FBI used bitcoin wallet records to peg notorious IntelBroker as UK national The notorious data thief known as IntelBroker allegedly broke into computer systems belonging to more than 40 victims worldwide and stole their data, costing them at least $25 million in damages, according to newly unsealed court documents that also name IntelBroker as 25-year-old British national Kai West. A criminal …
No, but he was arrested in France, part of the EU and one victim was Europol, also in the EU (Netherlands based HQ), so there should be jurisdiction to prosecute there first and only then consider extradition to the US, but only after the UK gets their shot at him since it's highly likely the crimes were actually committed in the UK.
But, but . . haven't we been repeatedly told that Bitcoin is completely anonymous ?
With a public ledger ?
If you cannot understand the contradiction, please drive your car at full speed against a wall. It'll do wonders for your brain, because you're obviously not using it.
@Pascal_Monett
I do love the repeated use of the word "anonymous" in discussions about the internet!
It actually means something like this: "Mostly unknown to everyone EXCEPT to the owner of the identity."
In fact, in many cases, the identity is real.....a real person, living under that identity.....EXCEPT that the identity is fictious.
For example, look up the Met Police criminals who lived for years under the (real) identity of a (real) five year old who died forty years ago!
No.....there are two types of identity: REAL and FICTITIOUS......but no identity at all is ever ANONYMOUS!!
Like cash is anonymous. Take a bunch of notes from an atm, buy large amount of drugs, dealer gets busted and the notes recovered and traced to the atm with video footage of the person who withdrew the notes.
The transactions are anonymous but the provenance of the funds used are not.
So ATMs these days, in addition to photographing your face and recording your account #, also photograph every bill it dispenses to you?
So new record-chain-busting steps:
1. Take the money from the ATM.
2. Go to multiple stores.
3. Buy things.
4. Check out via a human clerk.
5. Pay with a large bill.
6. Get change from the clerk, which is not photographed.
7. Use change to buy illegal drugs, or whatever.
Obviously this won't work for large transactions. At the same time, you already are limited to how much cash you can withdraw from ATMs in a single day.
@An_Old_Dog
(1) Purchase mask: see https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/london-stories/symbolism-of-guy-fawkes/
(2) Steal ATM cards.....until you get a few with the PIN attached to the card
(3) Put on mask
(4) Use different ATMs for each stolen card
(5) Throw each card away after use
No need for any other bother. Rinse and repeat (from item #2).
Note: the problem is the PIN. Nothing else matters!
they're not necessarily fresh and new and they won't be linked to an individual ATM (we just got some of the wrapped bundles out of the vault to replenish the ATMs, we didn't log which bundle went into which ATM. fresh bundles aren't designated specifically for ATMs when they arrive but that's where we'll likely earmark them for). And when the fresh bundles were used up the least soiled notes got used after that to prevent jams, and they might've been taken in via customers that week so there's no serial trail anywhere
Perhaps which wrapped cash bundles were sent to the bank are logged but that's where any trail ends.
Probably lowers insurance (or stops insurers demanding huge amounts). This would be due to risk reduction via deterrence and recovery. Deterrence: if serious criminal know the notes in an atm have serials recorded they also know; if that money is recovered without being laundered, or whilst in that process of being laundered, and tied to them they will get caught. Recovery: If the money is found even if its been removed from the ATM the bank can claim ownership and recover the funds. Whilst you could if the records are kept and you get a warrant use this to trace where funds used for illicit purposes came from I suspect the purpose is to mitigate the risk of loss of the large sum in the ATM when it is full.
I'm sure it's something that COULD be done, but do any do it? Is there a financial benefit to doing so?
There may be a regulatory requirement to do so.
There also may be a financial incentive to do so: selling the data to the government.
When I recently got change -- snaller-denomination notes -- for the two €100 bills issued by my bank's ATM, mounted to their outside wall, the clerk had me put my bank card in their reader and enter my PIN, "because regulations require us to log any transaction over €100."
That struck me as being too goddamned-nosy. Your regulatory intrusiveness may vary, depending on your jurisdiction.
I'm dubious as to that. When i worked in a bank we wanted the customer's identity for 2 reasons:
1 - we want to not waste our time and in-branch cash reserves. We'd have people coming in with £1000 in pound coins to change to cash or vice-versa, so we'd ask for their bank card and we'd find out they're a customer from another bank. Why not take your money there? oh they have no branches in the area but they're cheaper. well you're getting the service you pay for there, open an account with us (sales target ding ding) or find someone else to sort your coins.
2 - Sales. everytime you're in a branch you're a sales opportunity. they want to see your credit history, whether you're due a mortgage, whether your savings account is an older one etc. Retail banking is 99% targetted towards sales and everything else just gets or keeps you hooked in. "ok we'll change your 100 euro notes (if you have lots of money that could be a good indicator for a potential sale ) "oh when i brought up your account i just noticed your ISA is on a lower rate and this year we released some new ones would you like to sit with an advisor" etc etc
It wouldn't be terribly difficult to record serial numbers as they pass into the dispenser, but banks will only do that if compelled to and such compulsion would be newsworthy in a "Big Brother is watching you" way
It's on par with the urban legends which have been circulating since the early 2000s about RFID chips being embedded in banknotes - appeals to conspiracy theorists and feeds paranoia. Technically possible but impossible to remain a secret
The main error was using a KYCed account like Coinbase. You have to produce a certified ID like a Driving License or Passport to register and any crypto going into or out from Coinbase, Binance etc. is from or to a known host that will give any details asked for to the government. Only an idiot would use such a site as the only difference is that they will release your data without any checks or balances. I think that the problem is caused by the majority of muppets that fail to understand that there is a whole world out there and the US is only a pimple on its backside. I use crypto because it is cheaper for me to move money around the globe. I would never use Bitcoin as it is far too expensive and slow. I do not need secrecy except that I do not recognise anyone else's right to see what I am doing. I have just closed an account because they asked to go KYC and I said no. I still have no problem with accepting and sending crypto.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
