Moneygram Problems

Ok, that makes sense. If I say I am sending it to a friend then there is no risk of loss as its a voluntary gift so to speak. Not expecting anything in return. The woman I spoke to from MG was like a drill sergeant ..she did not believe a word I said and I was convincing. Funny thing is, I am a pro photographer and I do in fact by things all the time from forum members all over the world. 

I was afraid of the $1000 limit thing. I should have known better. As for WU, I just got notified my money was picked up so I should be getting an email soon with TN...well, probably tonight. Ill keep everyone posted. Well, I cant really in the Mex Pharm section as I am not at 30 posts yet. I used to be able to post in there but that must have changed on my last hiatus. 

Thanks for the info and answers to my questions.

M

 
If the receiver is a male, I tell them yes, I know this person, it is my worthless brother-in-law borrowing money again. If it is female, then it's my girl friend visiting her relatives. I even had agent me the state I was sending to did not exist, Jalisco, I double checked and the spelling was correct. I guess WU won that one, so I went to the next town and did MG, same state, no problems.

 
Good news is the WU transfer worked just fine and my order is in process....WOOT! Lesson learned about $$$ value and the reason I am sending if ever asked. Invaluable info here. 

Thx

 
topshopslanger said:
any transaction over $1000 through MG always raises red flags, but they are just protecting you from scams.
Click to expand...
You are correct on the $1000 benchmark, as I posted earlier. However, the truth of the matter is that MG doesn't give a rat's ass about saving us from scams. Their concern is their own financial backside, as they incurred more than ten million dollars in federal fines in fiscal 2011 for being an accessory to fraud as well as international money laundering. The countermeasures now in place are to protect them, not the customer. Have a look at their 2011 SEC quarterly and year end financial reports. The numbers don't lie.

 
anyone else had their mg acct flagged by the government? the person from mg told me to call the fbi lol 

 
Did this happen when you went to send money via MG ?

Or were you notified via some other method?

 
386dc said:
anyone else had their mg acct flagged by the government? the person from mg told me to call the fbi lol 
Click to expand...
After briefly dampening my underparents and placing my heart back into its correct place I would say the first thing to do is to get a free consultation with an attorney and get the lawyer to call the FBI.  They have sneaky ways of friendly interrogations and before you know it you are sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.  The Feds are no joke and can get warrants with barely probable cause.  Is this a longtime vendor that you use?  I will refer you to @Hooter for the technical aspects of getting rid of computer messages/cloaking IP addresses.  

Funny story is not too long ago and ignorantly my parents left their Wi-Fi open without an encryption key.  Turns  out people used it for not so kosher reasons.  However having that excuse and knowing my parents saved them from prosecution.

 
386dc said:
anyone else had their mg acct flagged by the government? the person from mg told me to call the fbi lol 
Click to expand...
...on second thought, can you try western union and see if the same problem pops up?

 
Denise said:
Did this happen when you went to send money via MG ?

Or were you notified via some other method?
Click to expand...
went to send mg 

the reciever's naem was typed wrong on the reciept so i assume it was my name that caused the red flag. 

 
Nygiantsfan9202 said:
After briefly dampening my underparents and placing my heart back into its correct place I would say the first thing to do is to get a free consultation with an attorney and get the lawyer to call the FBI.  They have sneaky ways of friendly interrogations and before you know it you are sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.  The Feds are no joke and can get warrants with barely probable cause.  Is this a longtime vendor that you use?  I will refer you to @Hooter for the technical aspects of getting rid of computer messages/cloaking IP addresses.  

Funny story is not too long ago and ignorantly my parents left their Wi-Fi open without an encryption key.  Turns  out people used it for not so kosher reasons.  However having that excuse and knowing my parents saved them from prosecution.
Click to expand...
Although I'm not in a position to offer formal legal advice, I can tell you that if I did in fact have a client who came in reporting this circumstance, the last thing I'd do is immediately call the a federal enforcement agency preemptively. I'm not suggesting that having legal counsel lined up and readily available isn't a good idea, because it is, regardless of whether situations like this come up or not. Anyway, my point being is that if this "agency" had an interest in talking to you, they would make contact themselves, and not pass along any request for contact via a 3rd party, particularly your friendly MG agent desk clerk. Additionally, unless the receiver's name was completely different than originally presented, and not just misspelled, I wouldn't assume that it was the sender that was flagged for scrutiny. Common, simple derivations of a receiver's name could generate internal control alerts as well, as system data filters are often configured to allow for "wild card" characters, i.e. "Jumes" as opposed to "James", etc. The reasoning for such is fairly straight forward, as it serves to eliminate simple misspellings as a method of avoiding the internal control mechanisms.

 
Jewbacca said:
Although I'm not in a position to offer formal legal advice, I can tell you that if I did in fact have a client who came in reporting this circumstance, the last thing I'd do is immediately call the a federal enforcement agency preemptively. I'm not suggesting that having legal counsel lined up and readily available isn't a good idea, because it is, regardless of whether situations like this come up or not. Anyway, my point being is that if this "agency" had an interest in talking to you, they would make contact themselves, and not pass along any request for contact via a 3rd party, particularly your friendly MG agent desk clerk. Additionally, unless the receiver's name was completely different than originally presented, and not just misspelled, I wouldn't assume that it was the sender that was flagged for scrutiny. Common, simple derivations of a receiver's name could generate internal control alerts as well, as system data filters are often configured to allow for "wild card" characters, i.e. "Jumes" as opposed to "James", etc. The reasoning for such is fairly straight forward, as it serves to eliminate simple misspellings as a method of avoiding the internal control mechanisms.
Click to expand...
I have a good childhood friend who is a P.I. and i will ask him, he's a retired officer.  Thanks again for the wisdom.  If it were me however, the sooner you can debunk their case the better.  I once had a case against me but a lawyer caught on early enough that there was a mishandling of evidence (non-violent crime). My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to throw the computer in the field of land mines of another fellow DBG member lol.  Better safe than sorry in these cases.  The disturbing part of this is that I can not find any other thread that discusses any kind of topic like this.

 
Jewbacca said:
Although I'm not in a position to offer formal legal advice, I can tell you that if I did in fact have a client who came in reporting this circumstance, the last thing I'd do is immediately call the a federal enforcement agency preemptively. I'm not suggesting that having legal counsel lined up and readily available isn't a good idea, because it is, regardless of whether situations like this come up or not. Anyway, my point being is that if this "agency" had an interest in talking to you, they would make contact themselves, and not pass along any request for contact via a 3rd party, particularly your friendly MG agent desk clerk. Additionally, unless the receiver's name was completely different than originally presented, and not just misspelled, I wouldn't assume that it was the sender that was flagged for scrutiny. Common, simple derivations of a receiver's name could generate internal control alerts as well, as system data filters are often configured to allow for "wild card" characters, i.e. "Jumes" as opposed to "James", etc. The reasoning for such is fairly straight forward, as it serves to eliminate simple misspellings as a method of avoiding the internal control mechanisms.
Click to expand...
Then again, I may be terribly paranoid so there's always that....lol

 
Nygiantsfan9202 said:
I have a good childhood friend who is a P.I. and i will ask him, he's a retired officer.  Thanks again for the wisdom.  If it were me however, the sooner you can debunk their case the better.  I once had a case against me but a lawyer caught on early enough that there was a mishandling of evidence (non-violent crime). My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to throw the computer in the field of land mines of another fellow DBG member lol.  Better safe than sorry in these cases.  The disturbing part of this is that I can not find any other thread that discusses any kind of topic like this.
Click to expand...
Please don't interpret my comments as a recommendation to NOT seek legal counsel or to NOT take precautionary measures on all matters IT related. Just pointing out that from a criminal defense perspective, making preemptive telephone calls to answer unasked questions is generally not the preferred strategy.

 
The mg clerk was just being a smart ass, I highly doubt the FBI is after you

 
Jewbacca said:
Although I'm not in a position to offer formal legal advice, I can tell you that if I did in fact have a client who came in reporting this circumstance, the last thing I'd do is immediately call the a federal enforcement agency preemptively. I'm not suggesting that having legal counsel lined up and readily available isn't a good idea, because it is, regardless of whether situations like this come up or not. Anyway, my point being is that if this "agency" had an interest in talking to you, they would make contact themselves, and not pass along any request for contact via a 3rd party, particularly your friendly MG agent desk clerk. Additionally, unless the receiver's name was completely different than originally presented, and not just misspelled, I wouldn't assume that it was the sender that was flagged for scrutiny. Common, simple derivations of a receiver's name could generate internal control alerts as well, as system data filters are often configured to allow for "wild card" characters, i.e. "Jumes" as opposed to "James", etc. The reasoning for such is fairly straight forward, as it serves to eliminate simple misspellings as a method of avoiding the internal control mechanisms.
Click to expand...
they put the firstname and 1st last name, they forgot the 2nd lastname i said go put the 2nd last name and it was blocked, so you think maybe it was the reciver not the sender? i already requested a new reciever name and got one

 
What about contacting someone higher up at MG, instead of just a sexually-frustrated desk clerk? 

Perhaps MG would give you more info - an "innocent" person would probably  be outraged and want answers.

Just be prepared before call with answers to any possible questions and be careful what is said to MG (they may record calls "for quality" purposes).

 
Gator said:
The mg clerk was just being a smart ass, I highly doubt the FBI is after you
Click to expand...
not the clerk...

the clerk called moneygram to ask why the txn was stuck in hold status....the mg person said they need to takl to me...the mg person on the phone gave me the FBI ph# and said to call them

 
Denise said:
What about contacting someone higher up at MG, instead of just a sexually-frustrated desk clerk? 

Perhaps MG would give you more info - an "innocent" person would probably  be outraged and want answers.

Just be prepared before call with answers to any possible questions and be careful what is said to MG (they may record calls "for quality" purposes).
Click to expand...
they said they cannot answer questions when the FBI puts a hold only the FBI can answer the questions 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Drugbuyersguide Shoutbox
  1. JustChiilin @ JustChiilin: Just hearing of R.. Is there a thread or post of what happened?
  2. Ketmaster @ Ketmaster: domestic p1ns are harder and harder to come by which sucks and when I find them, they're so expensive
  3. Ketmaster @ Ketmaster: me too. sad to see and hear but honestly when R told me he was serving 6,000 people, I knew it was a matter of time
  4. C @ Charizard179: Still pisses me off, common folk need subscriptions for anxiety etc, while the “big dogs” at the top are obviously subscribed out of their minds on high energy shit
  5. C @ Charizard179: Domestic only for a while. Should be fine
  6. Ketmaster @ Ketmaster: so anything I get coming to me from outside the country will be inspected regardless if it looks sus or not
  7. Ketmaster @ Ketmaster: I've been flagged and sent a love letter a long time ago for an international shipment
  8. Ketmaster @ Ketmaster: doubtful, unless international
  9. C @ Charizard179: Possibilities of getting red flagged etc
  10. Ketmaster @ Ketmaster: right but you're fine
  11. C @ Charizard179: Small fish, 1 time subscriber…shit still sucks
  12. Ketmaster @ Ketmaster: they want big fish
  13. Ketmaster @ Ketmaster: Unless you're a big buyer they don't give a care
  14. L @ Lonertool: Everything is up in the air until we have definitive proof of C let not put that energy in the air! let all just do our part and chill out. Things will settle eventually RESPECT to everyone here of course the important thing is to make sure we all practice great OPSEC and support each other in this time.
  15. Wicked @ Wicked: Monero isn’t a bad idea imo. I’ve asked a few times to use it and been denied actually
  16. M @ Mammasboi123: There’s been some rule
  17. P @ ProtekPhilipe: Should vendors here start prioritizing monero for payment? And maybe show site links for sponsored member threads only. It's a tiny defense, but any way to stay lower key would help right now
  18. etizoman @ etizoman: God fucking dann. Just read the article. Definitely RIP to their normal lives ever again. Both C and R were Amazing people and have provided a lot of great times and some personal wisdom thru their products. And what @Wicked said, its true, man. Sucks you gotta kinda be paranoid when you reach a certain level of status....
  19. Wicked @ Wicked: I agree, it’s unfortunate and a loss for many of us, you’re right R was one of the best. Hopefully it serves as a reminder to others to always stay on top of things. I’m sure it’s easy to get comfortable and feel unstoppable when you reach a certain level as an author
  20. ms3031 @ ms3031: Its unfortunate for everyone but tbh, as with most things illegal, they eventually fall either by their own hand or LE, there are some rare success people but whose to say who is working with authorities and who is not. In fact thjs entire forum creates an easy access to the people they want just a much as we want them. Nothing can be done for those who fly too close to the sun.
Back
Top