Just as long as we get to keep the guns ....\
April 11, 2003 7:59 AM   Subscribe

PayPal charged with breaking Patriot Act. Anybody care to explain what does terrorism have to do with glambing? (No, it is not a rescued April fool's joke ...)
posted by magullo (10 comments total)
if you're not down with the patriot act, you must be one of those filthy glambers.
posted by quonsar at 8:08 AM on April 11, 2003

Glambing sounds like something that would be illegal.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:12 AM on April 11, 2003

Will this affect glam rock? Cause I love that stuff.
posted by Outlawyr at 8:19 AM on April 11, 2003

Only glam rock versions of Bing Crosby.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:23 AM on April 11, 2003

You know it's bad when the US government has to reach to find funds short of raising taxes.
posted by bkdelong at 8:35 AM on April 11, 2003

Anybody care to explain what does terrorism have to do with gambling?

The P-Act places a high burden on financial institutions who receive money to make sure that money does not come from terrorists. Why? So terror operations cannot be funded via banks, investment houses, casinos, currency exchanges, etc. I guess Paypal comes under the definition of the regulated institutions. No one is suggesting gamblers are "filthy" or are terrorists.

Is the fair? Not really, it seems that the burdens created by this brightline rule needs to be mitigated so smaller institutions don't get crushed by the reporting, investigation and record keeping standards.
posted by Bag Man at 8:43 AM on April 11, 2003

OK, so here in Georgia we have a state lottery game called "Pick 3" where if you pick the correct 3 numbers you get $500. This is widely used to launder ill-gotten money, 'cause all you have to do is buy 1,000 tickets and your $1,000 of dirty money is guaranteed to be transformed into $500 of clean money, courtesy of the State o' GA. Does that mean that Governor Perdue has to go to Guantanamo for knowingly laundering cash for criminals? Actually, that might be a good thing.....
posted by spilon at 9:52 AM on April 11, 2003

spilon: I don't understand how the 'pick 3' scheme results in money laundering. Doesn't money laundering require some sort of sham business to show false earnings?
posted by reverendX at 10:14 AM on April 11, 2003

"Doesn't money laundering require some sort of sham business to show false earnings?"

Money laundering is converting money not accounted for into money accounted for. Since you can account for gambling profits without having to explain how much money you gambled in the first place, the field is ripe for such schemes. If you do no mind losing some "dirty" money in order to clean it (there is always a price ...), you can simply offer to buy a from a lottery winner the winning ticket - for a higher price than the prize money. Works like a charm as long as the tricket seller does not deposit in his/her bank money he or she cannot account for (better spend it as cash).

Another easy way involves dealing with casino chips. Look up the story of the Australian organized crime gangs paying underlings with Sydney casino chips ("Hey cashier, would you believe it? I won again!).
posted by magullo at 10:26 AM on April 11, 2003

magullo: thanks for the explanation, that cleared it up. (I kinda felt like the guy in Office Space when asking this.)
posted by reverendX at 4:33 PM on April 11, 2003

« Older Like a dung fountain   |   Disneyland's New PR Rep Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments