
Western Union admits to aiding wire fraud, to pay $586M - ereli1
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-western-union-settlement-idUSL1N1F91KM
======
rick_perez
I find this interesting because I just saw a story in my local news about
Western Union getting flack because they were making it difficult for certain
customers to send money to known terrorist countries. They were called
'bigoted' and 'racist'.

They really can't win here. If they allow anyone to send money anywhere, they
get fined by the government for supporting criminals. If they try to make a
judgment call, the public gets up-in-arms about it and thinks they are bigoted
(and potentially lose customers or get involved in other lawsuits).

~~~
joeyo
Based on the article, it's much simpler than that:

"Fraudsters offering fake prizes and job opportunities swindled tens of
thousands of U.S. consumers, giving Western Union agents a cut in return for
processing the payments, authorities said."

In other words, it's not that they are "allowing anyone to send money
anywhere"; they didn't discipline their agents for taking a cut of known
fraudulent transactions.

~~~
Sacho
Um, isn't this describing their regular activity, worded in a way to make ot
seem more sinister? Their agents take a cut for processing payments regardless
of whobis involved, no?

~~~
wheelerwj
It's very possible, but the wording said something like, "allowing many agents
to take a cut.." so I would read that like it was an additional payment or
kickback of some kind.

If it was just part of business, it would have been every agent right?

~~~
Sacho
> Fraudsters offering fake prizes and job opportunities swindled tens of
> thousands of U.S. consumers, __giving Western Union agents __a cut in return
> for processing the payments, authorities said.

I don't see it. I'm reading the actual court documents now, which I found by
googling and going to the FTC's website:

[https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-
blog/2017/01/...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-
blog/2017/01/586-million-western-union-settlement-be-careful-about)

[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/western_uni...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/western_union_complaint-
jan2017.pdf) \- complaint

[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/western_uni...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/western_union_consent_order_final_jan2017.pdf)
\- final judgement, which includes way more than just the monetary fine.

------
saycheese
Here's the US Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the
Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
complaints:

[https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/wufsi-a...](https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/wufsi-
assessment-of-civil-money-penalty-1-19-2017.pdf)

[https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/western...](https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/western_union_complaint-
jan2017.pdf)

_________

And the related official DOJ announcement covering the agreement:

[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/western-union-admits-anti-
mon...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/western-union-admits-anti-money-
laundering-and-consumer-fraud-violations-forfeits-586-million)

------
rs999gti
I got hit by credit card fraud related to this story.

I either got skimmed at a gas pump or at a restaurant.

What I saw were 4 Western Union transactions on my card, each for $255 USD.
Two per day with this string - "WU*XXXYYYZZZZ" \- where XXXYYYZZZZ is a phone
number.

My issuer shut down the card and issued me another one. I was not responsible
for the charges.

Also, the issuer said the reason they did not send me a fraud message was
because the charges were occurring around the holidays where large charges are
commonplace.

~~~
viraptor
Makes me wish that banks provided some easy self-protection checkboxes. Much
like you can disable international calls and premium services with most mobile
providers, I'd like to say "mark western union as fraud, unless I confirm it
on the phone first".

~~~
modeless
I wish they provided the opposite. They are constantly deactivating my card or
changing my card number when I've never had a single actual fraudulent
transaction on my account. In the event that my card is stolen, I'm not
liable, they are. By deactivating my card they're not protecting me, they're
protecting themselves, by inconveniencing me.

~~~
shawn-furyan
So... you want no fraud liability, but don't want to be inconvenienced
either?...

You could always look for a less zealous credit card provider, but generally
speaking, the entity that takes the liability should be able to set the bar
for risk. Otherwise you get subsidized risk taking, which has a way of getting
out of hand.

You may well find that credit card companies who are not very zealous about
security are merely more successful at weaseling out of the liability that
their customers assume they are taking.

At the end of the day, fraud creates costs, and you can be sure that SOMEONE
is paying those costs. If your credit card company doesn't seem very zealous
about preventing fraud, then it's more likely that you are the one who will
ultimately pay when the bill comes due.

~~~
hobarrera
There are smarter ways of adding security - like letting me know via my phone
and allowing me to cancel "suspicious" operations using it.

Disabling my card constantly doesn't help me at all, it's just a PITA. Imagine
if any other service provider (webmail?) disabled your account frequently to
"avoid fraud".

~~~
shawn-furyan
> There are smarter ways of adding security

So you assume. Have you ever investigated credit card fraud? Perhaps there are
edge cases that are more difficult than you imagine.

> Imagine if any other service provider (webmail?) disabled your account
> frequently to "avoid fraud".

Webmail is absolutely lousy with fraud. Webmail companies explicitly disclaim
all liability... so... you kinda bolstered my point there. That is, you helped
add the significant texture that companies that disclaim all fraud liability
can be pretty lousy at preventing fraud.

To reiterate: The entity that accepts liability should be the entity that
draws the line on what risks are acceptable.

Credit card companies are pretty unique in the types and magnitude of risk
that they accept and manage. They already do quite a high wire act balancing
fraud prevention against user convenience. And despite some things that seem
inconvenient on the surface, they are typically still the most convenient way
available, by a wide margin, to conduct most payment transactions.

------
cm2187
In other words, Western Union is guilty of not being zealous enough at being a
quasi-law enforcement agency and investigating its customer transactions...

To those cheering here, you should remember this next time you try to open a
bank account or make a payment, and your bank wants to see a thousand of
proofs and certificates before moving a finger.

~~~
smallnamespace
At the end of the day, assuming _someone_ has to know about scammers in order
to stop then, there's only two ways to make it happen:

One model is that the authorities get _all_ the info from Western Union and
then do the filtering on their side. Then you need to trust the authorities to
have all transaction data and use it responsibly. This is the model for, say,
license plate reader data.

Another model is that filtering happens at Western Union's end, and only
suspicious transaction data get reported.

I infinitely prefer the latter model, even if my bank ends up doing outsourced
police work on the side, because at least it's my bank that has the data and
not the cops.

~~~
cm2187
That's akin to saying that _someone_ has to scan all emails for potential
crimes. So either gmail does it or the FBI does it.

Well, I think there is still a third option!

~~~
vageli
What might that option look like?

~~~
anigbrowl
Investigating individual complaints of fraud as they come in in the old-
fashioned way.

~~~
jandrese
AKA the system that didn't work? By the time the report comes in the money is
gone and so are the perps.

~~~
problems
Yes, sometimes the best you can do without violating everyone's privacy is
just the best you can do. You work with it. You lose sometimes, maybe you pay
a percent or two extra for insurance to pay out in such cases of fraud, but
you accept that it's better than the blatant privacy violation of the other
systems.

To put it another way, just because terrorists could use unencrypted email to
communicate doesn't mean we have to go and scan everyone's email for threats.

~~~
pixelcloud
And to further this point. You address the root causes of these issues in
government and society. Why is the debate "Should we take away more of peoples
privacy?" and not "How can we stop things from happening that create reasons
to remove privacy?".

The logic is basically this: Terrorists now are communicating over encrypted
p2p systems (or any new tech)! we need to backdoor encryption standards. Then!
we will defeat the Terrorists (once and for all).

Crime works in a similar fashion. The police will never "solve crime" no
matter how much power they have to invade your privacy. They will become great
at catching criminals though.

Typical humans!

------
Kazamai
Western Union has also been aiding international fraud from romance scammers
etc. Even though they know the sources are suspicious they still let people
send large amounts of money to countries like Ghana and Nigeria.

~~~
partycoder
I do not think it is a good idea to make a blanket accusation over an entire
country.

Presumption of innocence, reasonable suspicion and burden of proof are core
concepts of our justice systems for a reason.

~~~
abraae
But it would be perfectly reasonable - and not at odds with anyone's justice
system - to set your fraud detection trigger such that:

if (source.isSuspicious() && destination in ('Ghana', 'Nigeria')) {
investigateFurther(); }

~~~
forgetsusername
> _if (source.isSuspicious()_

What are the attributes of the source object that we need to determine if it's
suspicious? That's the hard part.

~~~
johnmaguire2013
First time user of WU sending money to Nigeria or Ghana seems pretty
reasonable to me.

~~~
wheelerwj
First time user of WU sending more than $500 to Nigeria or Ghana seems pretty
reasonable to me. Let alone thousands or tens of thousands.

At the end of the day though, scammers will be scammers and victims will be
victims. You can't prevent everything but you can still try harder than WU.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
Really? At least you would test that the system works before handing over so
much of your money to them, right?

~~~
wheelerwj
you'd be surprised. A particularly common scam involves having the victim send
2000-2500 and the going for smaller amounts, $250-1000, on rounds 2+.

I'm not particularly well versed in romances scams but I've heard they can
start in the similar range and then escalate into 5 figures quickly.

------
37
>Between 2004 and 2012, the Colorado-based company knew of fraudulent
transactions but failed to take steps that would have resulted in disciplining
of 2,000 agents, authorities said.

So there were 2,000 Western Union employees in on this scam? That sounds like
a huge number.

Also, a $586m fine for a company that makes $14b a quarter? Is that stardard?

~~~
habosa
> Also, a $586m fine for a company that makes $14b a quarter? Is that
> stardard?

Important to remember that fines should match the severity of the violation,
not the wealth of the violator. The purpose of the fine is to discourage the
behavior, so ideally the following holds:

(size of fine * chance of being caught) > profit from not being caught

If the above is true, rational people won't bother trying to do something
illegal.

~~~
ghurtado
> (size of fine * chance of being caught) > profit from not being caught

But that's precisely the problem, isn't it? How can you ensure the risk is too
high for the company unless you take into account its financials?

~~~
dpark
Because the question isn't whether the fine will bankrupt the company but
whether the expected value of the illegal transaction is negative. Illegal
transactions that lose you money are a generally bad idea regardless of
whether your net worth is ten dollars or ten billion.

------
halis
Uhhh, how many people are going to jail since they committed a crime?

~~~
backtoyoujim
What's great is that you have to use Western Union to send that person money
while they are in jail

~~~
stronglikedan
I thought that JPay had a monopoly on that.

EDIT: I guess it's not every state.[0]

[0][https://www.jpay.com/PAvail.aspx](https://www.jpay.com/PAvail.aspx)

------
nkkollaw
This reminds me of how Google does nothing about AdWords frauds: try to forget
disabling third-world countries and your website will all of a sudden be most
popular in Nigeria and Afghanistan (that's what they said when I confronted
them about it, that people in Nigeria where interested in the content even
though it was in Italian).

I guess when a big percentage of a company's profits come from fraud, they're
not incentivised to fix the problem.

~~~
nrjdhsbsid
Wha? This is pure stupidity. If you choose to show ads in third world
countries AdWords will show them constantly in those areas since the cost per
click is so low.

It's not their fault you used the default setting to minimize cost per click
then turned on ads in places you weren't at all interest in.

~~~
nkkollaw
Since you're so bright, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why in a system
that works, even with default settings most clicks will come from only 2
countries (but mostly Nigeria) out of 1000 other countries (including low-cost
clicks), and why it would make sense from a Nigerian to click on an ad in
Italian.

Then, there's the problem of multiple (up to 10) clicks from the same IP
within a couple of seconds.

Last, why in Nigeria they only stay on websites for a fraction of a second,
even though they scroll to the bottom of the page (which regular users often
don't do).

------
nilanp
Amazing there hasn't been a mention of TransferWise in this thread

You get about 1.5% more money with them when you do a transfer.

Their low cost model is driven by using automated KYC checks and the kinds of
fraud models you'd expect from a web startup

More here

[https://transferwise.com/gb/compare/western-union-
exchange-r...](https://transferwise.com/gb/compare/western-union-exchange-
rate) Disclosure - I'm an employee - but the hype in this case is warranted

~~~
drited
Are Transferwise profitable and earning at least their cost of capital?

While I hear your startup vs big guys point, I looked at the public companies
in this industry before and was amazed at how much they do spent on compliance
systems (much of which is for automated checks) and also of course on human
checks/follow-ups.

Two things stood out: 1\. How unprofitable the smaller of the public players
in this space (e.g. Moneygram) were as a result of regulators pushing for
ever-higher reductions in fraud, using threats of the kind of action that was
taken against WU as a stick. WU spends $200m a year on compliance, and if
remember correctly unprofitable Moneygram just completed an $80m IT system
upgrade.

2\. In addition to the large up-front fixed cost for systems, how much ongoing
variable compliance cost these companies have to spend because fraudsters are
notoriously good at figuring out how to beat automated KYC checks.

If Transferwise are just using automated checks and not the additional human
reviews that WU uses (per the article 25% of their workforce are devoted to
compliance) , aren't Transferwise just basically biding time until they get
large enough to attract the attention of an attorney general due to the
undiscovered fraudulent transactions going through the system? Then bam $586m
fine like the one just handed to WU and you go out of business.

How can a startup that charges 25% of the revenue of the only profitable
public player in the space hope to cover the variable compliance cost required
to mitigate this risk?

I recognise that the argument often put forth is that the fintech startups
match people on either side and hence take out the bid/ask spread on the
exchange rate transaction, but doesn't this ignore that the largest money
flows are uni-directional - i.e. remittance payments from immigrants in
wealthy countries sending money back home? The matching breaks down if the
money-flow is predominantly one-way.

Genuinely interested in the answers to the above - I passed on an investment
in the industry because I couldn't get comfortable with the above.

~~~
nilanp
Hey - great questions

So the reality is that - "moving money" costs - almost nothing.

Think about it. The process of doing a bank to bank transfer (what
transferwise does) - involves one bank in one country, crediting another banks
account in the originating country, and then the money turns up in a
"correspondent"or "nostro" account in another country. The matching bit helps
- but the real magic - is that monopolisitic incumbents have been charging
spreads for years - TransferWise is different as they aren't greedy.

You are right - that fraud and KYC checks - are significant in the industry -
but lets step through what these are.

I can share that we actually have pretty sizeable complaince and fraud teams -
larger than many established financial services companies - but unlike them
Fraud and KYC is part of the product - not a sign off team. The team
understand our global regulatory responsibilities, and try to understand how
tomeet them; whilst trying to figure out how to reduce customer and friction
andcostin the process. There's been a complete lack of innovation in this
domain for decades due to the dynamics you've outlined.

Forexample with KYC:

From KYC perspective - you have to verify that a customer is who they say they
are - and check they aren't on any AML blacklists etc.

Different jurisidictions - have different thresholds (limits) at which they
ask for KYC checks in place.

With Western Union Digital (and with transferwise) - someone may take apicture
of their passport, driving licence, scan and upload. This then needs to be
verified.

For its first few years - like other players in the industry - validated every
single one of these documents individually - but over time got to a point
where they had built up enough data to be able to validate these documents in
an automated fashion. Inevtiably given how strict regulation is in this
industry - the onus is still not on letting the bad guys through

I can't comment in public on transferwise's profitability - but can say the
business has been operating sustainably for over a year - i.e. not losing
money on a transaction - and investing sensibly on marketing.

Marketing is relatively small spend for Unicorn B2c startup - with over 80%+
of new customers coming in through WoM

------
mch82
Scammers in a foreign country used Western Union to steal from my grandfather.
Glad to see a penalty that will hopefully encourage W.U. to put better
controls in place going forward.

Chose to post this comment because I see a lot of people in the thread
effectively asking "does this really happen" or "who are these stupid people
that get scammed" and I figured letting the HN community know that at least
one or our members has been personally affected might bring a different level
of consideration to the topic.

Edit: Seeing this headline feels great. I can't describe the feeling of
frustration at not being able to help my family solve the case when the fraud
happened or the extreme anger I felt that the scammers pretended to be a
grandchild calling my grandfather for help, using one of our names to
legitimize the scam. Ever since, I introduce my self by name when I call my
remaining grandmother and I worry when she tries to recognize me before I have
a chance to introduce myself. I hope no one else has to experience this.

~~~
nkkollaw
Unfortunately scammers will just use something else, until there will be
nothing safe to use and they'll have to resort to bitcoins.

Still, this is a step forward.

~~~
mch82
Absolutely. It's a never ending battle.

I strongly believe that the most effective thing people can do is to help
educate others about the existence of these scams and about the safe & secure
use of technology. People can develop self-defense mechanisms and an intuition
for when they may be getting scammed or phished.

------
joshfraser
It's no secret who's using WU. Just count the number of locations they have in
"hackerville" (pop ~110k)

[http://locations.westernunion.com/search/romania/vl/r%C3%A2m...](http://locations.westernunion.com/search/romania/vl/r%C3%A2mnicu%2Bv%C3%A2lcea)

------
partycoder
The golden age of scamming started when a Nigerian scammer sold a fictional
airport to a bank director in Brazil for $242 million.

~~~
colejohnson66
Wow. That actually happened. His name is Emmanuel Nwude[0]

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Nwude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Nwude)

------
rayiner
To be more specific, Western Union consented to the imposition of a civil
penalty by FinCEN and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the
DOJ, for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and aiding and abetting wire
fraud. It also settled with the FTC for failing to mitigate fraud reported by
consumers. Details here:
[https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/wufsi-a...](https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/wufsi-
assessment-of-civil-money-penalty-1-19-2017.pdf;)
[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/western-union-admits-anti-
mon...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/western-union-admits-anti-money-
laundering-and-consumer-fraud-violations-forfeits-586-million).

------
jlj
Didn't the Citizens United vs. FEC case argue that money is free speech, and
therefore campaign finance laws limiting Super PAC's spending were overturned?

How might that affect banking laws that require banks to flag suspicious
transactions and restrict who can send and receive funds? Have the banking
laws that restrict payments ever been challenged in court as a free speech
issue?

Just wondering if these two dots are in any way connected. I am not pro-money
laundering but also don't like the idea of government overreach. Thinking that
since banks are non-government that the constitutional protections don't
apply, but what about the laws that bring about the banking regulations?

~~~
cderwin
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think so. Citizens United didn't rule that
money was literally speech, but instead that laws prohibiting the expenditure
of money on speech (i.e. a political ad) are impermissible impediments on
protected speech. Fraud isn't protected speech, and money laundering isn't
speech at all, so I don't think the first amendment comes into play at all.
And yes, I don't think constitutional protections would apply to a bank simply
refusing to be the medium for a financial transaction.

~~~
jlj
Helpful interpretation, thanks.

What about if the expenditure is prohibited by mistake, is not fraud or money
laundering, and it gets locked up in bureaucracy indefinitely? In that case it
seems like protected speech could be restricted.

Anyone know if constitutional law can be applied to quasi-government private
organizations? At what point is an industry such as banking so regulated by
government that it can't be distinguished from government?

------
MilnerRoute
"Reuters seemed to suggest that nearly one out of every thousand transactions
was fraudulent, reporting that Western Union 'said consumer fraud accounts for
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of consumer-to-consumer transactions.'"

[https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/01/23/0658205/western-
unio...](https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/01/23/0658205/western-union-
pays-586m-fine-over-wire-fraud-charges)

------
rynop
Is this a class action lawsuit? My quick searches point to no.

My elderly mother-in-law got scammed, and it was pretty ridiculous how WU
allowed it to go through given the circumstances.

Just wondering if/how to potentially get some of the $ back via this lawsuit.

~~~
jdmichal
Did she file a complaint? Others have mentioned that the money is establishing
a fund to refund transactions, but I doubt you'll get far into that process if
a formal complaint wasn't filed.

~~~
rynop
Nope. We went to the cops but they said they wouldn't even spend time
investigating unless she was taken for 100 K or more. Given that information
we figured it was moot. Too bad the exporters could not be fou too bad the
exporters could not be exposed. Fn shame

------
xs
I got hit with a Western Union scam when I was a teenager. I spent numerous
hours on the phone with WU trying to get any information on who picked up the
money. Name, id, or even city where they picked it up. WU understood I had
been robbed but refused to help me.

Apple should be next. Once I had an iPod stolen and Apple refused to help me
recover it. They wouldn't give me the IP or geolocation of where it was or
even tell me if it connected to iTunes and whos account it connected as.

From these two events, I always felt that Apple and Western Union aided and
protected criminals and thieves.

~~~
mlmlmasd
From my experience, most large companies have support policies that basically
blacklist all forms of help that may incur cost for the company. What I found
works quite often though, is drafting a formal letter (can be email)
referencing your country's consumer protection act and sending it directly to
the corporate office :). I've used this method with ISPs, Godaddy, a few other
companies.

------
OoTheNigerian
When it comes to fraud, no Nigerian past, present or cumulative can match
American Robert Allen Stanford talk less, Bernie Madoff.

So what is the point of all the Nigerian bashing here?

------
coryfklein
Key takeaway IMO:

"the Colorado-based company knew of fraudulent transactions but failed to take
steps that would have resulted in disciplining of 2,000 agents"

Western Union was _already aware_ of fraud they were facilitating, but did not
take steps to either report or prevent it.

It's one thing to not investigate suspicious behavior, it's another thing
entirely to be aware of actual fraud, and ignore it.

------
joshmn
Didn't something similar happen with American banks? I don't remember them
being fined this much.

/s

------
hamandcheese
I find it amazing in this day and age that people even use Western Union,
legitimate or not.

~~~
roywiggins
How else would you send money to someone across the planet if neither of you
have bank accounts? You can hand WU cash and your recipient can get cash at
the other end. "Just get a bank account" is not always an option.

------
sjg007
Phh mortgage uses these guys and the whole thing is a scam. Phh mortgage needs
to be shorted into bankruptcy. Fannie Mae shouldnt even allow them to service
loans.

~~~
brainbrane
I refinanced just to get away from Phh. And I made sure my new lender didn't
include in the contract the right to transfer servicing of the loan.

------
jmcmahon443
I imagine someone at Western Union had the foresight to see this risk and save
enough cash to pay the bill when it came.

------
ateevchopra
More I read about such stuff, more the idea of a "decentralized" financial
system with "no trusted party" makes sense. Fiat has lot's of problems in this
globalization. It was never meant to be used globally. It's time we upgrade!
It's time for bitcoin.

~~~
andrewfong
If the problem is criminals using Western Union for money laundering and
fraud, replacing it with a decentralized system of quasi-anonymous
irreversible transfers seems like it would make things easier for said
criminals.

Unless your complaint is about the government stepping in to penalize Western
Union. In which case, I misunderstood.

~~~
ateevchopra
Bitcoin's whole system is transparent. You can always see all the transactions
happening. So there is no way one can hide. I recommend you reading this
article for details.

[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-
hi...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-hide-behind-
bitcoin)

~~~
luckystartup
There's absolutely no way of knowing who owns the addresses. We have a saying
for this: "Hiding in plain sight."

------
stevew20
And people are worried about Bitcoin...

------
devoply
This is really good. Perhaps now they will put some controls in place to try
to reduce this. Don't want granny sending money to con artists via Western
Union.

~~~
teej
Maybe the Nigerian scammers are still using Western Union but other scammers
have moved on. Cryptolocker attacks use bitcoin, fake "computer locked down"
scams use Bluebird or other reloadable cash card, and phone scammers use
iTunes gift cards.

~~~
phrygian
Who are the Nigerians?

~~~
sqeaky
Dear Sir:

I have been requested by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to contact
you for assistance in resolving a matter. The Nigerian National Petroleum
Company has recently concluded a large number of contracts for oil exploration
in the sub-Sahara region. The contracts have immediately produced moneys
equaling US$40,000,000. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company is desirous of
oil exploration in other parts of the world, however, because of certain
regulations of the Nigerian Government, it is unable to move these funds to
another region.

You assistance is requested as a non-Nigerian citizen to assist the Nigerian
National Petroleum Company, and also the Central Bank of Nigeria, in moving
these funds out of Nigeria. If the funds can be transferred to your name, in
your United States account, then you can forward the funds as directed by the
Nigerian National Petroleum Company. In exchange for your accommodating
services, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company would agree to allow you to
retain 10%, or US$4 million of this amount.

However, to be a legitimate transferee of these moneys according to Nigerian
law, you must presently be a depositor of at least US$100,000 in a Nigerian
bank which is regulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

If it will be possible for you to assist us, we would be most grateful. We
suggest that you meet with us in person in Lagos, and that during your visit I
introduce you to the representatives of the Nigerian National Petroleum
Company, as well as with certain officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Please call me at your earliest convenience at 18-467-4975. Time is of the
essence in this matter; very quickly the Nigerian Government will realize that
the Central Bank is maintaining this amount on deposit, and attempt to levy
certain depository taxes on it.

Yours truly,

Prince Alyusi Islassis

~~~
protomyth
I know more than one English teacher that absolutely hate the fact that the
current "Nigerian" e-mails in order to skip past spam detectors have better
grammar than some of their students.

~~~
abraae
Its fairly well documented that "Nigerian scammer emails" deliberately use
poor grammar so as to filter out people in the smarter end of the target pool,
since those people will never fall for their story and will just waste the
scammer's time.

Which makes your English teacher's chagrin even more justified.

~~~
protomyth
I don't know, some of the stuff we are getting (that is taking a massive pain
in the butt time to filter) is written well. I get the feeling that bad
grammar was true early on, but some of this stuff is damn near art.

~~~
abraae
Maybe the scammers are using their ill gotten gains on education. Not sure if
that's a good outcome or a bad one.

------
jgalloway___
This case sets an interesting precedent.

Similarly should gun manufacturers be penalized when their weapons are used in
an illegal manner?

~~~
mox1
Well if the employees manufacturing the guns take payments from criminals to
alter the guns in some way to help them do bad things AND the gun company
knows it, but ignores it then yes they should.

~~~
protomyth
Given the direction of IoT devices, I hope the generic form (if the employees
manufacturing the X take payments from criminals to alter the X in some way to
help them do bad things AND the X company knows it, but ignores it then yes
they should) of your statement is always true.

------
johansch
I'm pretty sure the real damage is at least 100x larger than that. But hey,
this will allow some US authority to declare victory and their heads will get
bonuses/promotions.

The $586M mentioned covers 8 years (2004-2012). So $73M/year.

In 2015 they moved $82B.

Edited:

This settlement is saying the amount of money they move fraudulently is less
than 0.1% of their total money movements. This seems entirely implausible. 10%
seems a lot more plausible.

~~~
diogenescynic
>I'm estimating about 30-50% of that is fraudulent.

What are you basing that on?

~~~
tyingq
Might be a bit high, but....

 _" For example, a seven-state survey found that approximately 29 percent of
Western Union money transfers to Canada in excess of $300 were fraud-
induced."_[1]

and

 _" The world’s largest money-transfer company reported a 27 percent drop in
fourth-quarter profit, largely due higher costs linked to tightened
regulations to prevent money laundering."_[2]

Seems like something might be afoot there.

[1][http://www.mtraweb.org/state-attorney-generals-agreement-
to-...](http://www.mtraweb.org/state-attorney-generals-agreement-to-curb-wire-
fraud/)

[2][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/western-union-
inves...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/western-union-
investigation_n_4851195.html)

~~~
johansch
Here's another number:

[https://chargedaffairs.org/billion-dollar-industry-
nigerian-...](https://chargedaffairs.org/billion-dollar-industry-nigerian-e-
mail-scams/)

"a follow-up study in 2013 found that the number had jumped to $12.7 billion.
This would make the 419 ‘industry’ roughly the same size as the GDP of
Botswana."

I believe the vast majority of this is transferred via Western Union.

