BY the way even that is nothing illegal at all. Every investment bank does it every single day. Most prop desks run an index arb book in order to easily sell shares intraday that they hold long against index futures
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is this trading strategy illegal or against some brokers policy?
- Thread starter tysonmoch123
- Start date
I never even wrote about boxes nor replied to boxes. Read more carefully please.
I don't understand how those two posts could be misinterpreted. But I will leave this thread now and I don't like talking to trolls.
poll: Do you treat your broker fairly?Is this what ET has turned into?
Eight pages of splitting hairs over whether some kid trying to rip off his broker is a criminal or just a fraudster?
I guess I'm only surprised that a poll hasn't been posted yet.
or do you just try to rip them off?
If you ripoff a bucket shop that is trading against you is that illegal?
Would you ever open an account with a 400:1 broker who accepts credit cards?
A lot of incorrect information:
a) Giving 7.5k to someone else is not money laundering. Bollocks!!! What they do with the money they received as gift is up to them. If anything the recipient of the gift may have to declare taxes on those. But guaranteed it is not money laundering. By the way, let me school you on some facts: No broker in the world will ask you where the money is from that you intend to fund your account with. Why? Because it is not required by law and hence is irrelevant. What is very relevant, however, is that your bank asks you where the money is from when you receive certain sums in your bank account. Why? Because they are required by law to do so. So, you receiving money from someone is not money laundering. Nor is it if you deposit the received money in your bank account. And it is also not money laundering when you turn around and transfer the deposited money from your bank account to your brokerage account.
b) You just said John opened an account in his name. So he is the beneficial owner of the account. He can do with any of the proceeds as pleases him. If he returns money to you as a gift then you may have to declare certain taxes. But again its not money laundering.
c) By the way you can open both accounts with different brokers in your own name. Nothing speaks against that and because you are not acting illegally by shorting in one account and longing in another account you do not commit any fraud or criminal act whatsoever, no John involved.
d) Here is where you are being stupid: Even if you opened two accounts in your name with different brokers, with the EUR/USD example you are long 17.5k and flat in the account (given as OP laid it out, that you are forgiven negative account balances). So, you are in no way flat but up 2.5k. This whole story has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether you involve another individual or do it all on your own. You are missing the point completely.
Your claim of charges is utter bullshit. Sorry mate, but you already messed up the whole story, there is no wire fraud nor money laundering going on at all. Again, you do not need to involve any John, and even if you involved another individual...in Germany, for example, you can give 1 billion Euros to whoever pleases you as long as applicable taxes are paid (inheritance or gift giving, or what have you). I am almost sure the same applies in the US, Japan, France, or any other country as well. Your law degree utterly fails you here...
Volpunter sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I don't understand everyone and their mom crying out about what the OP is trying to do by saying it is wrong, etc.. What about all these brokers and institutions who manipulate the markets and make it difficult for us small traders to succeed? I wonder where all these people are when its time to speak up against that kind of manipulation of markets. But yet people want to sit here and complain about how the OP is wrong for what he is trying to do, which is nothing, compared to the fraud that happens on a daily basis with institutions. I don't get it. If i were the OP i would go ahead and go for it, as someone said, its not illegal, just a little manipulation on his part.
First of all...I would continue to do it if it were me, but I wouldn't say anything else about it publicly. Consider this... my parents use to own a business where they would loan out equipment, but it had to be returned cleaned inside and out. People would get lazy and not do their contractual part. We would have to clean it ourselves and at the same time other customers were waiting for this equipment to rent. All of this took extra time, money and messed up the schedule. We would bill the customer to compensate for their lack of fulfilling the contract. Guess what? A lot of these customers refused to pay. Is this a crime or is it manipulation or is it what? We would sue in small claims court for much more than our previous attempts and we would win every time. My point is....if they find out about this, they may try to do the same thing. People would play dumb(ignorance) in court... never worked for any of them. Just don't get caught... it could be costly. They have the right to recover any losses. I don't think it matters that the broker is stupid enough to have this flaw in their system...it didn't matter that my parents let customers return equipment only cleaned on the outside and later finding the inside trashed... we always won in court! As far as the institutions manipulating us and the markets...I get that... but it will be irrelevant if they go after tysonmoch123!Volpunter sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I don't understand everyone and their mom crying out about what the OP is trying to do by saying it is wrong, etc.. What about all these brokers and institutions who manipulate the markets and make it difficult for us small traders to succeed? I wonder where all these people are when its time to speak up against that kind of manipulation of markets. But yet people want to sit here and complain about how the OP is wrong for what he is trying to do, which is nothing, compared to the fraud that happens on a daily basis with institutions. I don't get it. If i were the OP i would go ahead and go for it, as someone said, its not illegal, just a little manipulation on his part.
Obviously anyone with cognitive function would know that I meant "connected" accounts in the context of the same broker, retard
You are like the annoying aspie/autist kid in class - with an insecure, narcissitic complex - who feels he has to raise his hand to answer every (rhetorical) qn.
1000s of shitposts (+ your old AsiaProp alias) confirms it
If you were in the same class I would kick your shit back in thru your mouth, aspie
(LOL - if you think the OP was the 1st to think of this ruse)
You are like the annoying aspie/autist kid in class - with an insecure, narcissitic complex - who feels he has to raise his hand to answer every (rhetorical) qn.
1000s of shitposts (+ your old AsiaProp alias) confirms it
If you were in the same class I would kick your shit back in thru your mouth, aspie
(LOL - if you think the OP was the 1st to think of this ruse)
You are definitely the biggest tool in this thread:
* the accounts are not connected nor related, in fact they can be with two completely different brokers. If it's done in the same name then no misrepresentation is made whatsoever. Hence no fraud committed. Get your fuxxing facts straight. And yes we are all out there to make a profit at the expense of others losing money. Welcome to the financial industry. What an idiot.
Last edited:
so you admit you completely misunderstood the OP's situation. He never talked about separate accounts with the same broker. And yes, the violent kids (that need to "kick the shit back in thru the mouth") are usually the dumb ones that fail the class and end up being building cleaners.
Obviously anyone with cognitive function would know that I meant "connected" accounts in the context of the same broker, retard
You are like the annoying aspie/autist kid in class - with an insecure, narcissitic complex - who feels he has to raise his hand to answer every (rhetorical) qn.
1000s of shitposts (+ your old AsiaProp alias) confirms it
If you were in the same class I would kick your shit back in thru your mouth, aspie
(LOL - if you think the OP was the 1st to think of this ruse)
I opened another IB account in hk just 2 months ago and funded it with several millions (usd). I showed up in person at their office for the mandatory hk validation procedure but at no point did I have to indicate the source of my funds. Not in writing nor verbally.
Money laundering comes only into effect when illicit money enters the financial system by being used to pay for assets or attempted to be used to fund bank accounts. Usually payment processors are only required to verify the funding source at the first point of entry into the financial system. That would be the case if I carried a sports bag full of cash to my broker. However I could transfer millions between my HSBC and JPM accounts without having to indicate the source of funds at all
I actually had in mind to double check IB's current Policy regarding origin of funds before replying as i'm suspicious of your claim, but considering I need to set up a new email to go through their online application, it won't happen very soon.
But I have seen retail brokerage application forms recently which ask for the origin of funds, hence your generalisation of "No broker in the world will ask you about the origin of funds" is at the very least least an oversatement.
Besides i was told a couple of years ago by an IB rep in HK that as long as one has already opened an account with IB in HK, personal or corporate, showing up in their office in person is not necessary fo further account openings, although it's not very relevant to the OP's issue.
correct, but my other IB accounts were all registered in Japan. Hence the IB requirement in HK to show up in person. And I still do not understand why any broker in general would have to validate the fund origins as long as it is transferred from a traceable bank account. Monday laundering enters the system when cash or assets are attempted to be converted to funding at the bank level. Why do you think, even the smallest Mexican banks nowadays have to require a proof of legitimate funding sources if they want to remain part of the Mexican central bank payment system (which in turn is a requirement to conduct any international wire business). And why do you think a lot of the drug money is horded in cash in warehouses rather than it easily entering the banking system. My point is, once illicit money or assets enter the banking stream such money is already laundered. My claim remains, if you manage to fund your bank account with money then you can easily use such funds to in turn fund any brokerage account of your choice. At least nothing speaks against that, legally speaking.
I actually had in mind to double check IB's current Policy regarding origin of funds before replying as i'm suspicious of your claim, but considering I need to set up a new email to go through their online application, it won't happen very soon.
But I have seen retail brokerage application forms recently which ask for the origin of funds, hence your generalisation of "No broker in the world will ask you about the origin of funds" is at the very least least an oversatement.
Besides i was told a couple of years ago by an IB rep in HK that as long as one has already opened an account with IB in HK, personal or corporate, showing up in their office in person is not necessary fo further account openings, although it's not very relevant to the OP's issue.