mraleph said:Strictly academicaly - the gift cards as source are tainted which constitutes a predicate crime. Any further money movement is a simple money laundering.
Amateurish, yes. But never underestimate the people's greed.
Nobody should offer any kind of advices, even in MG Gold as this is probably a classical police provocation game. Commenting publicly with advisory context can be interpretated as probable cause and can cast a shadow over the whole OCT and MG Gold.
Of course everything said is in academic terms. Such as on my other articles where I explained about Antidetect browsers. Nothing malicious about them very often used by marketers nowadays. However they had started out (and still used) to commit fraud of any sort where the websites are invasive to the OS/browser of the user. No one is advocating to use them for bad stuff.
mraleph said:For the sake of the anything in what you believe - God or whatever - who gets 200 gift cards with 1.000,00 AUD on every one per day? This is like having a free plutonium rods - who the hell gives them free!?
I don't think he said he gets them for free. I don't want to assume too much from OP but they can be for example from exchanges. He sells cryptocurrency, other digital items or maybe even physical items and receives gift cards in return. It doesn't say anywhere you need to receive actual money you can sell your bubblegum for discount coupons at some restaurant. Completely valid trade.
mraleph said:Don't forget that the one of the most successful joint US and Australia operations was Anom service.
I agree with you. Though the idea in itself is borderline retarded to use "encrypted" phone that you had not secured yourself or use any physical device by company "promising" security, many such operations exist. Same goes for many of those money laundering services. In both these examples the risks are exponential and retroactive.
In that line of thought I would argue it is better to be discussed as it can discourage people from doing something stupid knowing a lot is monitored even silently. In the end of the day a smart lawyer can come up with a completely valid reason to funnel gift cards through a company. In relation to "not real details" it could be your friend or it could be a legitimate reason why you needed to use a nominee-like protection.
I have however slightly edited my answer and ultimately it is up to the admins how and what can be phrased. One should protect themselves to begin with tomorrow twitter can go down if LE decides the content or users are this or that. That is the whole point I believe of the community. Tomorrow the worst can happen history has shown us many examples but if you put in the work in opsec (completely legitimate reason) then the damage would be limited.