Re: Dirty Laundry...

[ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)]

> Peter Wayner says:
>> I'm perfectly willing to do a "live" demonstration of money laundering
>> using the futures markets. In your last private letter, you suggested
>> that we use real money. I see no reason to do for two reasons:
>> 
>> 1) Commission costs and other fees are prohibitive for the small
>> amount of money that I have. Plus, why would I want to spend all that
>> money just to prove a point to you?

> Several hours ago I offered in private mail to conduct a bet with you
> in a jurisdiction that permits such bets -- I suggested that $10,000
> might make it worth your while.

>> 2) I see no reason to go out and borrow money for what is essentially
>> an academic exercise. This is a game for the rich. If you've only got
>> to move $10,000 then cash and Fed Ex is fine.

> Well, the return on the bet would be quite handsome -- IF YOU ARE
> RIGHT. (I believe one can make such bets in England -- anyone know for
> sure?) Given that laundering, say, $50,000 successfully would cost
> almost nothing other than interest costs IF YOU ARE RIGHT, the return
> of $10,000 on your interest costs IF YOU ARE RIGHT would be extremely
> nice -- on the order of thousands of percent. IF YOU ARE RIGHT, of
> course.

This system can be tested with a small amount of capital.

Only two contracts will be in play at any time.  So, you need only put
up margin for two contracts.  This is feasible for less than $10,000.
When cash moves the wrong way, it can be funnelled back to the right
broker.  At the end of the game, we can review the brokerage
statements to see if the money ended up where it was supposed to.

Those who doubt Mr. Metzger's analysis should be able to find backers
who will supply this small amount of working capital.  I would guess
that Mr. Metzger would be willing to allow his critics to pool their
resources, should some turn coward or plead poverty.

Peter