6 ms·

> or put it in banks not controlled by US interests. That would probably be tough for him to have done.

ekianjo 13y ago
Why is that? After all, he knew that he was blowing out some serious secrets, and he did take the necessary steps to protect himself from direct retaliation at the time, and was advised on how to do so as well. It would not make much sense that he would have somehow "forgot" about protecting his financial assets.
- pyre 13y ago
  The US has even bent the Swiss banks to their will. I think that "not under US influence" isn't a synonym for "outside of the US." Withdrawing large amounts of cash, or transferring money to (e.g.) the Bank Melli Iran would have presumably raised red flags.
  - blackoil 13y ago
    depending on the amount HSBC/Citibank can be considered not under US influence.
    - digitalengineer 13y ago
      Everything that uses the SWIFT banking system is under the US control. So that's basically everything and everybody. That's wht some of the BRIC's are setting up their own SWIFT payment system...
      - sangnoir 13y ago
        I think you are overstating the amount of control the US has. The US is spying on SWIFT transactions, that's a world of a difference from actually controlling SWIFT.
        digitalengineer 13y ago
        Did I really? WallStreetJournal :"Both houses of the U.S. Congress have drafted legislation threatening to penalize Swift's board and owners if they didn't ban the suspect Iranian entities from using its network." http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204795304577223900530203704 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020479530...
        tzakrajs 13y ago
        Again, this quote says nothing of the US having control over the Swift network itself.
        Shivetya 13y ago
        Denial works as well as control. Deny access through,to, or from, it pretty much sufficient. As the quote from Dune goes, He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.
      - rgbrenner 13y ago
        I think he was referring to this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves... http://nypost.com/2012/04/05/us-regulator-cites-citibank-for-violating-money-laundering-law/ http://nypost.com/2012/04/05/us-regulator-cites-citibank-for...
- mseebach 13y ago
  I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the financial dealings of Top Secret personnel is under some level of surveillance. It's not about where to move it to, but moving it in the first place.
  - officemonkey 13y ago
    OTOH, it would not be hard to play the "paycheck-to-paycheck game" and withdraw all his cash, spend very little of it, and launder it through his trusted friends who could very well have imported it to Hong Kong (at $9,999 per flight) before he flew the coop.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      I'd say that's exactly the kind of behaviour that gets flagged. Why did you shift from spending on your credit card and saving in your account to taking out almost all your money in cash every month? The guy made $100k+, that's a lot of money. Drug problem, trying to pay a blackmailer off? Also, I wouldn't overestimate how many of his friends he could successfully enlist in what technically (if not morally) was a conspiracy to commit treason. For something like this to be successful, it needs to come out of the blue.
      - pwnna 13y ago
        Reading through this comment chain and seeing all the plausible speculations about how these guys' banking info are monitored for red flags.. a) Why are we not mad about that kinda thing? b) Doesn't the law of large numbers say that even if someone does something that looks weird, it might just be for random fluctuations? Or is the financial system too.. regular?
      - officemonkey 13y ago
        I think you're overestimating the capacity of the security apparatus to monitor the security apparatus. They have so much work that they have to hire contractors to do it. They rely on the clearance process to weed out the untrustworthy. Re-investigations are typically at 5 year intervals. It would not surprise me that any person they have watching the store is someone who is being chided for not doing "real" work. Basically "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Nobody, apparently.
khuey 13y ago
Indeed. As Iran has found out, essentially the entire global financial system (via SWIFT, etc) will be closed off to you if the US is after you.
- gahahaha 13y ago
  Another example: Wikileaks.

Why is that? After all, he knew that he was blowing out some serious secrets, and he did take the necessary steps to protect himself from direct retaliation at the time, and was advised on how to do so as well. It would not make much sense that he would have somehow "forgot" about protecting his financial assets.

pyre 13y ago
The US has even bent the Swiss banks to their will. I think that "not under US influence" isn't a synonym for "outside of the US." Withdrawing large amounts of cash, or transferring money to (e.g.) the Bank Melli Iran would have presumably raised red flags.
- blackoil 13y ago
  depending on the amount HSBC/Citibank can be considered not under US influence.
  - digitalengineer 13y ago
    Everything that uses the SWIFT banking system is under the US control. So that's basically everything and everybody. That's wht some of the BRIC's are setting up their own SWIFT payment system...
    - sangnoir 13y ago
      I think you are overstating the amount of control the US has. The US is spying on SWIFT transactions, that's a world of a difference from actually controlling SWIFT.
      - digitalengineer 13y ago
        Did I really? WallStreetJournal :"Both houses of the U.S. Congress have drafted legislation threatening to penalize Swift's board and owners if they didn't ban the suspect Iranian entities from using its network." http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204795304577223900530203704 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020479530...
        tzakrajs 13y ago
        Again, this quote says nothing of the US having control over the Swift network itself.
        Shivetya 13y ago
        Denial works as well as control. Deny access through,to, or from, it pretty much sufficient. As the quote from Dune goes, He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.
    - rgbrenner 13y ago
      I think he was referring to this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves... http://nypost.com/2012/04/05/us-regulator-cites-citibank-for-violating-money-laundering-law/ http://nypost.com/2012/04/05/us-regulator-cites-citibank-for...
mseebach 13y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the financial dealings of Top Secret personnel is under some level of surveillance. It's not about where to move it to, but moving it in the first place.
- officemonkey 13y ago
  OTOH, it would not be hard to play the "paycheck-to-paycheck game" and withdraw all his cash, spend very little of it, and launder it through his trusted friends who could very well have imported it to Hong Kong (at $9,999 per flight) before he flew the coop.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    I'd say that's exactly the kind of behaviour that gets flagged. Why did you shift from spending on your credit card and saving in your account to taking out almost all your money in cash every month? The guy made $100k+, that's a lot of money. Drug problem, trying to pay a blackmailer off? Also, I wouldn't overestimate how many of his friends he could successfully enlist in what technically (if not morally) was a conspiracy to commit treason. For something like this to be successful, it needs to come out of the blue.
    - pwnna 13y ago
      Reading through this comment chain and seeing all the plausible speculations about how these guys' banking info are monitored for red flags.. a) Why are we not mad about that kinda thing? b) Doesn't the law of large numbers say that even if someone does something that looks weird, it might just be for random fluctuations? Or is the financial system too.. regular?
    - officemonkey 13y ago
      I think you're overestimating the capacity of the security apparatus to monitor the security apparatus. They have so much work that they have to hire contractors to do it. They rely on the clearance process to weed out the untrustworthy. Re-investigations are typically at 5 year intervals. It would not surprise me that any person they have watching the store is someone who is being chided for not doing "real" work. Basically "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Nobody, apparently.

khuey 13y ago

Indeed. As Iran has found out, essentially the entire global financial system (via SWIFT, etc) will be closed off to you if the US is after you.

gahahaha 13y ago
Another example: Wikileaks.