controlled by this individual. This individual then sent those funds to other accounts he controlled in the names of other entities, before ultimately sending the money back to iLearning. The aggregate value of these round-trip transactions exceeded $144 million.