Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
THREAD: Money laundering is simple and not, necessarily, a sophisticated crime.
Link to tweet
Adam Davidson @adamdavidson
Money laundering is simple and not, necessarily, a sophisticated crime.
It is, at base, story telling. Someone has a ton of dough they can't spend without raising questions. It's from drug money or corruption or whatever.
1/
Money laundering is simple and not, necessarily, a sophisticated crime.
It is, at base, story telling. Someone has a ton of dough they can't spend without raising questions. It's from drug money or corruption or whatever.
1/
unrolled:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310571610764652544.html
Money laundering is simple and not, necessarily, a sophisticated crime.
It is, at base, story telling. Someone has a ton of dough they can't spend without raising questions. It's from drug money or corruption or whatever.
1/
Ozark and Breaking Bad explain all this well.
The person with the money arranges with someone to set up a sham business that can appear legitimate.
Typically, the business should be one that has imprecise value.
2/
Real estate, fine wine, art, etc, are great. You can justify whatever values you want.
New real estate development is especially good: tons of money flowing all over the world--for materials, designers, etc.
3/
The front business, itself, doesn't need to make money. In fact, one typically loses 20% or so in the laundering process.
In some cases, it's better if it loses money. A huge bet on a new, unproven development has unclear value.
4/
While an established, stable, profitable business has clear value.
So, a money launderer would love a famous brand, willing to make enormous claims about future growth to justify senseless spending.
5/
The truly rich oligarchs do all this through major banks, law firms, proper real estate companies. (Which is a big problem).
The bottom-of-the-barrel oligarchs are too obvious for those folks. They need a desperate, broke brand that will do their bidding.
6/
The way it would work is:
Oligarch transfers money to an account held by an LLC. That money flows through several LLCs and is then used to purchase a property.
There is a hidden contract laying out who really owns the thing and public docs claiming Trump does.
7/
I saw this in the Baku deal: a public signatory and a side-letter explaining that the public signatory was not the true owner.
The money flow could operate on different time lines and scales.
A huge amount could be simply held, in property, for decades.
8/
But there would be many ways to move funds all year round. The restaurants and bars could move cash. The big redevelopment projects could move far more.
Look at the deals Manafort had with his tailor and house builder. They were crude and simple but, apparently, effective.
9/
For 15 years, the Trump Org has claimed its Scottish properties will be worth billions--they have built and moved and rebuilt several courses, ball rooms, sleeping areas, etc.
A massive outlay of funds for business that have never ever made a dollar.
10/
Or a pound.
This was designed for minimal scrutiny. Which makes sense--nobody cared what Trump was doing in Scotland in 2011.
It requires subpoena power to prove.
11/end
It is, at base, story telling. Someone has a ton of dough they can't spend without raising questions. It's from drug money or corruption or whatever.
1/
Ozark and Breaking Bad explain all this well.
The person with the money arranges with someone to set up a sham business that can appear legitimate.
Typically, the business should be one that has imprecise value.
2/
Real estate, fine wine, art, etc, are great. You can justify whatever values you want.
New real estate development is especially good: tons of money flowing all over the world--for materials, designers, etc.
3/
The front business, itself, doesn't need to make money. In fact, one typically loses 20% or so in the laundering process.
In some cases, it's better if it loses money. A huge bet on a new, unproven development has unclear value.
4/
While an established, stable, profitable business has clear value.
So, a money launderer would love a famous brand, willing to make enormous claims about future growth to justify senseless spending.
5/
The truly rich oligarchs do all this through major banks, law firms, proper real estate companies. (Which is a big problem).
The bottom-of-the-barrel oligarchs are too obvious for those folks. They need a desperate, broke brand that will do their bidding.
6/
The way it would work is:
Oligarch transfers money to an account held by an LLC. That money flows through several LLCs and is then used to purchase a property.
There is a hidden contract laying out who really owns the thing and public docs claiming Trump does.
7/
I saw this in the Baku deal: a public signatory and a side-letter explaining that the public signatory was not the true owner.
The money flow could operate on different time lines and scales.
A huge amount could be simply held, in property, for decades.
8/
But there would be many ways to move funds all year round. The restaurants and bars could move cash. The big redevelopment projects could move far more.
Look at the deals Manafort had with his tailor and house builder. They were crude and simple but, apparently, effective.
9/
For 15 years, the Trump Org has claimed its Scottish properties will be worth billions--they have built and moved and rebuilt several courses, ball rooms, sleeping areas, etc.
A massive outlay of funds for business that have never ever made a dollar.
10/
Or a pound.
This was designed for minimal scrutiny. Which makes sense--nobody cared what Trump was doing in Scotland in 2011.
It requires subpoena power to prove.
11/end
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
