Does this not happen much outside the US? In the US, the drinking age is 21. In most of the rest of the world it is 18, with a few scattered others (Japan 20, Iceland 20, 18-25 or illegal in India depending on region). From this, I'd expect demand for fake IDs for buying booze to be higher than average in the US because of the 19-21 year old market, but I'd expect the under 18 market to support fake IDs everywhere.
Even in the US, the impression I've gotten is that the under 18 market is where the majority of the fake ID for booze market lies, as that covers high school. Once you are out of high school and in college or in the full time work force, you can readily get booze regardless of age. In college, there will be 21 year olds among the juniors and seniors who can bring in the drinks, and in the work force there will be co-workers 21 and over to do that favor for you.
On the other hand, much of the rest of the world has been more accepting of technology to make IDs harder to fake. Could the US have a bigger fake ID market simply because it is easier to fake an ID here?
It probably has more to do with the increasingly harsh cleavage that exists between the underage seeking novelty and the overage acting in ways they view as being protective. The stigma associated with it makes both more fun and more connected with risky behavior.
I don't really see the point of going through the trouble of procuring illegal falsified documentation just to drink in the central European countries I'm familiar with. "Sure, let the 15 year old have a beer, what's the harm?" is the reaction you may encounter in several places outside the US.
And, in fact, in multiple places inside the US, at least in private gatherings.
(Not to beat on this too hard, but in many ways the whole of the US is more akin to the whole of Europe than any single European country. Lots of cultures, lots of demographics, lots of regional variation.)
I know this because my sister is a prominent ex-scientologist and they've been harassing her to the point that everything she owns needs to be in a separate LLC.
What I am trying to bring - is that whole "untraceble" companies is not that easy. Although I bet having right people in a right departments might allow you to make one.
Getting SWIFT to do transfers - I do not think so.
The simple and unpleasant truth, as past research has shown, is that so much business, irrespective of its legality, is conducted using shells, so much wealth moves through them and into tax havens, it is unthinkable to shut the system down; doing so would probably hurt our economies more than help them. No one dares to mess with this beast. At least not in my lifetime.
And guess who needs untraceable shell companies? Patent trolls.
She has more than a dozen LLCs just to protect what little she owns.
Why is that?
2. Make it difficult for the target to assert any sort of leverage. If they do not know who is behind the shell, they do not know what resources the troll may have. If the troll is a practicing entity, they won't know if they have any claims they could assert against the troll. All they see is a recently formed LLC that has certain patent rights, and nothing else.
IANAL but I don't think a company needs to be "untraceable" to limit liability of its owners.
There is no chance anyone is ever going to "pierce the veil" on this, or figure it out - anyone who wants to do that will have a cost 10 to 100 times higher than setting it up -- because to get to the owner, you will have to piece the veil for every link in the chain, meaning you'll have to employ competent lawyers in every jurisdiction.
(Consider: in any single jurisdiction, veil piercing is 10-100 times more expensive than incorporating in the first place; so just amplify this by setting up multiple layers)
What if there was a law that any "company" whose incorporation cannot be demonstrated to actually satisfy certain legal guidelines could automatically lose any legal suit that it was involved in? How many of these shells would disappear?
This would make shell corporations utterly useless for patent trolls.
A seemingly simple yet profound statement. Thanks for this.
They could have been stings, or even scams.
In the case of the American provider who acknowledged the purpose of the shell company might have been a front for funding terrorism, they could have just requested an upfront payment (e.g. 6 months at $5,000 per month), taken the money and ran.
But it is possible they are running honeypots; but rather unlikely
On the other hand, if the economy fails it could very well take me with it ... I guess if I have to start over it doesn't matter where those accounts were.
I think if the US failed as a nation you'd have a lot more to worry about.