You're viewing a single thread.
Despite much information on the internet Bendelladj did not get sentenced to death, and claims saying he donated any money to charity are almost impossible to verify. Trial documents did not mention any donations or charity activities, making the claim of charity disputed and not known for sure.
Is there any proof of the charity claims? Because Wikipedia gives nothing
Would be a bad hacker if he left a trail of all the money
Money leaves a trail by itself, it doesn't magically disappear and reappear somewhere else
I mean no, it doesn't, youre right.
Declaring income would be what most of those charities ans whatnot would prolly need to do somewhere at least. So I find this story dubious.
At the same time though, it is technically possible for him to have put money on crypto and email someone the keys to the wallets.
Even so, all reputable charities have a way to do honest accounting with rich anonymous donors or else that would be a real easy way to wash dirty money.
Yeah my point exactly.
But if this guy wasn't concerned about washing it and thought to leave that to the charities idk. He was a hacker, not an accountant for a cartel, so can't expect much.
But yeah giving away billions of stolen money would be a lot harder than some in the thread seem to think it is. I mean, technically you can give it via crypto but is it then of use is an other question
Wouldn't turning it into cash in separate transactions over some time and then paying it in via proxy be enough to make it untraceable from him? If you knew which charities, I think you'd still be able to track it down, but done that way this is also untraceable.
We're talking about billions. If he was converting $100,000 of that $4b per day, he'd clean his money in.... about 109 years.
There is a huge business of money laundering built specifically for this purpose. Any hacker worth their salt should know someone or some place.
Pretty much any word in the picture is contradicted by the Wikipedia article
As many narrative exist depending on who's facts you're listening to.
Homeboy probably spent .000001% of the money on PR, bought a shitton of bitcoin with the rest, go to jail a few years, buy an island when he gets out, maybe Trump will be willing to sell Greenland to him at that point who knows
That article doesn't cite anything either, only that "some sources say" he donated some of the money. A far cry from the claim that he donated all of the stolen $4b.
Al-Jazeera is not a credible source
More credible than most US media conglomerate news sources
Oh my God, could there be alternatives somewhere between the US and radical Islamists? 😱
Sure. Jacobin et al
Aljazeera is a fine source as long as you're not looking at their news regarding Qatar/Qatari interests.
Absolutely, that's their one major source of bias. They lean mildly to the left, but I'm very much okay with that given what "leaning right" means these days
not a credible source
So like the New York Times?
Yeah no.
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER (-3.2) Factual Reporting: MIXED (4.7) Country: Qatar MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: LIMITED FREEDOM Media Type: TV Station Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
What’s a good unbiased source? As an example I checked DW on the above website and while they’re rated as being left center and having a high factual reporting, thanks to Germany’s general bias they currently report very little about Palestine.
I think you have to read a variety of sources and favor the outlets that report facts without reporter opinion. I'd use Al jazeera for news outside of the middle east, but also add reuters and Associated Press.
Foreign language press is also interesting if you feel your sources have bias.