Comment by voxic11 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by voxic11 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Apparently z-library received user donations and at some point used that donated money to make purchases intended to promote the carrying on of unlawful activities, probably buying hardware or services relating to the operation of z-library, which qualifies as money laundering. Even though it doesn't fit the normal conception of money laundering (hiding the source of illegal money) it still falls under the same law.

> In or about and between January 2018 and November 2022, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTON NAPOLSKY, also known as "Anton Napolskiy," and VALERJIA ERMAKOVA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct one or more financial transactions in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, to wit: deposits, withdrawals and transfers of funds and monetary instruments, which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit: criminal copyright, as alleged in Count One, in violation of Title 17, United States Code, Section 506(a)(1)(A), and wire fraud, as alleged in Counts Three and Four, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (collectively, the "Specified Unlawful Activities"), knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with intent to promote the carrying on of the Specified Unlawful Activities, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(A)(i).

https://torrentfreak.com/images/z_library_indictment_0.pdf

That's absolutely fucked. Literally just piling on crimes with the intent of ruining someone's life.

Welcome to federal prosecution!

It's amazing how much the Feds work to catch up some internet pirates. Maybe when they catch all of them, they will have time to investigate Epstein client list....

They work to protect businesses... which explains these priorities

Z-lib is making Epstein clients lose money

The CIA is pulling rank they don't want their control over those individuals on the list, built up over decades, to be burned

Ever watched The Wire?

Discussing federal prosecutions, specifically, they talk about something known in slang as “the head-shot” for federal investigators and prosecutors: finding that someone took a loan from an associate, then used that money to secure a bank loan (a mortgage, say) while misrepresenting the loaned money as their own, then later paid the money back (making it clear, in the paper trail, that it was in fact a loan).

It’s very easy to understand, easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s fraud, and it’s a great entry to comb through the books looking for more crimes.

“Something every kid does with their parents to buy their first home”, one Baltimore cop observes.

You shouldn't get your worldview from a TV show. Such a scheme can only be used for pre-approval, to prove you can later make a down payment, not to secure an actual loan.

Yes? Exactly? How is this a correction? Doing this means misrepresenting the amount of debt you have, in order to get a loan you’d not otherwise manage to secure. It can happen on larger scales or for business purposes, too, home mortgages are just how (lots and lots of) normal people commit that particular crime.

The parts of the show I have some real-world understanding of are remarkably observant and accurate. I’m inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt for parts I’m less familiar with.

My point was simply that financial crimes, including some really common ones that often go un-prosecuted until suddenly it matters, are often components of federal cases. Piling on stuff like that, or using them for early charges to secure warrants for further investigation or to gain leverage, is fairly normal. I chose a high-quality pop culture reference to illustrate that because… that’s an effective way to communicate.

How does a temporary loan lead to approval (not a pre-approval, subject to final approval later)? What percent of kids do you estimate receive such fraudulent loans from their parents?

> How does a temporary loan lead to approval (not a pre-approval, subject to final approval later)?

When it’s passed off as a gift.

> What percent of kids do you estimate receive such fraudulent loans from their parents?

I dunno, but it’s pretty common. Maybe unknown in SES levels either too low (no money to loan) or too high (no fraud, because it’s actually a gift) but it’s common.

Moving the goal posts I see.

No? Seriously, what moved?

I’m entirely baffled at the pushback on this, incidentally. Do folks just really not want this to be true, for some reason?

Can you explain how borrowing money from your parents that you immediately pay back helps you acquire a bank loan? This was your original claim.

More and more TV shows these days are realistic as FUCK And inspired by reality. The Wire Especially

i would not put "these days" and the wire in the same paragraph but otherwise I agree. For most if not all of David Simons content.

What? You just report the money to the lender as a gift from parents, you can't pretend the money is yours even if you wanted to because the banks ask for years of bank statements in order to verify your income. When they see a giant injection of cash that wasn't reported they'll demand that you explain it.

Yes, you report it as a gift. If you later pay it back, you committed fraud.

[edit] to clarify what may be a point of confusion:

Rich parents are often in a position to comfortably gift their kid(s) tens of thousands of dollars for their first down payment.

Non-rich parents are more often in a position to somewhat-uncomfortably “gift” that money. It’s a gift on paper, but it’s actually a loan and they need the money back eventually (maybe for the next-oldest kid to borrow for the same purpose, lol). That’s when it’s fraud.

Definitely not.. they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was a loan originally.

You agree it’s illegal (it is) but don’t think it can be proven?

“Here are bank records showing the defendant received $5,000 dollars. Here are further records that show payments back to the person who sent the original $5,000. They occur over a span of eleven months. Eight transactions are for $500, one is for $450, and a later one is for $550, totaling $5,000. Only one month in this otherwise contiguous span—December—is skipped, with no payment occurring. Mr. [defendant], was this $5,000 in fact a loan?”

You’d have reasonable doubt?

What they did to Aaron Swartz.

Never forget

That might've happened here:

http://loginzlib2vrak5zzpcocc3ouizykn6k5qecgj2tzlnab5wcbqhem...

Z-library was literally pay for download site.

No, it wasn't. You had a daily quota of 10 free downloads per day.

As nobody reads more then 10 books each day, it was effectively free.

After the 10 downloads you'd have to pay, but get effectively unlimited access after.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com