|
|
|
|
|
by ookblah
2054 days ago
|
|
okay, now what if the $100 widget is purposely set up to obfuscate the transaction/trail and the actors involve help you (like say a new developer that is wink wink) and the $200 increases your chances of getting caught? i think nobody is arguing that you want the best bang for your buck, but there's a reason why someone will just flat out offer 20% over asking or letting these properties sit unrented. that's a terrible return on investment... i duno, makes sense to me. when laundering the priority is always don't get caught > profits. housing seems to be at the moment the most unregulated and harder for authorities to pin and hold those accountable. |
|
Bizarrely, the article and several commenters here are saying precisely that money launders don't want the best bang for their buck.
> but there's a reason why someone will just flat out offer 20% over asking
But nobody is doing that. The article seems to be assuming that, commenters are assuming that, but where's a single piece of evidence? If offering the asking price guarantees you the deal, offering 20% more is insanity. Nobody would do that.
You seem to be claiming that, somehow, overpaying for real estate... diminishes your chances of getting caught? (And several commenters here are assuming that too.) But it doesn't. Why would it? What would the mechanism even be?
I swear I don't understand where this idea is coming from, that overpaying for real estate does a better job at laundering money or something than simply paying market rate. It doesn't make any sense.