A man who got away with $242M using ‘black magic’(bbc.com)
bbc.com
A man who got away with $242M using ‘black magic’
http://www.bbc.com/news/stories-42878021
94 comments
Reminds me of a great (now-deleted) tweet I saw a few years ago: "Everything is legal if you scale it up." Convert the cash to assets, then convert the assets to political clout---at that point the cash heist is in the rear-view mirror...
Somewhat related quote:
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire
Reminds me of: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." - Anatole France
This reminds me of:
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." - Jean Rostand
Which reminds me of "a milion and one is still a milion", by a polish poet I forgot the name of.
He or she was talking about the deaths in siviet goulags.
He or she was talking about the deaths in siviet goulags.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence as long as you are a state you are fine.
Plenty of current examples from all types of states.
Plenty of current examples from all types of states.
I think you are misunderstanding the idea of monopoly on violence. It's actually most wonderful achievement and state of the art technique in limiting violence between technologically advanced homo sapiens specimens.
as long as you're becoming a state afterwards, or more precisely - as long as you're a winner. Mandela was taken off terrorist list only very recently. Hamas being practically a state already, not a winner yet and thus is still a terrorist org.
[deleted]
It will catch up to you in the end.
I've never believed this stuff. Laws are often only enforced in one section of the country.
This particular dude plead guilty... and his sentence? "The sentence was 43 days in prison and a $250,000 fine". Most states won't even transfer you to prison for a month and a half, they'll just keep you in jail. And not only that, but he was able to get out early because he gave money to charity.
I've known folks get put in jail for not being able to afford child support. Many folks spend that long in jail just awaiting trial.
When and how does this stuff catch up with them in the end?
This particular dude plead guilty... and his sentence? "The sentence was 43 days in prison and a $250,000 fine". Most states won't even transfer you to prison for a month and a half, they'll just keep you in jail. And not only that, but he was able to get out early because he gave money to charity.
I've known folks get put in jail for not being able to afford child support. Many folks spend that long in jail just awaiting trial.
When and how does this stuff catch up with them in the end?
The examples that came to my mind when I first saw that tweet were: Napster/Youtube (unauthorized content sharing scaled up to such a degree that the media industry had to shift to streaming business models), Uber, the ongoing US legalization of marijuana (too much of the population uses it for abolition to be effective).
Cryptocurrency
I really don't see the relevance.
If nothing else, per your about:, they're pretty handy at facilitating large money transfers to Africa
Maybe. Maybe not. Sissoko landed in a mansion in Mali. He no longer has his playboy lifestyle, but he's still way better off than most people. He was trying to get legit through his airline, but made a mistake.
Putting wealthy people in jail doesn't normally happen. And even when it does happen, their stays usually aren't half as bad.
Putting wealthy people in jail doesn't normally happen. And even when it does happen, their stays usually aren't half as bad.
You are applying the Just World Fallacy[0] here
This is the same line of thinking that we all apply for things such as "Karma".
Just because we believe we live in a just world, it doesn't make it so.
It is why crucial for people to remain vigilant of legal loopholes and apply political pressure to make any changes.
As citizens, we have more power than we realize.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
This is the same line of thinking that we all apply for things such as "Karma".
Just because we believe we live in a just world, it doesn't make it so.
It is why crucial for people to remain vigilant of legal loopholes and apply political pressure to make any changes.
As citizens, we have more power than we realize.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Well, that's just how social/cultural norms work (the greater the proportion of the population participating, typically the greater acceptance), but in this case it is literally illegal and believed still by the vast majority of people to be unjust.
> typically the greater acceptance
It also allows for selective prosecution. You prosecute some individuals for something everyone does as a punishment for totally unrelated matters.
It's very effective.
It also allows for selective prosecution. You prosecute some individuals for something everyone does as a punishment for totally unrelated matters.
It's very effective.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." -Aesop
That's brilliantly stated. A natural first cousin to 'a lie told often enough becomes the truth'
The statement that signing off the transfers wasn't the work of one man is probably accurate.
So, what was this? Was Sissoko acting as a mule for getting money out of the bank and transferring it to other places?
One way to launder money is to buy things after all. Luxury goods like food, wine and art are particularly good for this. If I need to give you $1000 with plausible deniability, then if I go to your restaurant and pay $1000 for a $50 meal, that does the job.
So, someone wanted to quietly move millions of dollars out of a bank, and then gave it to someone who possibly laundered it, and did things like running and airline and buying military helicopters (what other military hardware was he not caught buying?).
Then the US diplomatic system went to bat for him in court. Black magic or black budget?
(Edit: the spies angle is probably a bit of a push, but I think speculating he was laundering for a bigger fish isn't)
So, what was this? Was Sissoko acting as a mule for getting money out of the bank and transferring it to other places?
One way to launder money is to buy things after all. Luxury goods like food, wine and art are particularly good for this. If I need to give you $1000 with plausible deniability, then if I go to your restaurant and pay $1000 for a $50 meal, that does the job.
So, someone wanted to quietly move millions of dollars out of a bank, and then gave it to someone who possibly laundered it, and did things like running and airline and buying military helicopters (what other military hardware was he not caught buying?).
Then the US diplomatic system went to bat for him in court. Black magic or black budget?
(Edit: the spies angle is probably a bit of a push, but I think speculating he was laundering for a bigger fish isn't)
I find it much more plausible that Ayoub, the bank agent, simply took the fall for a handful of other people who were also conned. The more elaborate explanations smack of mistaking ignorance for malice.
This guy sounds awesome. If there are any aspiring screenwriters out there this would make a great movie. Think Catch Me If You Can but more modern and international.
The picture of him smiling with the Miami school band makes me incredibly happy. Look at their smiles. Those are infectious smiles.
You're proudly declaring how easily you are manipulated.
And you, your low opinion of others.
Absolutely. This story is totally unreal. The fact that it is true and actually happened makes it extremely appetizing for a movie to be made.
He should do an ICO and get back to the game
The "send me your money and I'll send double back" scam is a staple among kids playing MMOs since at least the days of Runescape. Doubtless it goes a lot further back.
How does this work exactly?
I can see how it works in the short term e.g. you give me money, I give you double, you give me lots of money and I disappear with it. But it seems he had an ongoing relationship with the Daubi bank manager, how is that possible?
I can see how it works in the short term e.g. you give me money, I give you double, you give me lots of money and I disappear with it. But it seems he had an ongoing relationship with the Daubi bank manager, how is that possible?
I'm sure he had no trouble doubling smaller sums (the article stated he also had significant debts), and made up stories about how it would take longer and be more complicated to double larger sums.
Going back to MMOs, scammers in EVE have a jumble of variants on this scam. Typically they'll double your money if it's below a certain amount, but run away with any larger sums. Sometimes they frame the game as a lottery or game of skill: only the first person whose cash transfer shows up in their wallet will have their money doubled. With arbitrary rules like that, it's easier to give excuses as to why they weren't able to double the money. Oh, you didn't read the fine print in my bio: better luck next time! A good rube might fork over multiple donations before he realizes his money won't be coming back. Of course, scamming in that game is perfectly legal, so it's a lot easier to just block and ignore your marks.
Going back to MMOs, scammers in EVE have a jumble of variants on this scam. Typically they'll double your money if it's below a certain amount, but run away with any larger sums. Sometimes they frame the game as a lottery or game of skill: only the first person whose cash transfer shows up in their wallet will have their money doubled. With arbitrary rules like that, it's easier to give excuses as to why they weren't able to double the money. Oh, you didn't read the fine print in my bio: better luck next time! A good rube might fork over multiple donations before he realizes his money won't be coming back. Of course, scamming in that game is perfectly legal, so it's a lot easier to just block and ignore your marks.
Because they're all lying. At least one guy in Dubai (but most likely more) were stealing and at least one guy from Mali was laundering.
When someone got caught, that was the best lie they could come up with.
When someone got caught, that was the best lie they could come up with.
... Mohammed Ayoub had claimed at his trial that Sissoko had put him under a spell ...
Or he's lying.
Or maybe there were a bunch of them stealing and Sissoko was laundering for them and Ayoub was the designated fall guy, and this was the best lie the group could come up with.
Or maybe there were a bunch of them stealing and Sissoko was laundering for them and Ayoub was the designated fall guy, and this was the best lie the group could come up with.
I think it comes back to the part in the beginning where the article says that blackmagic is forbidden but there is a strong belief in it.
At some point you also have good old fashioned blackmail.
Once the mark has been tricked into giving away a small sum, you can now hold it over their head as blackmail to give you a larger sum - they are as fired/going-to-jail after giving away $X as for $10X, so with the stick of telling their bosses what they've done and the carrot of "maybe I can get you out of this if you give me a little more", the con artist can keep coming back to the same victim over and over.
Once the mark has been tricked into giving away a small sum, you can now hold it over their head as blackmail to give you a larger sum - they are as fired/going-to-jail after giving away $X as for $10X, so with the stick of telling their bosses what they've done and the carrot of "maybe I can get you out of this if you give me a little more", the con artist can keep coming back to the same victim over and over.
Or he was stealing in conspiracy with Sissoko and is lying about it now.
hypnotism?
Sissoko did this in 1995, which predates Runescape. It's essentially a Ponzi scheme, variations of which are mentioned as far back as the 1800s. I suspect that they are even older than that.
Still the writer is telling the story as an absolute truth, if he claimed could double money, why that guy kept sending him money without getting back anything doubled?
And 3 years, the sentences, way to little, something doesn't add up, I'm inclined to believe that he actually was some kind of scapegoat, that yes he received money from the bank, but a cover up, also the bank didn't noticed, so much money going out without justification?
And 3 years, the sentences, way to little, something doesn't add up, I'm inclined to believe that he actually was some kind of scapegoat, that yes he received money from the bank, but a cover up, also the bank didn't noticed, so much money going out without justification?
money doubling is a tried and tested scam. They used to do it a lot in EVE Online. You don't just have one mark and that's how it worked. Likely he was doing lots of money doubling with others that was feeding this one to finally get the $200 million. Its possible he even transitioned this particular mark into a different scam where he just got direct access to their funds and was able to sign stuff off without authorization.
Yeah, I was really hoping the article would explain more.
I assumed he was giving back doubled amounts at a small scale using borrowed money or whatever, then when he got a large sum he ran. But even if that’s what he did, I don’t know how he jumped from small amounts he could borrow to $242 million. I guess we will never know for sure how he did it.
Very interesting story, but disappointing interview with the man in the end. Why didn't she asked him, how he made his money, when he declined, that he was responsible for the theft?
yeah, i was really keen to find out how he managed to be "worth $400m at one point", prior to the theft.
> It's rumoured he was also forced to undergo an exorcism, to cure him of his belief in black magic.
In a culture of woo, this doubtless makes some kind of sense.
In a culture of woo, this doubtless makes some kind of sense.
We all live in cultures of woo, we just can't see the woo from the inside.
Cf. ICOs, irrational exuberance, etc.
Cf. ICOs, irrational exuberance, etc.
Yes, yes, everything is the same.
I like my woo to come with auditable history and objectively measurable data.
Then you can get a brand new story every time there is a contradiction.
Then you can get a brand new story every time there is a contradiction.
"I have magic powers to double your money" is exactly the sort of banks use to promote their mutual funds and whatnot.
You should see what the Vatican has done with people's donations. Gorgeous city!
Took them a while.
Sounds like typical ICO marketing.
I've never had a bank promote their mutual funds to me that way.
>"He walked into Citibank one day, no appointment, met a teller and he ended up marrying her,"
This guy is smooth.
This guy is smooth.
I assume if she was a teller and saw, say $100MM, in an account assigned to him, it wouldn't be unimaginable for her to believe whatever story he conjures up.
> Sissoko has never faced justice. In his absence, a Dubai court sentenced him to three years for fraud and practis[sic]ing magic.
Well that's good. We really can't have people going around practicing magic, who knows what could come of it.
Well that's good. We really can't have people going around practicing magic, who knows what could come of it.
> practis[sic]ing magic.
You don't need to add [sic] when it's correct (this is a British news site).
You don't need to add [sic] when it's correct (this is a British news site).
Sic doesn't mean "incorrect", it means "as written". You use it anytime a reader might be confused to show that you haven't made a mistake while quoting someone which could potentially change the meaning or context of the quote.
OTOH, doesn't the [sic] come after the word? Never seen it like this.
Yeah, putting it in the middle of a word is very odd.
[deleted]
Okay, someone help me follow this. I understand the whole give me money and I'll double it thing. But how did he end up with $242 million? That seems like and incredible amount for a single person to have the authority to give away.
Did some googling and based on this legal judgment it seems like his relationship with the woman at Citibank really helped in making withdrawals from the Dubai Islamic Bank https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2504755/dubai-islamic-...
Also found this article from '98 where a coworker asks the same thing and gets the same answer Ayyoub gave other people: "I asked how he had transferred so much money without approval or authorization," Salim later recalled. "Ayyoub said he had been under the influence of, or pressured by, the rich man to transfer the money." http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/babas-big-bucks-6359873
Also, this 2001 article suggests the transfers "were disguised in falsified bank ledgers" http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/jail-sentences-dropped-...
Also found this article from '98 where a coworker asks the same thing and gets the same answer Ayyoub gave other people: "I asked how he had transferred so much money without approval or authorization," Salim later recalled. "Ayyoub said he had been under the influence of, or pressured by, the rich man to transfer the money." http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/babas-big-bucks-6359873
Also, this 2001 article suggests the transfers "were disguised in falsified bank ledgers" http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/jail-sentences-dropped-...
Given the current state of computers and surveillance, It would seem that we dont know anything about the simplicity required to pull off mass heists in the age prior to computers-in-their-current-form....
It would seem that it was REALLY easy to rob banks in the past.
I wonder what Dillenger's actual networth would have been...
It would seem that it was REALLY easy to rob banks in the past.
I wonder what Dillenger's actual networth would have been...
American (and thus international) banking seems to work on the somehow backwads principle of allowing allmost any transaction without any real authorization (eg. credits cards, direct debits, checks and such, where only thing you really need to know for the transaction to happen is some semi-public number) and dealing with possible issues after the fact On the other hand the system is pretty good at finding the party responsible, or in other words whose insurance will be billed for the missing money (for example when you look at it from this PoV the EMV protocols and cryptography used make sense). But for that to work someone has to be actually looking for the issues.
Somewhat tangential but relevant: As I'm currently moving I spent some part of the afternoon by changing periodic payments setup on my bank account and was somehow amused by the "create transaction" menu in my (european) banks' web application. There is menu item which essentially says "Direct debit (this is probably not what you want)".
This problem has long been a "what-if-cuz-that-would-be-nice" service:
Think of a last-pass for all your varied accounts, where the service allows you to update your core information and then select which of your accounts who have subscribed to your profile info should just be updated by the service.
So if you move - with one click, update all your linked account details for zip/billing/shipping/etc...
Obviously provide a diff review opportunity and a MFA heavy confirmation process - but with an easily revertible process as well.
as well as monitoring of logins to all, and alerts for any changes to any...
Think of a last-pass for all your varied accounts, where the service allows you to update your core information and then select which of your accounts who have subscribed to your profile info should just be updated by the service.
So if you move - with one click, update all your linked account details for zip/billing/shipping/etc...
Obviously provide a diff review opportunity and a MFA heavy confirmation process - but with an easily revertible process as well.
as well as monitoring of logins to all, and alerts for any changes to any...
Coincidentally, on the BBC News is Nirav Modi: Who is India's scandal-linked billionaire?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43081499
> Then this week, the same bank publicly alleged that the jeweller was among those involved in an alleged $1.8bn fraud - which has led to fears for India's second-largest state-run bank.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43081499
> Then this week, the same bank publicly alleged that the jeweller was among those involved in an alleged $1.8bn fraud - which has led to fears for India's second-largest state-run bank.
And this kind of thing is why banks are meant to have rigorous segregation of duties and audit regimes, lots of money is a dreadful temptation.
There's no black magic, there is a conspiracy to steal and launder money, a bank that wants to hide the problem, complicit courts and credulous western reporters who will literally believe anything.
I truly see a good movie to be made here.
When I saw the title I thought it was about a cryptocurrency
> He would give away money, but … to my knowledge it was never done in a way that he didn't get publicity for it.
Well. That's a bit of a circular argument.
Well. That's a bit of a circular argument.
I don't think so. He could have given away money in a more discreet fashion and it would be evident that he did so and not have been for publicity.
Maybe he did and they were unaware of it (n.b. this is the circular argument).
Fascinating story but disappointing uninterested article.
This article would have been better had they used pictures of Dubai from the 1990s when it was still a backwater.
Looking forward to his ICO