USA: Guilty until proven innocent?
- Glyn MacLean
- Apr 24
- 2 min read
The case below which spanned over two-years was interesting, because it led to uncover a master criminal operating out of a USA location. Remotely guiding staff within a business in another USA location to defraud that business. Then launder stolen funds, implicating an innocent third party blockchain company as the criminal.
Evidence demonstrated that a complex inside-job fraud occurred between workers within a company who conspired to steal and then launder corporate funds through a legitimate blockchain enterprise.
The evidence clearly demonstrated the blockchain company took every measure possible to prevent money laundering, proved that a counter party was involved in remotely coordinating an inside job, and leaves the DOJ case in tatters.
While the details of this recent case are under MNDA,
I can speak to highlights of the overall situation. (I will release more details once the case is on public record in the U.S. court system.)
A BLOCKCHAIN COMPANY INNOCENT
OF MONEY LAUNDERING
The most recent corporate job that I completed involved proving that a Blockchain company was innocent of money laundering charges by DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice) by presenting evidence that demonstrated the real criminal counterparty.
This was achieved by using OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) and Human Intelligence Investigation techniques, combined with Cyber Forensics and Crypto tracing to identify the unknown and unseen behaviours of both known and unknown persons.
Using a professional OSINT tool, the evidence demonstrated that a 'known counterparty' testimony had not been checked, they had lied about their identity and location.
No one at the bank, Law Enforcement or DOJ had checked.
The OSINT tool provided a judicial standard forensic mobile phone identity record that upheld chain of evidence standards from Telco data to establish the counterparty true location and identity.
In this instance, there was sufficient evidence of fraud by the counterparty for probable cause to subpoena mobile phone data to validate the defendents claim of innocence.
However, I found it remarkeable that the US Justice system had judged U.S. Citizens and their company as guilty based on the barest circumstantial evidence - e.g. a transaction was flagged by another victim and never properly checked by the bank that activated the AML (Anti Money Laundering) / SAR (Suspicious Activity Report).
Victims often think that other victims are the criminal.
It is the intent of the real criminal to DIVERT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUSTICE RESOURCES.
DOJ did not uphold the client's inalienable human rights to the presumption of innocence and did not give the client a fair trial.
The AML industry ought to study the Human Rights Act.
This is fundamental to a functional democracy!
Given that decentralised criminals routinely implicate their victims as money laundering mules, Law Enforcement, Justice Departments and banks ought to be diligent to establish real evidence of crime, before acting with prejudice against corporate victims of crime.
And if they harm innocent parties,
damages should be paid. I AM OPEN TO WORK. Reach out to me via website LIVE CHAT.
Glyn MacLean FOUNDER
