Quote:
Originally Posted by CalledDownLight
this depends. Sure, in a normal deal like this lots of people would know because it would be talked about and more efficient to pull more people in, but I'm confident that the money could be moved and the ownership transferred into shell companies with no more than a half dozen people having access if the primary concern was secrecy and not efficiency or timing. If the money is clean and the transaction legal it also doesn't matter if someone's assistant sees some paperwork or emails or fields a phone call. How many people were actually involved just depends on:
1. how many people they trust
2. how much of a priority speed was
3. how secretive they needed to be
Its not really harder from an operational standpoint to put $10B of shares into an account than it is $10MM.
Aren't there a bunch of checks and balances built within our financial system that would make it easy for the people facilitating the various transactions to connect the dots if they were aware of the suspicions? I work closely with a European bank professionally and I am confident that if this happened in Europe a lot of people would see enough to connect the dots.
Like I said it wouldn't give them the smoking gun, but it would give them enough confirmation that there is no reasonable doubt left. This isn't money being moved around to dodge some taxes, which isn't sexy or lucrative enough for the involved parties to speak up or leak, this is watergate x10. Of course like you said if they had enough time to prepare they would just set it up so that the people involved are ones they can trust 100%, but I think something of this nature would have a very high relative probability of leaking once more than a handful people are in the know.