u/DeliciousAirline5302

Hello everyone,

I noticed this morning that the glass behind the phone seems a bit bended. It's not big enough for me to see behind the phone but it's definitely big enough for a nail to fit in (on the length, camera side). I just noticed because my protecting case has been desintegrating itself. I don't know since when it is like this. Visually, when the phone is flat on a surface, it's almost impossible to notice.

Is it possible that it's just the glass unglueing? Or it's more than likely the battery and I should have it checked? Is it a known flaw on this model?

Most of the coverage on this case is about Western Union failing to act on its own compliance findings. That's true, but it undersells what was actually happening at the agent level. Per DOJ's own statement of facts, this wasn't only a company sitting on a list of risky locations. Some of those agents were active participants in the fraud they were supposedly just processing payments for.

The pattern DOJ laid out: agents paid out transfers using fictitious identifying information for the recipient, split the fraud proceeds directly with the scammers running the schemes on the other end, and structured payouts to stay under recordkeeping thresholds so the transactions wouldn't generate the paper trail they were supposed to. That's not negligence. That's an agent acting as the placement and layering mechanism for someone else's fraud, taking a cut for the service.

It changes what this case actually is. A wire transmitter with a fraud-complaint problem at some locations is a monitoring failure. A wire transmitter whose agents are structuring transactions and falsifying recipient ID to move scam proceeds is a laundering network wearing a licensed MSB as a shell. The $586M forfeiture and the aiding-and-abetting wire fraud charge make a lot more sense once you separate "agents Western Union should have terminated" from "agents who were functionally working for the fraud crews."

The geography lines up with how these schemes actually ran. UK, Nigeria, Ghana, Jamaica, Spain — that's the standard footprint for lottery, sweepstakes, and grandparent scam cash-out at that point in the 2000s, and remittance corridors with weak agent-level ID verification are exactly where a scam crew wants its payout point to sit. The victims wired to real MSB locations with a real brand name on the door. The laundering happened at the counter.

Anyone here worked cases where a licensed money transmitter agent turned out to be complicit rather than just careless? Where's the line examiners actually draw between "this agent has a bad book of business" and "this agent is part of the laundering operation"?

The full breakdown of the compliance side of this case ran in Issue #13 of The AML Brief, free at theamlbrief.com.

Salut à tous,

Je viens de voir le film, et je dois avouer être assez déçu tout en ayant eu des attentes contenues.

Je trouve que le film n'a pas vraiment de moment marquant (et c'est pas faute d'essayer), à la limite je me dis qu'on a moins le côté découverte vu que les gros pans de l'histoire sont connus du plus grand nombre, sans forcément connaître les détails.

J'ai aussi trouvé certains effets spéciaux franchement dégueulasses, je m'y attendais pas dans un film de Nolan, d'autant plus avec ce budget. Remarque qui s'applique aussi aux costumes qui sont très inégaux.

J'ai eu du mal à accrocher à la première moitié du film qui pour moi a des problèmes de rythme. Et j'ai trouvé la musique oubliable.

Et j'ai du mal à savoir si je suis juste un casse couilles tatillon ou si certains de ces défauts vous ont aussi sauté aux yeux?