On 20-Mar-12 02:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:00:09 on Mon, 19 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
It's not the kind of secret that would keep very well.

There are plenty of reasons for everyone (both the criminals and the
banks) to keep such a success very, very secret.

They might try to, but I'm sure they'd fail. If the criminals and the
banks conspired together such that only the banks saw any financial
loss, then they might get away with it

I doubt they'd directly conspire, but that may be the emergent behavior
when each seeks to optimize their own behavior.

(although it would be simpler for the banks just to pay the criminals
direct).

It would have been simpler for WWII to have been resolved by a game of
checkers, but I doubt either side would have accepted that.

Otherwise there will be third parties seeing losses, and questions
would be asked.

Merchants who authorize their transactions rarely see losses because the
banks are liable for third-party fraud; those who don't will be told
they should if they don't like being liable for fraud.

The banks are willing to accept a certain level of fraud (I've heard
1-3%) because it's easily compensated by the profits they make in
transaction fees and interest.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking