FAO Jambutty! (E-GOLD!)

entwisi · 01-05-2007, 07:10

Thought you may like to know about the following

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05...ld_indictment/

Owners of E-Gold indicted for money laundering

WillowTheWhisp · 01-05-2007, 07:59

I'm surprised it is/was even legal to set up an account with nothing more than an email address, the way banks are these days with having to produce ID and even things like PayPal wanting to verify who you are from your credit card info.

entwisi · 01-05-2007, 08:20

I don't know if you have checked any of the other stories on today's Register but there are concerns that Mobile phone operators are becoming Banks in all but name without any of the protection afforded by teh FSA

WillowTheWhisp · 01-05-2007, 08:26

Yes, I found this story quite alarming too.

entwisi · 01-05-2007, 08:30

so not really a story, just speculation

WillowTheWhisp · 01-05-2007, 10:03

Quote:

One case which was stopped by the bank in question, apparently because the amount was so high.

So the recommendation to criminals is don't be greedy and you could get away with it. You and I both know that Banks don't check everything - they can't, they'd need more staff - you know like in the olden days before they made them all redundant.

entwisi · 01-05-2007, 10:20

Quote:

In fact, it is not quite a trend, but comprises two reports.

two incidents doesn't make a flaw(one caught).

There is a lot of work going on regarding teh scanning and OCR/matching of sigs etc. At the end of the day, the banks would be liable so it comes down to a 'cost/benefit' decision. Why spend £X million fixing something that costs a fraction of that, it wouldn't be good business sense to do so.

Neil · 01-05-2007, 11:46

Banks only check the signatures on cheques over £500, well the one I had inside info on did any way. They must have decided it cost less to repay any problems on amounts less than £500 than it did to check them all.

WillowTheWhisp · 01-05-2007, 12:06

Precisely Neil - which is how criminals dealing in smaller amounts get away with it - and lots of little amounts add up. They may never be discovered. The Banks don't lose out but it's the, often eldely, victims who do.

entwisi · 01-05-2007, 12:31

Willow why do you say that the 'often' elderly lose out? any incident of fraud would be covered by the banks. I fear you are playing the sensationalist here.

Any transaction can be disputed and it is up to the Bank to prove it was legit or it has to be refunded. This is governed and enforce3d by the FSA

jambutty · 02-05-2007, 13:12

Thank you for bringing this point to my attention but it is old news entwisi and was first brought to the public notice in early April. Actually I heard rumours that the FBI was investigating back in mid March. However this is the second time that the US authorities have targeted E-Gold and last time nothing happened other than a tightening of site security. They changed the way the Turing number was displayed and have recently changed it again.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=A1BF8AA32011659B0C14F6C9EB19A904 ?contentId=2886558&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

Actually WillowTheWhisp you need a bit more than an email address to open an account with E-Gold. You need:
An account name.
A user name
Real name and address.
Email address
Phone number
Password of your choice.

But the crucial point is that you don’t need to PROVE YOUR IDENTITY.

The latest information is that E-Gold’s owners have been indicted with aiding money laundering and a few dozen e-currency exchange sites have been forced to stop operating. The E-Gold on-line payment processing operation has not, so far, been questioned.

E-Gold itself continues as normal, so far, but it has got more difficult to turn E-Gold into hard cash. Many sites that have used E-Gold to receive money from and pay their members are switching to E-Bullion. But they too will be investigated by the FBI when they have finished with E-Gold. Their operation is broadly similar and no PROOF OF IDENTITY is needed to open an account.

I think that E-Gold will survive as an on-line payment processor but they will have to have each account verified with PROOF OF IDENTITY or the account will be closed. What will happen to the money in the account that is closed is up for debate. Acceptable proof of identity will be:
A government issued photo ID (passport or driving license)
A very recent (under 2 months old) utility bill showing the name and address of the account holder. (Phone, electric, gas, water, rent, council tax bill or bank statement)
There will probably be a document to sign as well.

That will be a major operation in that there are several million accounts. My account number is a six figure number starting with 7. I recently came across an account with a seven figure account number starting with 43 so that makes it approximately 3.5 million accounts.

You cannot fund your own E-Gold account in any other way than someone sending you some money from their own E-Gold account or via a bona fide e-currency broker.
You cannot take money out of your own E-Gold account other than by sending some to another E-Gold account holder. That account holder could be a bona fide e-currency exchanger or a third party Debit Card issuer.

For the most recent information have a look at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/Google Page Ranking/2007/April/07_crm_301.html

http://digitalmoneyworld.com/e-gold-hits-the-wall-government-seizes-major-agents-accounts/

entwisi · 02-05-2007, 13:18

Just thought I'd warn you in case you had 'hard cash' tied up in it so you could at least try and get it out.

jambutty · 02-05-2007, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by entwisi

Just thought I'd warn you in case you had 'hard cash' tied up in it so you could at least try and get it out.

Much obliged for your concern.

I’ve only got a couple of hundred dollars skulking in my account so its no big deal if I lose it. After all it isn’t as if it is cash out of my own pocket – just a small part of past profits.

WillowTheWhisp · 02-05-2007, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by entwisi

Willow why do you say that the 'often' elderly lose out? any incident of fraud would be covered by the banks. I fear you are playing the sensationalist here.

Banks don't pick up on small amounts, we all know that, which is why small frauds work and big ones don't and often elderly people are so easily confusable that they may not notice either so the little frauds end up not being brought to the bank's attention. Surely you have heard of cases where but for a relative having spotted something seemingly amiss (like Auntie Nellie doesn't seem to have as much money as she should have) nobody would have been any the wiser. Yes in cases which do come to light banks have refunded where they have been shown to be at fault but I used to work in a bank and I've known instances where the customer has insisted they never made a withdrawal and the bank has insisted the must have, or must have given their PIN to someone and the person has never been refunded.

cashman · 02-05-2007, 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by entwisi

Willow why do you say that the 'often' elderly lose out? any incident of fraud would be covered by the banks. I fear you are playing the sensationalist here.

Any transaction can be disputed and it is up to the Bank to prove it was legit or it has to be refunded. This is governed and enforce3d by the FSA

i lost out last year with a transaction, and after many telephone calls to sodding machines before speaking to a person was NOT refunded.was only £20 but not the point.willow aint playing the sensationalist to me, just tellin it like it is.