Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shevek]

Jane decides to become a mole for people. She will open non-interest bearing DBA bank accounts. The DBA account name will be the name of a "client." She opens only one account for a "client" at different banks to avoid "suspicious" activities. If necessary, Jane tells the bank account manager that the DBA name is a pen name. The account is lawfully and legally Jane's account.

The "client" receives a pay check, money order, or some other non cash payment. For a 1% commission, Jane cashes the check of the "client" using the DBA account of the same name. To avoid trust issues, because the account is lawfully and legally Jane's account, Jane buys the check from the "client" at a discount. The "client" has the cash in hand and doesn't worry about Jane stealing the entire check. Jane then cashes the check for herself. For example, Jane buys a "client's" $1,000 check for $990 cash. "Client" certainly does not mind the 1% fee because hiring a nominee provides privacy and check cashing abilities. Small price to pay.

To reduce paper trails Jane never deposits checks and only cashes them. A non-interest bearing account keeps the account low profile with certain JBTs.

Would This Idea Work?

[Eric]

Seperate from any legal issues of laundering, etc. I have noticed a recent procedure of my local credit union that affects this.  They actually deposit it into my account and thereafter do a cash withdrawl of the amount.   I have used this firm for many years and particularized suspicion triggering this procedure is very unlikely. Cashing the check probably generates some useful trail already, but this procedure suggests an further advantage to the financial institution.

Eric  

[RagnarDanneskjold]

Seperate from any legal issues of laundering, etc. I have noticed a recent procedure of my local credit union that affects this.  They actually deposit it into my account and thereafter do a cash withdrawl of the amount.

They do this so if the check bounces they can assess you all the usual and customary fees, since it must be your fault that the person writing the check to you had insufficient funds.

[svillee]

To avoid trust issues, because the account is lawfully and legally Jane's account, Jane buys the check from the "client" at a discount. The "client" has the cash in hand and doesn't worry about Jane stealing the entire check. Jane then cashes the check for herself. For example, Jane buys a "client's" $1,000 check for $990 cash.

I don't think there's any way to avoid trust issues.  If Jane gives the client $990 in cash at the same time she receives the check, she is running the risk that the check will bounce and she will be out $990 plus bounce fees.

If it's a paycheck from a reputable employer, it might be okay.  Otherwise, she would probably want to pay $495 now, and $495 after 10 days (assuming no bounce).

As a separate issue, how many clients will Jane have?  If she gets say 100 clients, she will either have to find 100 different banks in her region (which is getting harder and harder in these days of bank mergers), or else explain to one bank why she has so many different pen names.
 

[Shevek]

I don't think there's any way to avoid trust issues. If Jane gives the client $990 in cash at the same time she receives the check, she is running the risk that the check will bounce and she will be out $990 plus bounce fees.

I agree. I wrote my text from a narrow perspective. Although not explained in my scenario, I also assumed working with somebody where trust is not and should not be a critical issue.

Otherwise, she would probably want to pay $495 now, and $495 after 10 days (assuming no bounce).

A reasonable compromise.

As a separate issue, how many clients will Jane have?

Agreed. I wrote my scenario open-ended, but in reality I realized she would be limited. She probably could get by with two DBA accounts per bank, but probably no more. Another potential caveat, however, is with each account the bankers notify FINCEN and the IRS thugs. Too many accounts might raise red flags.

If I reduce the scenario to one or two clients, and add that the agreement is between two people who trust each other implicitly, I think the agreement would work. Of course, written contracts might allow Jane to service additional clients and if the thugs investigate she has a "paper trail" to validate her actions. Still, I agree that in today's nonsense world Jane probably is limited to only a couple of clients.

[svillee]

Here's a variation on your theme.  Suppose David is a potential client of someone like Jane, but can't find anyone who is in the Jane business, because each Jane can only handle a couple of clients.

David finds a homeless person Frank, and proposes a business arrangement.  He gets Frank some decent clothes, arranges for him to get cleaned up a bit, maybe pays for a haircut and shave.  If Frank does not currently have the documents needed to open a bank account, David helps him to obtain these legally in the usual manner.  If Frank does not currently have a valid residential address, David makes appropriate arrangements, e.g., perhaps "sharing" David's place (not really though, just receiving Frank's mail).

Once he is presentable, Frank goes into the bank and opens a non-interest bearing account with David as the DBA name.  Later he gets an ATM debit card for the account, and activates Internet banking.

Frank gives David the debit card, the PIN, the password for Internet banking, and a bunch of deposit slips.  Thereafter, when David wants to cash a check, he needs to find Frank, for him to endorse the check.  Then David deposits the check, and starting 10 days later, withdraws a few hundred dollars a day in cash from the ATM.

It's unclear how much Frank would charge for this service, but there are lots of homeless people, so David can shop around a bit.  David will be spending some up front money for the clothes, haircut and so on, plus any fees for getting the ID documents.  The main risk is that David will be unable to find Frank when he really needs him, or that Frank will suddenly get greedy and charge a lot for the endorsement.

Also, unlike your original scenario, the checks are actually deposited, not just cashed, so some paper trail is left.  But as Eric pointed out, the bank may "virtually" deposit the check anyway.  And the account is non-interest bearing, so as long as the deposits are not too big or too frequent, it shouldn't raise any flags.
 

[rayray]

IMO, have your mole open an account and make out every check to your business.  Make your mole a hidden member of the company so they can sign off.  Better yet, have them get checks, sign them, but leave them blank for you to fill in and avoid street people, IMO.  Keep tabs on them for sure.   You can use the checks to do what you like, and forget about DBA's, they offer no privacy, stick with LLC's, Corps, Trusts and other entities that way there is a paper trail among the both of you and contracts between you can mean the difference between someone who sells you out or stays true to the goal, and heck they don't even have to know what the real deal is.