4 ms·
>Because Secure had no real headquarters and existed on the Internet only, an investigation would be challenging. This is where they lost me. How can a company
by atlantic 12y ago
>Because Secure had no real headquarters and existed on the Internet only, an investigation would be challenging.
This is where they lost me. How can a company involved in billions of dollars' worth of transfers be hard to trace? It's not like they can make a cash withdrawal and close down their account. Ordinarily, there is an enormous amount of official scrutiny around large international capital movements. This lack of enthusiasm in following the paper trail suggests governments are involved at some level.
- DanBC 12y agoGovernments hav limited funds to investigate and prosecute fraud. Lack of government action doesn't mean that governments are complicit! It might just mean that they don't have the reseources to track criminals across several different jurisdictions. See "carousel fraud" for an example of a fraud that used to be difficult to tackle. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/08/20/uk-carousel-fraud-britain-factbox-sb-idUKTRE57J43U20090820 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/08/20/uk-carousel-fraud-b...
- lucozade 12y agoThat's one possible explanation. I'd like to offer another...there weren't billions of dollars. That "fact" came from their website. Along with the P&L from their trading and the endorsements. What makes you think that the rest is fake and that bit isn't? They probably had a few million across a dozen accounts in half a dozen countries. Well worth setting up a scam but hardly Bernie Madoff. And even if it was more serious money, they weren't actually investing it so they only needed to keep enough around to Ponzi returns until the scrutiny got too much.