Hacker News Reader

Comment by robertwt7 | Hacker News Reader

How does it work for the seller when the FBI is the one who ends up buying that list and then busted him in the auction?

Genuinely asking.. might be dumb question

View on HN

If the seller gets caught that is how it works

If the seller doesn’t get caught due to the purchasing methods and general routine OPSEC, then its just another example of the Fed reliably monetizing everything, meaning there will always be a buyer and everyone should sell more.

That's what law enforcement does all the time: when there are illegal goods for sale, and a chance to catch the seller, they will go in, make the purchase and arrest the seller.

Sorry for the stupid question, but isn’t it illegal to buy illegal stuff? How does the police get away with that?

For instance in Denmark it is technically illegal to buy stolen goods, even if you genuinely aren’t aware of it being stolen. Im sure this applies to most countries.

LEOs often seem to be exempt when acting in an official capacity. I’m not sure what the restrictions are—do they need a court order in a situation like this?—but LEOs are definitely allowed to break laws and buy illegal wares.

This differs from country to country. There's some info on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation?wprov=sfti1

This would not be a classics sting operation. The seller already committed the crime(s) by offering it. Sting operation usually are the reason someone could commit a crime by creating a bait crime opportunity.

You're describing entrapment

Illegal is defined by law and laws applied to a subset of people. What do you think the police does with illegal substances? Not confiscating them because "owning" it is illegal? No, the police does not take ownership the state does and the laws do not apply to the state. There is nothing out there in the world that is illegal for everyone to handle. not drugs, not nukes, not illegal media etc. someone has to have the right to handle it somehow.

Let's play devil's advocate here and assume I am the dude selling the list.

I would ask for monero and would not care if the FBI is the buyer. The most they can do is to watch exchanges where monero is exchanged versus dollars or other cryptocoins. Then do this a few times over and start buying goods with those then sell the goods on Amazon/eBay for hard $$$. Small amounts and even with 50 cents at a dollar is still worth it for one person.

Check mate.

I've wondered about the feasibility of using state run lotteries for laundering in a cash based criminal enterprise. The known odds of low cost/return scratch-offs and the need to only account for claimed winnings would make it tempting... if it wasn't so labor intensive.

Isn’t it great that a lot of high-tech crime is prevented by the people capable of it being too lazy to bother?

I learned a long time ago that the most effective way to correct a vice is to play it against another vice, sloth being an easy goto. But in this case... I'm not a drug dealer, so I don't need to launder large amounts of small bills. But... if I wanted to launder a bunch of public ledger based crypto: instead of a using a loud and proud "bitcoin tumbler", I'd use something like satoshibet. Of course, that is likely why the original no longer exists - and I imagine anyone standing up a replacement (without a sufficiently invasive KYC implementation) would face similar hostility. Anyway, I expect that'll change when a state run satoshibet eventually emerges.

I don't think it would be a good idea, given that you'd have to claim the winnings. It might work once or twice but not over and over again.

Additionally in most cases I'd think the lottery odds would be lower than the cost of traditional laundering (smurfing, through crooked banks, using cash based businesses like taxis etc.) Especially if you have to pay people to buy tickets.

> It might work once or twice but not over and over again.

Except for when it does: there are a bunch of people who have repeatedly jackpotted state lotteries, they're usually described as 'reclusive mathematicians'. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I just checked the TX Lottery Commission's site and it looks like scratchoffs would run, worst case, a 30% return. I can't be bothered to calculate the upper bounds, but I'd expect it to be 40%-ish. That seems good to me, I especially like that you can skip the part where you have to drive out to some hotel to meet an undercover Secret Service agent pretending to be a Wells Fargo employee responding to your help wanted notice in Soldier of Fortune.

Cant go wrong with Quick Pick.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com