Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 29 2019, @02:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the need-more-blockchain dept.

Gold bars fraudulently stamped with the logos of major refineries are being inserted into the global market to launder smuggled or illegal gold, refining and banking executives tell Reuters. The fakes are hard to detect, making them an ideal fund-runner for narcotics dealers or warlords.

In the last three years, bars worth at least $50 million stamped with Swiss refinery logos, but not actually produced by those facilities, have been identified by all four of Switzerland's leading gold refiners and found in the vaults of JPMorgan Chase & Co., one of the major banks at the heart of the market in bullion, said senior executives at gold refineries, banks and other industry sources.

[...] "The latest fake bars ... are highly professionally done," said Michael Mesaric, the chief executive of refinery Valcambi. He said maybe a couple of thousand have been found, but the likelihood is that there are "way, way, way more still in circulation. And it still exists, and it still works."

Fake gold bars - blocks of cheaper metal plated with gold - are relatively common in the gold industry and often easy to detect.

The counterfeits in these cases are subtler: The gold is real, and very high purity, with only the markings faked. Fake-branded bars are a relatively new way to flout global measures to block conflict minerals and prevent money-laundering. Such forgeries pose a problem for international refiners, financiers and regulators as they attempt to purge the world of illicit trade in bullion.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-swiss-fakes-exclusive/exclusive-fake-branded-bars-slip-dirty-gold-into-world-markets-idUSKCN1VI0DD


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 29 2019, @02:45PM (11 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 29 2019, @02:45PM (#887295) Journal

    Well, fuck modern society. If it's gold, it's gold, and it's none of your business where it came from. Now, if I attempted to pass off some gold-plated, or gold-painted lead as gold, THEN it would be forgery.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=3, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @05:54PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @05:54PM (#887407)

    Okay, so some thought experiments for you:

    1) Somebody uses a brick to smash a widow, break into a store, steals a 75" flatscreen TV. They now sell it to you for a 75% discount, ("it fell off a truck, you see?"). Is that okay?

    2) There is an iPhone which was made in the iPhone manufacturing plant using genuine parts. The problem is that it was done in secret during a 3rd-shift (when the factory is supposed to be turned off). They sell it to you. Is that okay?

    3) Somebody buys a suit from a local store. They then sell it to a collector as, "the genuine suite used by Elvis when he went on the Ed Sullivan show." Is that okay?

    4) Somebody has some gold the collected from a war zone using slave labor. They then stamp a seal used by a Swiss firm which certifies the providence of gold, and claim that the gold bar is from some free-trade/etc place. Is this okay?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @07:32PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @07:32PM (#887456)

      Yes, someone stole my friends rug and sold it at the market. Then they used the money to buy booze, which included a tax. I deserve my cut of that tax back.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @08:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @08:25PM (#887479)

        Oh, and all the money spent by drug dealers that went to tax. I want that paid back too.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @07:39PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @07:39PM (#887461)

      I'm not GP, but my personal answers, maybe they'll prove I'm a good/bad individual:
      1) Okay for who? The one who stole it should be required to make the store whole including the full value of everything they stole, but I as someone who DIDN'T rob the store but instead bought a "lightly used TV" on the used market shouldn't be held liable for not verifying that the seller actually acquired the item legally. This varies where there's a legal verifiable chain of ownership such as a deed or title, like land and/or vehicles, but for a commodity where any one is as good as any other and chain of ownership isn't reasonable to confirm, the buyer shouldn't be out anything.
      2) No, because I do not like or want an iPhone. Given your meaning, the question is how they're representing it. If they're representing it as "!Phone" making clear that it's a 100% Apple compatible product, then I'm OK with that, assuming the parts used are not stolen(assuming that as factory feedstock is typically inventoried). If they're selling it as the actual iPhone product, then no because that's inaccurate/incomplete. You wouldn't call up IBM when your 100% IBM compatible Acer 386 had issues, and Acer selling it as an IBM would similarly be wrong to use a historical example.
      3) No, again misrepresenting the product. Assuming second hand local store and not a new suit, "Elvis-era suit without confirmed ownership chain that may have been worn by Elvis during his appearances on the Ed Sullivan show" would pass and caveat emptor would apply, but then I'm steeped in modern ad-speak.
      4) Why was someone allowed to use slave labor in a war zone? So, as indicated no. Because they aren't that firm and so should not use that logo. I'm not sure it shouldn't be trademark infringement instead of counterfeiting though, especially if it's found that the claims and product are up to the required purity standards.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 29 2019, @11:31PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 29 2019, @11:31PM (#887549) Journal

        trademark infringement instead of counterfeiting

        That, exactly.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:14PM (#887519)

      So by your logic, in this article's example, the JP Morgan commodity crew should be fined/imprisoned because they pretty much admitted to have "illegal" gold bars?

      Or are you spinning yet another fluffy logic that "they didn't know, so not their fault?"

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 29 2019, @11:41PM (4 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 29 2019, @11:41PM (#887551) Journal

      1. is outright theft, and the purchaser has received stolen goods. Depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances, receiving may be a serious offense, or not.

      2. is also theft, by an employee, ditto above

      3. similar scams happen all the time, and I can't empathize with your collector

      4. iPhones have been built all along in slave-labor conditions - have you forgotten the people who jumped to their deaths, because they couldn't handle the conditions any longer? Yet, millions of Americans have iPhones. What I'm seeing here, is hypocrisy, and I'm not climbing aboard the hypocrisy train.

      5. Control freaks, and authoritarians are always dreaming up ways to prevent other people from capitalizing on whatever. If I acquire some gold, I have to submit to those authorities in order to convert my gold into currency? That falls right in line with limitations on my banking accounts. If I engage in any transaction over $10,000, I have to explain myself to some government thug, as well as the bank? To hell with all of that.

      I just can't be terribly concerned that the authoritarians may not be in control.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30 2019, @12:14AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30 2019, @12:14AM (#887569)

        Is it acceptable for a collection of individuals can group together and act to achieve some end, such as choosing to try to boycott a group they don't like? (Such as trying to boycott what they perceived to be unsustainable farming practices which result in tasteless tomatoes.)

        Is it acceptable for other individuals to defraud the first group of people by misrepresenting what something is to that first group. (Yes-siree-bob, this is 100% organic, no pesticide, no fertilizer, naturally grown heirloom tomatoes, believe you me.)

        If the first thing is acceptable to do and the second thing is not acceptable, then how should this be prevented? Especially how should this be enforced across nation states, when you can't go to "the control freaks, and authoritarians" and have your "day in court?"

        Just to round this out, the analogy is boycotting conflict minerals, and organizations engaging in fraudulent behavior (forging manufacturing marks) to deceive those boycotting people.

        5. Control freaks, and authoritarians are always dreaming up ways to prevent other people from capitalizing on whatever. If I acquire some gold, I have to submit to those authorities in order to convert my gold into currency? That falls right in line with limitations on my banking accounts. If I engage in any transaction over $10,000, I have to explain myself to some government thug, as well as the bank? To hell with all of that.

        Uhh... what? Did we read the same article? I didn't see anything there about submitting to authorities to convert gold into currency.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 30 2019, @12:31AM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 30 2019, @12:31AM (#887581) Journal

          Uhh... what? Did we read the same article? I didn't see anything there about submitting to authorities to convert gold into currency.

          Obviously, we did NOT read the same article. The article that I read states pretty clearly that only certain authorities may stamp gold bars with intricate markings. Said markings make those bars legal and acceptable to use in trade, while the lack of said markings makes the same gold bars suspect. Ultimately, if I want to engage in trade in gold, then I must submit to authority.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30 2019, @01:44AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30 2019, @01:44AM (#887597)

            So you have a problem with a group of people joining together to not buy tasteless tomatoes?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 30 2019, @04:45AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 30 2019, @04:45AM (#887650) Journal

            The article that I read states pretty clearly that only certain authorities may stamp gold bars with intricate markings.

            Sorry, looks like fraud and trademark violations to me. You can do the same to create fake Coca Cola products. The counterfeiters in question could have stamped those gold bars with their own intricate markings and thus become yet another authority of this sort.

            Ultimately, if I want to engage in trade in gold, then I must submit to authority.

            Any sort of trade really. Trading in counterfeit Gucci bags or Rolex watches is going to run afoul of the law too.