[0] https://news.err.ee/1609499827/attempted-abduction-of-austra...
It's almost like the crypto markets attract criminals!
In Munich we have a serious problem with watch-robbers snatching people's expensive watches while driving on a motorcycle. Utterly insane but also utterly profitable if you have channels where to sell stolen watches.
How often is that actually happening?
Also, this seems like it could easily be an insurance scam. It seems just a little insane for someone to be casually walking around with a half million dollar watch on their wrist and some thief just happens to know "Hey, that looks like a half million dollar watch!"
Often enough. One gang alone took 18 raids in about two years, making about 1.5 million euros [1] - it's about once a month the police actually bother to make a report. Even if one assumes they can get only half the price due to no heritage, 750k for 12 people tax-free, that's more than even experienced developers can net in a year.
> It seems just a little insane for someone to be casually walking around with a half million dollar watch on their wrist and some thief just happens to know "Hey, that looks like a half million dollar watch!"
That's the thing. Munich has a ton of luxury shops for obscenely rich tourists, a good scout is all it needs. Quite some victims actually didn't have insurance.
[1] https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/banden-reissen-in-muenc...
Poor example but we had a sister company VP (but more a reports directly to the owner type roll) in the office from the UK and he keyed in on my watch instantly. Which led him to inquire my background and find out I hadn't always been a lowly IT Director, and he had a lot of conversations you wouldn't normally have with IT and trusted what I said way more than my boss the CFO (I know IT shouldn't be under a CFO), all because he saw my watch. Instant change for my standing in the company. It's lame but it's the world we live in.
A good watch can be a worthwhile investment. I recommend a non-trendy somewhat off name used one. Doesn't even need to be all that much. The one I got to keep is just a TAG and still is enough that they notice. Lawyers have treated me better. Heck even cops notice and treat me better. A good watch and a pair of good shoes (like some nice Italian boots) can make a world of difference in how interactions go. Lots of rich dudes wear Levi's so they aren't a tell you're a normie. But shoes and watch are. Just don't get something that gets dated quick because then you instantly have give them the ick. I've also had random women I've had drinks with straight up ask about it, that gives me the ick, even though I wore it specifically for them to notice, which is again ick. We're funny monkeys.
(I think this is related to how "a million dollars" still sounds impressive because of the change from 6 to 7 digits even though it's not nearly as much money as it used to be. A lot of people have super-dated signifiers for what "really rich" means because of the persistent anchoring of the terms.)
What you're saying here is factually incorrect, it's actually the most enduring and widespread way to flex wealth, and it has been common to nearly all cultures for thousands and thousands of years.
In fact this behavior is apparently so innate to our existence that it seems to have developed completely independently in isolated societies. Both the Queen of England and the Aztec King had the habit of draping their body in hand-crafted finework jewelry, precious metal, and gems.
The phenomenon is shared by neighborhood drug dealers, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, wealthy Chinese heiresses, and Polynesian village chiefs. And maybe your wife.
At least I am certain my wife doesn't like much jewelry besides our self-made marriage rings (something I can only recommend to do for anyone wishing to get married!) and earrings, and I'm just the same :'D
But still, it is a thing mostly seen in the rich elites - everyone else (outside of rappers and drug dealers) doesn't do it.
Like how Josh could beat SF2 on one quarter.
... that's the point
He has apparently at least a 40k+ watch. [1]
[1] https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/luxury/article/3215841/...
[1] "For example, a new standard Toyota Camry Hybrid costs around S$250,000 in Singapore, which includes the cost of a COE and taxes. That is about six times more expensive than in the US." .... "The lowest COE for a car costs S$104,000"
These folks expect to be able to resell the object later.
I could be wrong of course; I know a lot more about cars than I do overpriced luxury watches, after all. But I suspect the watches are much more like diamonds: only "valuable" to the initial buyer (and mainly for sentimental reasons), and largely worthless to everyone else. (Yes, a resale market for used Rolexes and the like exists, but you're not going to get the same price for your 20-year-old Rolex as you paid for it.)
It's a state "founders" town and there's a lot of generational wealth being flexed keeping old stuff running and in use.
It's modern John Deere's etc on the 4,000 acre farms of course, but still driving a "classic" farm truck to town because it was Granddad's first truck and renno'd when it was found at the back of the old barn.
I mean if you can move that watch in a way that doesn't get you caught for 1/4 of it's retail price, twice a year, that's a decent salary. Doesn't need to happen all that much.
I guess what I'm saying is I can understand a lot better how the "kia boyz" thing happened. There are a lot of easily identifiable kias everywhere. But luxury watches just seems so niche that it's hard to think someone stealing them would be a crime wave.
Well, you won't see that happening in a small village. Not enough people wearing expensive watches there. But in large cities with a huge amount of both domestic and foreign rich people it's bound to develop.
As long as you have a good spotter able to determine if someone is wearing a watch worth barely a few hundred dollars (or less, knockoffs are a thing) or a legit 50k upwards luxury watch, it's one of the more profitable ways of criming: no weapons or drugs involved which tends to yield much harder sentencing in most jurisdictions, less chance of bystanders intervening like in a conventional robbery (most people don't even realize what has happened until they see the motorcycle speeding away), less chance of the victim fighting back or attracting help, almost no chance of getting caught on camera, and the stolen goods are innocuous to carry around - unlike with guns or drugs, if you get in a traffic control or whatnot, the chance that the cop will ask about the watch you're wearing is almost zero because your average cop has zero idea if you're wearing a 5000 dollars Rolex or a 50k dollars Rolex.
1. Handle in large quantities. The ransom paid here was $1 million. With crypto, transferring that much is a few keystrokes. With cash, it's basically a large bag of cash that needs to be moved around.
2. Hold for ransom. Given point #1, kidnappers (of people and data) know that it's much easier to demand payment of large amounts in crypto than cash. If you kidnap a rich person in the crypto world, kidnappers know it's easy for him to sign over a very large amount of bitcoin quickly, which looks to be what happened here. Even for a very wealthy person, it's not logistically easy to get a million dollars in cash, never mind hand it over in a way that isn't a huge risk for the kidnappers.
3. Launder. Crypto tumblers are still a thing despite US government crackdown. Laundering cash with recorded serial numbers is much harder.
I'm not denying that crypto may have some legitimate uses, but it's basically a dream come true for criminals.
If criminals know somebody holds a significant amount of crypto, such as the CEO of a crypto company, they don't need to have them contact somebody else to withdraw and deliver a large amount of physical cash. They don't need to convince anyone they're serious. If the victim has their phone with them or can remember a password, then the criminals just have to coerce the victim into making a transfer.
Arguably, this isn't even really kidnapping in the traditional sense. It's high-tech mugging.
Owning a significant amount of crypto-currency and carrying the ability to make a transfer around in your head or pocket is basically the same as carrying a suitcase full of cash.
On the other hand, if your business was a scam and you needed to explain where $1 million went to...
There are many many ways for the wealthy to procure bitcoin with zero restrictions.
You're just explaining why crypto is becoming increasingly popular for businesses in general: the tech works.
2. "You're just explaining why crypto is becoming increasingly popular for businesses in general" Citation definitely needed. I used to see "pay with Bitcoin!" in a couple places online about 5-8 years ago. I never see it now, and hardly anyone I know, even big time "crypto people", actually use crypto to buy anything. Almost all the "uses" I hear are speculation or criminal uses. The only legitimate use I've actually seen is cross-border payments.
This was a $1mm ransom. The attraction of crypto isn't that it's easy to launder. It's that it's easy to steal. Beat a crypto bro on the head and you know you can effect a verifiable, irreversible transfer. Wiring money involves many more steps and has all kinds of reverse options.
only the bad ones. See XMR
It's not expensive.
Just look at all the movie plots that hinge on "ransom payment gone wrong" scenes, where the actual handing over of payment results in some kidnappers getting killed. With crypto, it just becomes "send a large amount of bitcoin to address X by date Y, otherwise we start shipping you various body parts of the kidnappee on dates Y+1, Y+2, etc." This dynamic is also the reason ransomware is so effective.
It's substantially harder to kidnap someone and force them to sell their business and then give the cash to you than it is to make them transfer their crypto. And realistically most people's wealth will be in a company or some shares, etc.
Die Hard inspired too many?
that's why people don't do that very often, or if they do they walk around with armed guards until they aren't holding that cash anymore.
All of the answers I can think of are criminal.
Almost everyone I know if fairly stable third world countries keep about half a month of expenses in cash even after digital payments are predominant.
Maybe it's my jaded European mindset, but - rich people have been a target since the dawn of civilization, flaunting wealth is a good way to attract attention from bad people.
I'm more concerned about locals finding out. That's why I don't talk about the cash I have on hand in my real life, ever.
I feel like that's relatively easy to do?
I don't understand what you mean with this.
And also, yes you can? I've purchased cattle (~100k) and vehicles (5-40k) with cash.
It's not insane and irresponsible. I legitimately do not understand your attitude with that. As long as you don't walk around with 100k in your hand waving it around, what's the danger? The world isn't as bad as the news would have you believe.
Also, Some people prefer doing business without involving electronics. I've bought things using cash, silver, canning jars, and baseball cards. I prefer to barter for goods and labor, but some people prefer cash. What's the problem with that?
Seems like you can?
Maybe for now. The cryptocurrenty ricb are lower hanging fruit for sure, but crypto also make other kinds of kidnapping easier so I doubt it will remain soley in that realm.
> He says Skurka's abduction is the 171st instance of suspects using physical violence to steal bitcoins, that he's aware of.
Cryptocurrencies have the unique protection that _nobody_ who does not have the keys can access the funds. No system by itself can protects against violence resulting in coerced access.
Not with the ease with which you can transfer an unbounded amount of crypto. Completely different situation. The lack of any kind of fraud or theft protection or need to physically access cash is a great reason to not ever cop to owning crypto.
You call it a bug I call it a feature.
It's almost like no system is perfect and are perceptive to different threat models...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Geschke#1992_kidnappin...
Just knowing he's CEO of a crypto company means he probably has a lot of crypto.
Yes it is tied to you, when you spend it.
Or
> there is a pretty small set of people who can access the information.
Which one is it?
What makes crypto unique in this setting is that it's easy for the kidnappers to receive ransom in a way that's very hard to trace back to them after the fact.
The story of, say, someone successfully kidnapping Bezos in a lightning operation and trying to take a good bite of his wealth is quite different than the same if you kidnapped Satoshi while he has access to his keys. It's not even in the tracing, but how much you can take away successfully, and how fast.
The extremely wealthy like Bezos have contingency plans and systems for this situation.
I’m assuming it wouldn’t be Bezos himself doing it. You would contact his employees and tell them to get you the crypto if they want him back.
Yes. That's the point, the ideal target is one that doesn't have contingency plans, not someone who has crypto.
This is actually less true than you assume (barring Monero). Crypto, and Bitcoin especially, is less (less, though not yet completely) of a Wild West due to Western nations enforcing KYC laws. Through this, addresses can be traced back to real people. Further chain analysis (Chainalysis is the name I'm most familiar with) allows investigators to follow the money through an immutible chain stretching back to 2008.
In short, Bitcoin is not private. It is arguably one of the least private ways to transact, considering the Blockchain will show the history of every wallet, and where every Sat started and ended. Unless you take enormous precautions, it can be traced back to you.
Whether the feds can get to you is another story, but one as old as time.
Turns out that in a functioning society, it’s not a big deal if someone knows how much money you made last year. Thieves and kidnappers are not lurking around every corner after all.
Money and nudity are still the great taboos for Americans. These national obsessions must be closely guarded or some kind of calamity will consume the sinners who exposed their bodies and bank accounts.
"Average" people may not share their wealth in general (in part because they may not want friends and family to know they have a lot of money) but it's no secret that the CEO or SVP of a Fortune 500 company has a ton of money.
When you're at the bottom in a country that has decent safety nets for you isn't as bad as the US. And once you've done one crime, the rest get easier to justify, I would assume.
I don't see how. Unless you're talking about a people who owns a significant percentage of a publicly-traded company, but that's most certainly not "any company owner". Probably less than 1% of the population.
This information is legally required to be available to prevent money laundering, fraud, other financial crimes, etc.
[0] https://ariregister.rik.ee/eng/company/12199449/Foobar-O%C3%...
Ultimate Beneficiar Ownership information can be only accessed by authorities.
e.g. ‘ Toyota Baltic Aktsiaselts (10234087)’ lists 1 senior manager under ‘Beneficial owners’… which is clearly nonsense.
He probably doesn’t even own 50% of the intermediary company registered in Estonia… let alone 100%.
Edit: And ‘SIA Toyota Material Handling Baltic Eesti filiaal (11629379)’ doesn’t list anyone at all in that section.
So it is an example of the information in at least one section being completely unreliable, with not even an attempt of an ‘owned by non-eu parent company’ disclaimer explaining why it’s fine to list a random senior manager as something that he’s clearly not…
Just another example of where crypto thinking they are hip/trendy for breaking the norms. Some lessons of bucking the traditional methods are gonna hurt more than others.
Cortes for example when he found out where the empire's gold was hidden he kidnapped Montezuma. Pretty blatant criminal activity. In no history books is mentioned any kind of wrong doing by the gold side. Gold doesn't do stuff it is an inanimate object, only humans with agency can perform actions, and be guilty of them or innocent.
Victims of kidnapping for BTC, they can only hope BTC's price go to zero, long before 2030. By 2030 it's price will be 0 for sure, the economics of the blockchain ensure that, but they could be lucky and BTC's price crashes and zero's out the next 3 months or so. They will not be wealthy any more, the kidnappers will lose interest in them and throw them out in landfill somewhere, hopefully alive.