[joeyo]

Based on the article, it's much simpler than that:

"Fraudsters offering fake prizes and job opportunities swindled tens of thousands of U.S. consumers, giving Western Union agents a cut in return for processing the payments, authorities said."

In other words, it's not that they are "allowing anyone to send money anywhere"; they didn't discipline their agents for taking a cut of known fraudulent transactions.

[Sacho]

Um, isn't this describing their regular activity, worded in a way to make ot seem more sinister? Their agents take a cut for processing payments regardless of whobis involved, no?

[wheelerwj]

It's very possible, but the wording said something like, "allowing many agents to take a cut.." so I would read that like it was an additional payment or kickback of some kind.

If it was just part of business, it would have been every agent right?

[Sacho]

> Fraudsters offering fake prizes and job opportunities swindled tens of thousands of U.S. consumers, giving Western Union agents a cut in return for processing the payments, authorities said.

I don't see it. I'm reading the actual court documents now, which I found by googling and going to the FTC's website:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/01/...

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/western_uni... - complaint

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/western_uni... - final judgement, which includes way more than just the monetary fine.

[kbart]

I don't see how that can happen. I have few friends that work in WU and every suspicious transaction is checked at few levels by different people. Maybe unless it's not "agents", but somebody higher up. Or WU have different procedures in EU and USA.