Bank

Criminals connect to online banking platforms through Tor or multi-hop VPNs to disguise their true IP addresses, which frustrates location-based detection and device fingerprinting controls. This makes it harder for banks to identify consistent usage patterns or flag unusual cross-border transactions based on realistic geographic profiles.

Supplies the retail and corporate accounts that bots exploit for scheduled micro-transfers; inadequate rule tuning can let velocity bursts pass unnoticed.

Banks are exploited in this scheme by:

• Extending credit or early payment against fraudulent bills of exchange, often unaware of the misrepresented trade.
• Discounting or financing these instruments, later receiving repayments from illicit proceeds disguised as regular loan or trade settlements.
• In some cases, collusive insiders may knowingly approve funding on fabricated invoices, further aiding money laundering through trade finance channels.

Banks are exploited to issue or confirm letters of credit for supposed trade transactions by:

• Evaluating each letter of credit on an isolated basis, unaware that funds are circulating in a closed loop among related shell companies.
• Relying on apparently legitimate documentation, which masks the lack of genuine goods or commercial substance in the overall chain.

Banks host cross-border accounts and process transfers of illicit proceeds derived from commodity trafficking.

• Complex wire transfers or multiple account relationships can mask illegal origins.
• Financial institutions must reconcile transaction flows with trade documentation to identify potential red flags.

In a respondent capacity, the bank provides accounts or payment services without sufficiently verifying customer risk or transaction activity. Criminals exploit this gap to:

• Initiate or layer illicit transfers under the assumption that minimal checks will not be questioned.
• Pass funds through cross-border channels where the final receiving institution relies on the bank’s inadequate oversight.

Banks receive deposit transactions from counterfeit goods sales, providing a platform for layering through repeated withdrawals and re-deposits.

• Criminals use standard banking products (e.g., local business accounts) to launder illicit proceeds under the guise of legitimate business income.
• Ongoing deposit and withdrawal activities, especially across multiple accounts, complicate financial institutions' transaction monitoring and customer due diligence.

Banks become part of the layering chain when launderers:

• Wire or transfer newly converted funds to multiple accounts or jurisdictions.
• Disguise transactions as routine foreign exchange settlements or legitimate business payments.

This reliance on standard banking channels for rapid fund movement further obscures the audit trail and complicates detection efforts.

Unwittingly provides and services the business accounts used for depositing purported jewelry sales:

• Processes deposits masked as routine commercial income, enabling the layering of illicit funds.
• Channels laundered proceeds into the broader financial system under the pretense of legitimate trade.

Banks are unknowingly exploited by fraudsters who:

• Deposit or transfer illicit proceeds, mixing them with legitimate funds.
• Open accounts or submit documentation under false pretenses, making it harder for financial institutions to distinguish genuine transactions from fraudulent ones.

• Criminals open personal accounts or use newly established ones to aggregate fraudulent donations, presenting them as charity-related inflows.
• They must handle numerous small transactions from varied sources, which complicates the identification of suspicious patterns.

Banks are unwittingly exploited when hawaladars or criminals open accounts under fictitious or third-party names, depositing illicit proceeds that avoid conventional scrutiny. Limited or falsified documentation obscures beneficial ownership, bypassing standard KYC and AML controls, and making suspicious activity more difficult for banks to detect.

Banks are used to:

• Deposit earnings from illegal timber under business or personal accounts.
• Transfer and layer funds, commingling legitimate and illicit revenues.

These practices hinder transaction monitoring efforts aimed at uncovering proceeds from unauthorized logging.

Banks are exploited by:

• Opening or maintaining accounts that criminals rapidly deplete through structured cash withdrawals below threshold limits.
• Providing services like ATMs and over-the-counter channels that enable the immediate conversion of illicit funds into physical currency with minimal traceability.

Banks are involved when:

• Criminals deposit the proceeds of sham NFT sales into traditional accounts, presenting them as legitimate art revenues.
• The integration of funds into the regulated financial system obscures their unlawful origin, making detection more difficult.

Banks are unwittingly exploited when criminals deposit illicit funds as payroll and then automatically deduct loan repayments:

• Routine salary inflows and scheduled debt repayments conceal the origin of the funds.
• Monitoring systems struggle to flag these structured transactions as suspicious, as they mirror legitimate payroll-based expenses.

Banks are exploited to deposit and move illicitly retained payroll funds by:

• Holding corporate or business accounts under the guise of legitimate wages, concealing unpaid tax liabilities.
• Processing checks or wire transfers issued from shell companies or underreported payroll accounts.
• Providing routine financial services (e.g., deposits, withdrawals) that make detection of unreported payroll difficult without in-depth transactional scrutiny.

Banks are exploited when recruited mules open or use personal checking accounts. Criminals:

• Deposit illicit funds into these accounts.
• Instruct mules to transfer funds onward, leveraging standard banking services to mask the illegal source.

Banks are unwittingly exploited when:

• Illicit rent payments are deposited into business or personal accounts tied to real estate operations.
• Funds are layered or withdrawn in structured transactions under the guise of legitimate rental income, challenging institutional monitoring efforts.