Concerning behaviour of certain developers - is this money laundering?

[crunchyfrog]

I'm not aware anyone has posted this, but SidAlpha has recently made a VERY intersting video about these games which could indeed be attempts to money launder.

Of course, you're not liable to find out clear empirical evidence, but it is HIGHLY suspicious for these Chinese developers to offer games for 200 dollars a pop with no apparent publicising to speak of (quite the opposite).

These are hallmarks of money laundering, and I bring it up to hopefully bring it to Steam's attention, if they haven't seen it already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2wyY1s1PuA

[Friends with Benedicts]

@Crunchy ah, so I misunderstood you. I'm sorry for that. Anyway, I don't think there's much more to add. Since cases like these had previously happened, it is not ludicrous to suppose it could happen again, although I don't believe that most of these games are actually money laundry.

[Start_Running]

Opprinnelig skrevet av CMDR Friends with Benedicts:

@Crunchy ah, so I misunderstood you. I'm sorry for that. Anyway, I don't think there's much more to add. Since cases like these had previously happened, it is not ludicrous to suppose it could happen again, although I don't believe that most of these games are actually money laundry.

Cases happened but what weere those cases?... how did they present themselves?
I kinda doubt it was via silly over priced games. Again, witha 30% overhead...it'd be a remarkably ♥♥♥♥♥♥ way to do it.

It's like buying Neopolitan Ice cream because you want chocolate and vanilla icecream.

[crunchyfrog]

Opprinnelig skrevet av CMDR Friends with Benedicts:

@Crunchy ah, so I misunderstood you. I'm sorry for that. Anyway, I don't think there's much more to add. Since cases like these had previously happened, it is not ludicrous to suppose it could happen again, although I don't believe that most of these games are actually money laundry.

Not a problem, it hasn't been easy to follow thanks to some making up stuff about me.

Just to make it clear again for anyone (and to erase this confusion), I haven't made ANY claim about this or Valve or anything. I take the default position of NO DECISION, because I simply have not enough evidence to form such an opinion.

And that's why I'm posting this here - I simply think "hey Valve,I have no idea if this is true, but I'm leaving it for you to look into if that's OK". In short, I'm doing no idfferent to reporting an account or something on here. Ain't my poisition to make a decision as it's moot.


I hope that makes things abundantly clear.

Thanks for the honesty, much appreciated.

[Walach]

To me it doesn't feel like a "hallmark of money laundering", still, one cannot deny it has merits. But at this point most things have merits on the topic.

I would say that Valve has an obligation to see to that this does not break any laws. But nothing says they haven't already done so. It might just be a sorry idea of someone to try and earn some quick cash. It might be someone who believes he only needs to get a single sale to have a profit. Or it might be the work of the worst people in human history, we cannot know.

People may believe whatever they like about it as long as they understand just that, a belief.

I stand by the words that "Someone doesn't need to be right, just that we need to agree". That is, what there is it to gain from petty squabbles, it doesn't solve anything and can only cause early wrinkles. :P

[Estaira]

This is first time hearing something like this going on steam.

[Start_Running]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Walach:

I would say that Valve has an obligation to see to that this does not break any laws. But nothing says they haven't already done so.

Her'e the thing. To do so Valve wouuld have to have someway of knowing where the money is coming from before it passes through steam, and where it goes after it's paid out to the publisher's bank account. TYhat's not something Valve has ANY legal authority to do. I mean imagine if they could call up your bank and launch an inquiry into where the money you spent on X game came from. Seriously.

It's not the duty of a store to ask where money comes from or where it goes. That's for law enforcement and their duly appointed auditors to do.

I stand by the words that "Someone doesn't need to be right, just that we need to agree". That is, what there is it to gain from petty squabbles, it doesn't solve anything and can only cause early wrinkles. :P

Path of least resistance invariably leads downhill.

[crunchyfrog]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Start_Running:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Walach:

I would say that Valve has an obligation to see to that this does not break any laws. But nothing says they haven't already done so.

Her'e the thing. To do so Valve wouuld have to have someway of knowing where the money is coming from before it passes through steam, and where it goes after it's paid out to the publisher's bank account. TYhat's not something Valve has ANY legal authority to do. I mean imagine if they could call up your bank and launch an inquiry into where the money you spent on X game came from. Seriously.

It's not the duty of a store to ask where money comes from or where it goes. That's for law enforcement and their duly appointed auditors to do.

I stand by the words that "Someone doesn't need to be right, just that we need to agree". That is, what there is it to gain from petty squabbles, it doesn't solve anything and can only cause early wrinkles. :P

Path of least resistance invariably leads downhill.

Indeed absolutely correct.

But here's the thing. I'm just pointing out to them, and they can check a few things their end, as they have more data that I. There's nothing to stop them then saying exactly the same as I've said to the authorities concerned.

I've done much the same as this elsewhere in life before - two times in local politics, and once in legal advice.

You are absolutely right to make the distinction that they cannot have all the access to such data though. I hope that my comments never made it seem they could do that.

[endrsgm]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Satoru:

Opprinnelig skrevet av crunchyfrog:

A fair point, but here's the thing.

It MERITS a look. That's all I'm saying and if I can just posts this and say "hey, Valve, have you seen this?"

Than that's all I want to do here.

I'd say that the price itself is a red herring

In the sense that if the account is to be used for scamming, its not for the purposes you think. My theory is more that the game is likely a submarine game.

1) No one will ever buy this for $200, meaning you can upload what is functionally barely a 'game' and you'll never actually get anyone refunding it or finding out its not really functional.

2) As no one will buy your game, no one will have cards or items. This is perfect because it means whatever exploit you are going to use will only benefit account you specifically control to bypass the $200

3) ONce your game is submarined, you basically sit on it until you find some exploit in the Market system if we look at recent examples

a) changing your game's name to DOTA2
b) changing items to be items similar to in-game items

My theory is not that the game itself is used for money laundering. Its not. You can look into it and you'll likely see what I expect. Zero revenue for a game that's barely a game. But that's kind of the point. You won't find anything and thus you functionally can't 'take it down' just for having a stupid price. You can dig very deep, and basically you wont find anything. Its not against Steam's policy to sell an overprice nonsense game and make no money.

Once an exploit or osme other thing is found

a) you use what few cd-keys steam lets you have and generate items
b) use your keys on accounts you create
c) sell your items or wahtever the scam is
d) dump the money out and run

The point, imho, is that the game is a placeholder. The price is functionally there to avoid actual sales because they don't actually want sales. They don't want people to actually generate the items in question. The scammers want the items AFTER the exploit is activated.

The $100 SteamDirect fee is a wash, but you never actually were extracting money that way anyway so its irrelevant. If the account and game gets removed, again that was never the point so it doesnt matter. You're sitting on the account until you can find a way to exploit the system, use the dev account to maximize your earnings OUTSIDE of steam, then bail on the game and the dev account.

But again you can't 'prove' this. All you have is a 'very dumb game with an equally stupid price'. That isnt against steam's rules so you can't really do anything about it. I will guarantee even if Steam dives deep into those games, they'll find nothing. Becasue again, money laundering via steam actual game purchases is stupendously inefficient and slow (steam only pays out functionally 2 months after the transaction). No one is doing money laundering that inefficiently and with a 2 month lag time.

this is most likely it.
good explanation.

[endrsgm]

Opprinnelig skrevet av crunchyfrog:

Opprinnelig skrevet av CMDR Friends with Benedicts:

@Crunchy ah, so I misunderstood you. I'm sorry for that. Anyway, I don't think there's much more to add. Since cases like these had previously happened, it is not ludicrous to suppose it could happen again, although I don't believe that most of these games are actually money laundry.

Not a problem, it hasn't been easy to follow thanks to some making up stuff about me.

Just to make it clear again for anyone (and to erase this confusion), I haven't made ANY claim about this or Valve or anything. I take the default position of NO DECISION, because I simply have not enough evidence to form such an opinion.

And that's why I'm posting this here - I simply think "hey Valve,I have no idea if this is true, but I'm leaving it for you to look into if that's OK". In short, I'm doing no idfferent to reporting an account or something on here. Ain't my poisition to make a decision as it's moot.


I hope that makes things abundantly clear.

Thanks for the honesty, much appreciated.

now you know how all the other people who post in suggestions feel when they get attacked, as is the norm here. maybe you will let this experience alter your behaviour in the future

[crunchyfrog]

Opprinnelig skrevet av endrsgm:

Opprinnelig skrevet av crunchyfrog:

Not a problem, it hasn't been easy to follow thanks to some making up stuff about me.

Just to make it clear again for anyone (and to erase this confusion), I haven't made ANY claim about this or Valve or anything. I take the default position of NO DECISION, because I simply have not enough evidence to form such an opinion.

And that's why I'm posting this here - I simply think "hey Valve,I have no idea if this is true, but I'm leaving it for you to look into if that's OK". In short, I'm doing no idfferent to reporting an account or something on here. Ain't my poisition to make a decision as it's moot.


I hope that makes things abundantly clear.

Thanks for the honesty, much appreciated.

now you know how all the other people who post in suggestions feel when they get attacked, as is the norm here. maybe you will let this experience alter your behaviour in the future :stein:

What a ridiculously illogical assertion.

Fact has no bearing to how many people believe or do such a thing. It doesn't make it truer the more people believe something.

I've made it abundantly clear that I take the default position here. I've just posted this and have made NO decision on what I think about it myself, much as a hostory teacher teaching kids about World War 2 therefore must be a nazi.
It CANNOT be my fault they don't understand this.

So no, emotional crap doesn't work, sorry.

And who said I was being attacked? What a silly assertion. This is discussion. Projection much?

[endrsgm]

OK. enjoy the discussion.

[crunchyfrog]

Opprinnelig skrevet av endrsgm:

OK. enjoy the discussion.
:lindisfarne:

I do.

I'm sorry you made the error that thinking a discussion either means I'm getting attacked, or that I take it personally or anything.
I've already explained to you many times I don't.

There's nothing wrong here, and it bother me not in the slightest. It's almost like what's the word? Maturity.