The MattLG Method - possible new scam

daveboy

Anon - you made me laugh. Thank you.

There are people with the responsibility of moderating threads, who will make the decision to delete/lock a thread if they deem it inappropriate due to it suggesting a way of illegally making or saving money.

Let those people do their job.

Additionally, I'm sure that a huge percentage of the people who visit this site are adults, not all but surely most.

We do not need dictionary definitions of words, we have enough intelligence and common sense to know the difference between right and wrong.

Walletwatch

GordonD wrote:

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.

Gordon

The simple thing is that while you can explain a steady stream of inflows from your employer as your salary, pray tell me, how do you explain steady streams from a merchant, in the form of a chq, or equally dodgy, cash deposits of not-too-small amounts?

Quote:

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.

Unquote

As I have said, money laundering may be concealing the source of illegally gotten money as you may point out, it doesn't take illegally gotten money to be suspected / accused of money laundering. I think that is the part of my post that you don't seem to have understood. I said you could be suspected of money laundering, not that it would actually amount to money laundering.

I agree that this can be done once or twice, maybe, without raising too many eyebrows, but doing it constantly as an unlimited cashback scam is simply not worth the risk in my honest opinion.

Walletwatch

Just to add that I say this not necessary as an expert in Anti Money Laundering, but having worked with two multinational banks (the biggest global ones in the business), and having done a two-year stint as the branch manager in one of them, where one of my responsibilities included instituting and implementing AML measures through viewing account activities, etc.. Not to worry, I wouldn't call you a launderer just because you get your salary credited into your acct regularly ;-)

P.S. Not naming the banks I work / worked for, for obvious reasons.

jonesMUFCforever

Merchant accounts are available to business accounts. Banks make an enquiry on you to se if you are creditworthy so if you don't have a business account with the appropriate turnover it simply will not work - not to mention the monthly rental you would have to pay whichever bank 's card services you use for the terminal to process the transactions.

A private individual's account with this amount of turnover would soon be flagged up and you would be investigated as a potential moneylaunderer( even though its your own money)

Eric

MattLG

Walletwatch wrote:

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!!!

But If I'm not money laundering, they can investigate all they like. I have nothing to fear if I'm not committing a crime.

MattLG

MattLG

Anon wrote:

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.

Since when did 'merchant' have some legal definition. You don't need any legal standing to accept debit cards. There is nothing illegal about doing this. Unless there's an explicit breach of Halifax's Terms and Conditions

Anon wrote:

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?

DUR!! Probably not very long. I'm not stupid. Neither are they.

Anon wrote:

Only a personal opinion - but as the thread includes "possible scam" in the subject, it is clearly not believed honest.

Scam/Scheme, Potato/Potarto. This is no more illegal thatn stoozing. ie. not at all.

MattLG

MattLG

eaglesrjh wrote:

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"

Of course you wouldn't refund the "purchase", you take the money out and put it back into your account through normal means.

MattLG

Walletwatch

MattLG wrote:

But If I'm not money laundering, they can investigate all they like. I have nothing to fear if I'm not committing a crime.

MattLG

Well, all I can say, Matt is that if you are comfortable having somebody conduct close surveillances of any financial transactions you get into, and being asked awkward questions about the source / destination of any moneys paid into or out of your account, then you can go ahead with such escapades. I don't see why you shouldn't do it once, provided it proves ok from a cost-benefit analysis point of view, but doing it regularly (or even more than once) is a big no-no for me.

Note that once you come within the radar due to your account being flagged for such dubious conduct, I don't even know where these things end. (nor would I like to, for that matter)

zcaprd7

MattLG wrote:

Of course you wouldn't refund the "purchase", you take the money out and put it back into your account through normal means.

MattLG

Would this get you into trouble with the tax man if its your business merchant account?

Galstonian

As a board guide I'm going to respectfully ask that we end this now. I think the interpretation of fraud is best left up to those who feel they have been defrauded who can then take legal action if they believe they have a case.

Personally I feel there could easily be fraud; creating spurious transactions for goods or services that do not exist is surely lying to achieve a financial advantage?