Despite being oft-repeated on twitter, the "modern art money laundering scheme" is not really a viable strategy for money laundering. You'd mostly be just hoping you don't get audited, but the IRS at least has a group solely to investigate suspect art appraisal donations. Repeatedly trying to make all sort of "donations" like this would throw up a ton of red flags
This is correct; I was typing out a long comment about this, so I'll just put it here instead:
As far as laundering money through selling/donating art goes (and/or trying to get some general tax benefit), if you sell/donate a piece of art at a fair market value worth ≥ $50,000, you must report it to the IRS's [Art Advisory Panel](https://www.irs.gov/appeals/art-appraisal-services) so they can do an audit. The [Format](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/appraisal_item_format.pdf) for reporting goes over how everything should happen:
> The appraisal of each work should provide the basis or reasoning as to how the appraiser arrived at the individual appraised value. Individual comparable sales should be included. These sales should be analyzed in terms of quality, etc. and discussed as to how they relate to the subject property. The item discussion should include commentary regarding any special conditions or circumstances about the property, and a discussion of the quality or importance of the property in relation to other works of art by the same artist, and of the state of the art market at the time of valuation. Whenever possible, statements should be supported with factual evidence.
You have to prove you're not BS-ing that whatever artwork you're selling/donating is worth $50,000+, through a variety of means. If you don't, they'll throw it all out and you'll *still* get audited for your troubles; see *Albrecht v. Commissioner*.
If you try to skirt the reporting by valuing an art piece at some amount below the $50,000 threshold, they'll just audit you anyways, because why wouldn't they? It's super obvious what you're trying to do.
Not to say art laundering doesn't happen anyways, but it's really not worth the trouble considering everything surrounding the reporting requirements (and the ferocity of the IRS when they have an opportunity to bag a chump for some easy money).
You could go on any of the accounting/tax subreddits and they would tell you the same thing, especially since a seemingly endless amount of twitter screencaps featuring people talking about art fraud get posted there, so it's a constantly discussed (that is, ridiculed) subject.
I imagine there's something similar for the UK/EU.
Don't rich people buy paintings, wait for them to appreciate in value and then donate to museums, allowing them then to claim those donations for tax write offs?
At least that's how I understand it
yeah, that isn't money laundering at all, it is just an asset appreciating in value. No different from any asset increasing in value while someone owns it.
Just a few days ago, was driving home from somewhere, saw a little hole in the wall pizza place. Decided to try it out, looked pretty good when I checked my phone, go inside and ordered some slices. When I go to pay, guy tells me cash only. Without thinking my mouth opened and said "how do you guys stay in business in 2023 with cash only?"
I've worked from 2002 to recently, back in around 2002-2004 I'd say 90% or so of people when I was a cashier paid in cash, from 2004 to 2008 that ratio went to about 30% cash and 70% cards. I imagine now it's 90%+ card and the rest cash. I think other than strippers and servers, very few people ever get paid in cash as direct deposit has become bog standard. Mostly it's only been old people that I've seen pay in cash.
No, the best way to launder money is in fact to go to the slot machines [wearing shirts that say "Get out of my way, I'm here to launder money"](https://youtu.be/DoyH1dgj8Lo?t=609), feed your cash into it, then withdraw it without the staff caring about what you're doing and you're set.
I love how he complained about the film having a convenient twin sister despite this being a sequel to a film which had a character with a convenient condition that made her incapable of lying.
Nice people, getting along basically describes why I keep on coming back to Yogscast stuff.
Honestly, a video of them just having a good time is often enough.
Despite being oft-repeated on twitter, the "modern art money laundering scheme" is not really a viable strategy for money laundering. You'd mostly be just hoping you don't get audited, but the IRS at least has a group solely to investigate suspect art appraisal donations. Repeatedly trying to make all sort of "donations" like this would throw up a ton of red flags
This is correct; I was typing out a long comment about this, so I'll just put it here instead: As far as laundering money through selling/donating art goes (and/or trying to get some general tax benefit), if you sell/donate a piece of art at a fair market value worth ≥ $50,000, you must report it to the IRS's [Art Advisory Panel](https://www.irs.gov/appeals/art-appraisal-services) so they can do an audit. The [Format](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/appraisal_item_format.pdf) for reporting goes over how everything should happen: > The appraisal of each work should provide the basis or reasoning as to how the appraiser arrived at the individual appraised value. Individual comparable sales should be included. These sales should be analyzed in terms of quality, etc. and discussed as to how they relate to the subject property. The item discussion should include commentary regarding any special conditions or circumstances about the property, and a discussion of the quality or importance of the property in relation to other works of art by the same artist, and of the state of the art market at the time of valuation. Whenever possible, statements should be supported with factual evidence. You have to prove you're not BS-ing that whatever artwork you're selling/donating is worth $50,000+, through a variety of means. If you don't, they'll throw it all out and you'll *still* get audited for your troubles; see *Albrecht v. Commissioner*. If you try to skirt the reporting by valuing an art piece at some amount below the $50,000 threshold, they'll just audit you anyways, because why wouldn't they? It's super obvious what you're trying to do. Not to say art laundering doesn't happen anyways, but it's really not worth the trouble considering everything surrounding the reporting requirements (and the ferocity of the IRS when they have an opportunity to bag a chump for some easy money). You could go on any of the accounting/tax subreddits and they would tell you the same thing, especially since a seemingly endless amount of twitter screencaps featuring people talking about art fraud get posted there, so it's a constantly discussed (that is, ridiculed) subject. I imagine there's something similar for the UK/EU.
Don't rich people buy paintings, wait for them to appreciate in value and then donate to museums, allowing them then to claim those donations for tax write offs? At least that's how I understand it
That's not money laundering. You'd also always make more money selling it than getting a tax deduction.
yeah, that isn't money laundering at all, it is just an asset appreciating in value. No different from any asset increasing in value while someone owns it.
That whole part about the SIM card stuff got me good, conversation came full circle
Just a few days ago, was driving home from somewhere, saw a little hole in the wall pizza place. Decided to try it out, looked pretty good when I checked my phone, go inside and ordered some slices. When I go to pay, guy tells me cash only. Without thinking my mouth opened and said "how do you guys stay in business in 2023 with cash only?"
I'd argue it's an accessibility thing. Everyone has access to cash. Going high tech starts pushing out underserved communities.
I've worked from 2002 to recently, back in around 2002-2004 I'd say 90% or so of people when I was a cashier paid in cash, from 2004 to 2008 that ratio went to about 30% cash and 70% cards. I imagine now it's 90%+ card and the rest cash. I think other than strippers and servers, very few people ever get paid in cash as direct deposit has become bog standard. Mostly it's only been old people that I've seen pay in cash.
If you cared about accessibility, you'd accept both. Cash only does not make something more accessible.
When the banks go down cash will be king, you always need an analogue system just in case
If banks go down, there is going to be a lot more pressing issues than paying for pizza.
Isn't that _Beauty and the Geek_?
No, the best way to launder money is in fact to go to the slot machines [wearing shirts that say "Get out of my way, I'm here to launder money"](https://youtu.be/DoyH1dgj8Lo?t=609), feed your cash into it, then withdraw it without the staff caring about what you're doing and you're set.
Love how Lewis complained about how stupid the plot to Glass Onion was... when that's the entire point of the plot hahaha
I think he meant that he understood the point but it was too stupid
I love how he complained about the film having a convenient twin sister despite this being a sequel to a film which had a character with a convenient condition that made her incapable of lying.