The MattLG Method - possible new scam

Walletwatch

Have you considered the fact that this way of moving money to and fro comes across very clearly as a case of money-laundering? You would have a clear pattern where you would have payments to the same merchant, and then deposits (to refund the account) either in cash, or in chq/transfer from the same merchant's bank acct!!!

I suggest you don't try it - maybe a smart idea, but I disagree with some previous posters. Hardly as legit. as stoozing...

Anon

Sorry to disagree, but I think that this is different to stoozing as you are specifically setting out to defraud (if that is a fair term) by passing yourself off as a merchant, which you are clearly not. And even if you feel it is legimate, how long do you think it will take for Halifax to spot this and close you down?

Only a personal opinion - but as the thread includes "possible scam" in the subject, it is clearly not believed honest. The definition of scam, from Reference.com, should you wish to check, is "A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scam). With stoozing, you are looking to take advantage of 0% deals within the terms of the cc company. You can legitimately do this if you have a balance to transfer - even by pushing the definition with an Egg or Virgin to current account stooze, you still have a balance to transfer and you are in debt to that particular company (irrespective of whether you have the money to pay it off elsewhere).

If you have a merchant account already for business, I would also exercise caution as all records form part of your business transactions, I suspect, and the hassle caused by a tax or other investigation would hardly make this worthwhile.

Just my two pence worth - not wishing to cause an argument as I am sure that you will make your own judgement.

Anon

ukric

Money laundering??? huh?

Money laundering is the attempt by criminals to conceal the origins of proceeds from crime. What he is doing clearly is not crime. So unless the initial amount of money is ill gotten then he is concealing nothing. Halifax might throw a wobbler but unless there is anything in the terms and conditions forbidding this then he is breaking neither contract or law.

I suggest if these two things check out then he should quite promptly do as much of it as he possibly can before halifax catch on. If they ask just say you were exploiting their terms and conditions, they cant say money laundering then.

kanjoose_one

You could always use a betting company like bet365 or william hill etc! Make a deposit withthe bookie of 10k then few days later without placing a bet repay the money to the account. Ive done this a few times with regards to repaying money back to my switch card with bet365! Not to take advantage of any cashback but just because ive changed my mind about making a bet.

Milarky

kanjoose_one wrote:

You could always use a betting company like bet365 or william hill etc! Make a deposit withthe bookie of 10k then few days later without placing a bet repay the money to the account. Ive done this a few times with regards to repaying money back to my switch card with bet365! Not to take advantage of any cashback but just because ive changed my mind about making a bet.

I don't think a betting account deposit will qualify as a 'purchase' [it's more a akin to: [i]"wire transfers of money orders, the purchase of stocks and shares"[/i] - from Halifax's list of exclusions]

kanjoose_one

Oh right! I see what you mean!

Walletwatch

ukric wrote:

Money laundering??? huh?

Money laundering is the attempt by criminals to conceal the origins of proceeds from crime. What he is doing clearly is not crime. So unless the initial amount of money is ill gotten then he is concealing nothing. Halifax might throw a wobbler but unless there is anything in the terms and conditions forbidding this then he is breaking neither contract or law.

I suggest if these two things check out then he should quite promptly do as much of it as he possibly can before halifax catch on. If they ask just say you were exploiting their terms and conditions, they cant say money laundering then.

Not sure you got me right there, ukric. First of all, the money being circulated in such a way need not be from criminal operations for you to be suspected of money-laundering. One of the most tell-tale signs of money laundering is where you keep getting a steady stream of inflows from the same place, or keeps making steady streams of payments some place or both. Here, there is a very strong case for suspicion of money-laundering, and frankly, I don't think it is worth the hassle.

I agree with another poster above - this whole exercise is not worth it, and as he suggests, this is nothing but a scam. Of course, I admit each one to himself, and different strokes for different folks, and all that...

eaglesrjh

i would also be worried that the refund back to your debit card would not just counteract the original "purchase" and therefore negate any cashback earned as it would be clear no goods had been "purchased"

ukric

I'm sure you could at least get away with this once without it being suspected money laundering, I agree multiples would probably arouse suspicion but like I said if theres no terms and conditions to stop you from doing it and your not breaking the law it's an easy way to gaurentee the full £100. I wonder if Martin would like to comment on this?

Fairwinds

Walletwatch wrote:

....the money being circulated in such a way need not be from criminal operations for you to be suspected of money-laundering. One of the most tell-tale signs of money laundering is where you keep getting a steady stream of inflows from the same place......., ..

Since were throwing definitions around, also from Dictionary .com ((earlier in the thread)

"Money laundering - concealing the source of illegally gotten money. "

I get a steady stream of inflows from the same place, my salary.

I don't think the scheme is worth it, but I don't think its illegal, just my tuppence worth.