BaT Conspirarcy Theories

aircooled said:

mfennell said:

 

Yeah, but now I'm stuck with $100k of cash.  It's not really laundered, it's just become my problem.  Unless I own a cash-based business, I'm just as stuck.

But you have a legal source for that money, the sale of a car. 

Yes, you still need to deposit the cash, but when the IRS asks where the money came from, you say "car" instead of "meth".

Yes, but when this hypothetical situation started it was "meth guy buys your car for $20k on paper but really he gives $100k" so now you have 80g you can't explain.

Hmmm, I think the idea is he gives you the whole 100k for a car that should be 20k, thus the over pricing that is seen.

This of course really requires they do it for each other because you are laundering the other guys money, but you end up with it (he needs to sell the car again to get his "clean" money).  The note about it needing to be cash does make it interesting though (since the sales are online)

1) You make $100k in a week selling meth that you made out of your business partners RV

2) You can't just make 10x $9,999 deposits at a bank. The IRS will start asking questions. 

3) You buy a car wash you used to work at part time to help pay the bills for $100k. Week 1 income problem solved. 

4) You start forging the books at the carwash, this allows you to funnel your meth profit in some sort of "legal" fashion. 

5) You realize that you can't pump $100k a week through the carwash books. You start buying semi-rare cars with the cash. 

6) You and your business partner both create legit and not-legit BaT accounts. You post a car up for auction that you bought for $20k. 

7) Your partner bids with his legit account while you bid with your fake account until it reaches an amount that suffices your weekly income for your drug enterprise. Thus funneling the money in a somewhat legal manner through car auctions. 

Am I correct in stating that for the most part, the Feds don't look back past a single transfer of large sums?

I would think that if I deposited $100k for my auctioned vehicle (or sold property) that authorities might be interested in where that cash came from, and how the buyer acquired it. 

aircooled said:

mfennell said:

 

Yeah, but now I'm stuck with $100k of cash.  It's not really laundered, it's just become my problem.  Unless I own a cash-based business, I'm just as stuck.

But you have a legal source for that money, the sale of a car. 

Yes, you still need to deposit the cash, but when the IRS asks where the money came from, you say "car" instead of "meth".

And as long as you pay taxes on that money, the IRS stops caring so much.  This is part of the "laundering" concept.  Maybe someone there starts getting suspicious and sends the file to the DOJ, but a lot of the IRS staff is overworked and underpaid, so it can easily fall into the "not my job..." category. 

DirtyBird222 said:

1) You make $100k in a week selling meth that you made out of your business partners RV

2) You can't just make 10x $9,999 deposits at a bank. The IRS will start asking questions. 

3) You buy a car wash you used to work at part time to help pay the bills for $100k. Week 1 income problem solved. 

4) You start forging the books at the carwash, this allows you to funnel your meth profit in some sort of "legal" fashion. 

5) You realize that you can't pump $100k a week through the carwash books. You start buying semi-rare cars with the cash. 

6) You and your business partner both create legit and not-legit BaT accounts. You post a car up for auction that you bought for $20k. 

7) Your partner bids with his legit account while you bid with your fake account until it reaches an amount that suffices your weekly income for your drug enterprise. Thus funneling the money in a somewhat legal manner through car auctions. 

I think this overlooks that if I deposit a lot of cash as a "vehicle sale" every 2 weeks into my bank (totally legal and I have done it) eventually someone is going to look upstream and there will be a while bunch of transactions between guy A and guy B since there will be records of these vehicles, signatures on titles, even putting it all in a trust is just another layer to peel back.  Ultimately this a pretty deep look into something that doesnt exist on the scale that is imagined through this outlet.

93gsxturbo said:

DirtyBird222 said:

1) You make $100k in a week selling meth that you made out of your business partners RV

2) You can't just make 10x $9,999 deposits at a bank. The IRS will start asking questions. 

3) You buy a car wash you used to work at part time to help pay the bills for $100k. Week 1 income problem solved. 

4) You start forging the books at the carwash, this allows you to funnel your meth profit in some sort of "legal" fashion. 

5) You realize that you can't pump $100k a week through the carwash books. You start buying semi-rare cars with the cash. 

6) You and your business partner both create legit and not-legit BaT accounts. You post a car up for auction that you bought for $20k. 

7) Your partner bids with his legit account while you bid with your fake account until it reaches an amount that suffices your weekly income for your drug enterprise. Thus funneling the money in a somewhat legal manner through car auctions. 

I think this overlooks that if I deposit a lot of cash as a "vehicle sale" every 2 weeks into my bank (totally legal and I have done it) eventually someone is going to look upstream and there will be a while bunch of transactions between guy A and guy B since there will be records of these vehicles, signatures on titles, even putting it all in a trust is just another layer to peel back.  Ultimately this a pretty deep look into something that doesnt exist on the scale that is imagined through this outlet.

Also, don't you still run into the problem of having to explain where the money for the buyer comes from? From their perspective, how is that any different than Mr Meth dealer taking his $100k and buying a Lambo?

In reply to Furious_E (Forum Supporter) :

Where the buyer got his money is not your issue. Have you ever asked a buyer how they got the money?

John Welsh (Moderate Supporter) said:

I though the music industry was the hot money laundering venture.  Looking at you Suge Night!  
 

it was nice knowing you, John 

To conceal the source of money by channeling it through an intermediary 

I assume some of the concerns raised above are how money launderers eventually get caught. Nobody said it was foolproof; hence why some people get busted for it. But it does presumably take a while for the feds to notice, so the nefarious individuals involved in the scheme get to enjoy it while it lasts, so to speak.

gearheadmb said:

aircooled said:

mfennell said:

 

Yeah, but now I'm stuck with $100k of cash.  It's not really laundered, it's just become my problem.  Unless I own a cash-based business, I'm just as stuck.

But you have a legal source for that money, the sale of a car. 

Yes, you still need to deposit the cash, but when the IRS asks where the money came from, you say "car" instead of "meth".

Yes, but when this hypothetical situation started it was "meth guy buys your car for $20k on paper but really he gives $100k" so now you have 80g you can't explain.

In this hypothetical, the seller is in on the game.  An accomplice.  The 80k can hang around for the next purchase, or be funneled through an offshore account.  It also doesn't really matter.  The "buyer" has a piece of paper that says he paid $20k.  All the "seller" has is a Ferrari that is no longer in his garage and $100k.  The two are separate bits of evidence that will never see the light of day until after the deed is done and both parties have legal, clean money in their accounts.

The only thing that the FBI might find a red flag is that the seller deposits $100k, which is easily explained by the fact that he sold a Ferrari.  The buyer eventually deposits $120k, which is legally explained by re-selling the Ferrari for a profit.

It's not about what law enforcement knows, it's about what they can prove.  The only evidence they have is two legal deposits and a trail that leads back to a legal car.  End of evidence trail.

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to Furious_E (Forum Supporter) :

Where the buyer got his money is not your issue. Have you ever asked a buyer how they got the money?

And I think that's part of how money laundering still happens - nobody cares how the unknown buyer miraculously comes up with an insane amount of cash, they only care that the law abiding square with wife, 3 kids, dog and minivan doesn't deposit said cash without knowing why. 

To me, the "purchase" should be viewed just like the deposit, but the Feds don't care as long as its not in the banks. 

This ends up boiling down to ethical buying and selling. 

Take for instance, cases of chop shops, or buying stolen goods. We often don't ask too many questions when we find a really good on some car parts, should we? I think many would say "don't buy hot merch" but not many would say "don't take obviously hot money."

93gsxturbo said:

DirtyBird222 said:

1) You make $100k in a week selling meth that you made out of your business partners RV

2) You can't just make 10x $9,999 deposits at a bank. The IRS will start asking questions. 

3) You buy a car wash you used to work at part time to help pay the bills for $100k. Week 1 income problem solved. 

4) You start forging the books at the carwash, this allows you to funnel your meth profit in some sort of "legal" fashion. 

5) You realize that you can't pump $100k a week through the carwash books. You start buying semi-rare cars with the cash. 

6) You and your business partner both create legit and not-legit BaT accounts. You post a car up for auction that you bought for $20k. 

7) Your partner bids with his legit account while you bid with your fake account until it reaches an amount that suffices your weekly income for your drug enterprise. Thus funneling the money in a somewhat legal manner through car auctions. 

I think this overlooks that if I deposit a lot of cash as a "vehicle sale" every 2 weeks into my bank (totally legal and I have done it) eventually someone is going to look upstream and there will be a while bunch of transactions between guy A and guy B since there will be records of these vehicles, signatures on titles, even putting it all in a trust is just another layer to peel back.  Ultimately this a pretty deep look into something that doesnt exist on the scale that is imagined through this outlet.

I would rather get caught for not paying taxes on the vehicle sale, or not having a dealer license than to get caught with illegal money or meth.

It is also never Walter White who buys and sell the car.  Sometimes it's Jesse, sometimes it's Saul, sometimes it's Eisenheimer.  Sometimes it's the car wash, or the laundromat.

pheller said:

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to Furious_E (Forum Supporter) :

Where the buyer got his money is not your issue. Have you ever asked a buyer how they got the money?

And I think that's part of how money laundering still happens - nobody cares how the unknown buyer miraculously comes up with an insane amount of cash, they only care that the law abiding square with wife, 3 kids, dog and minivan doesn't deposit said cash without knowing why. 

To me, the "purchase" should be viewed just like the deposit, but the Feds don't care as long as its not in the banks. 

This ends up boiling down to ethical buying and selling. 

Take for instance, cases of chop shops, or buying stolen goods. We often don't ask too many questions when we find a really good on some car parts, should we? I think many would say "don't buy hot merch" but not many would say "don't take obviously hot money."

All of this.  It has to do with what can be proven.

If I suddenly buy and sell 10 Lambos because I started working as a male prostitute, they can ask all they want about where the money came from, but unless they can physically prove that I've been a man-whore, they've got nothin.

If you make 200k selling meth and deposit it, it's automatically a piece of evidence that leads to something.  If you buy a Lambo and sell it, THEN put the money in an account, they are back to square one.  You're simply putting a roadblock between the money and the source.  They might know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm a gigolo, but without the proof, the money from the Lambos can't even be evidence.

pheller said:

Am I correct in stating that for the most part, the Feds don't look back past a single transfer of large sums?

 

I would think that if I deposited $100k for my auctioned vehicle (or sold property) that authorities might be interested in where that cash came from, and how the buyer acquired it. 

From what I understand, all bank transactions $10k and above are automatically required to be reported to the Fed or FBI.  99% of them are obviously passed over as ignorable.  Down payments on cars, purchases of real estate, etc.  Of course, if I'm a suspect in something, they could subpoena my bank statements at which point the $3 soda I bought at the gas station is available to them.

I also believe banks can submit anything they want to, voluntarily.  If I make weekly deposits of $9999.99 and the bank is stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds it, they might report the deposits.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

In addition to the sums over $10k, banks are supposed to report patterns of deposits that subvert the reporting guidelines.  The structuring of deposits can have more negative impact than a single large deposit. 

The reporting of "structured" deposits can be a red flag, and is also puts legitimate cash businesses (restaurants, bars, etc) at risk if they are making regular cash deposits under $10k.  In typical government behavior, the authorities can seize funds that are believed to be part of a structuring scheme and it's up to the business owner to prove the funds are legitimate to get them released. 
 

Structuring can affect legal transactions

Note to self:  Buy meth from Curtis, he knows his business.

Yeah, but my Meth is terrible.