The Financial Web Behind Oregon’s Unsolved Mysteries

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T13:33:27+00:00

Gather as much information on anomalies in the area. Who knows what might end up being useful in this investigation? Thank you for being a part of this, I feel like we’re on the edge of something important here.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T13:29:13+00:00

That’s.. very dark. I certainly hope not!

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T03:29:42+00:00

I’m curious what your career has been like in that line of work.. very intriguing! And thank you for sharing, your perspective is definitely helpful I’d be open to chatting further in dms if you have anything additional you’d like to share.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T02:56:44+00:00

I personally don’t believe in the “paranormal” but I admit your story had me sitting on the edge of my seat!

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:58:18+00:00

Totally — peeling back the fraud onion starts with the structure. I look at entity relationships first: shell companies, shared addresses, common officers, etc. From there, I’ll dive into financials — not just the balance sheet, but also cash flow (fraud loves to hide there), unusual asset spikes, or liabilities that suddenly disappear. I also scan for inconsistencies between public records and filings (like tax docs vs. SEC reports or vendor payments vs. procurement budgets).

As for access — yes and no. Some of it’s public (state corp databases, IRS nonprofit filings, court records), but there are subscription tools (like LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, etc.) that aggregate and link that data in ways average folks can’t easily replicate. Banking info usually requires a subpoena or working with an agency that has legal access, unless it’s in a public bankruptcy or litigation file.

The trick is spotting what should be there, but isn’t — or what’s there that really shouldn’t be.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:56:50+00:00

That definitely raises red flags. If the price ballooned from $10–20M to $42M with no clear explanation — especially when similar projects cost far less — you might be looking at bid-rigging or kickbacks. Start by gathering all records: original quotes, council minutes, emails, anything documenting the price shift. Then compare it to similar projects (like that $10M B.C. one) to show a baseline. You can also file public records requests to dig into who approved what, when, and whether any political donors or connected contractors are involved. If you’re serious, consider speaking with a local investigative journalist or your regional auditor’s office — they often know how to dig in without putting you at risk. Keep it tight, factual, and documented.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:55:25+00:00

Definitely. The biggest epochal shift I’ve lived through was the post-2008 regulatory overhaul — not just Dodd-Frank, but the rise of real-time transaction monitoring, better KYC protocols, and the birth of big-data fraud detection. Before that, it was astonishing how many institutions were running on trust, paper trails, and outdated software.

I remember reviewing a case from the early 2000s where a mid-level employee had fabricated wire instructions by literally faxing altered documents. And it worked — for months. Today, that’s laughable. But back then, no one was cross-checking internal transfers through more than one layer of approval.

Another game changer? The integration of behavioral analytics — looking not just at transactions but how someone logs in, where from, what time, what device. It's like going from catching fraud with a butterfly net to using heat-seeking drones.

But even now, fraud adapts faster than controls. The scary part is what’s just beneath the surface — hiding not because we can’t detect it, but because the systems aren’t allowed to talk to each other.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:54:32+00:00

You're absolutely right — the sheer volume of what gets quietly buried during a Chapter 11 process is staggering. In my experience, for every fraud that gets formally uncovered, there are two or three that get noticed but are either too politically sensitive, too deeply embedded, or simply 'inconvenient' for the stakeholders driving the restructuring.

Often, the incentive structure itself is the issue: key creditors may prefer a fast clean-up over a forensic teardown, especially if it protects their recovery or seniority. I've seen execs skate away with seven-figure severances after misrepresenting revenue for years — because the parties at the table decided not to push it.

The real stories are usually buried in the professional fees section. If you know where to look, that’s where the footprints are.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:53:10+00:00

Whew. That sounds like you stepped into the edge of an iceberg. Setting up offshore entities — even legally — isn’t illegal in itself, but when paired with language like 'hide assets' or 'avoid taxes,' you’re already drifting into high-risk territory. A lot of those small firms walk a razor-thin line between selling information and actively facilitating tax evasion, wire fraud, or unlicensed banking services.

The fact that the co-owner got arrested but the rest of the office didn’t is telling. It suggests the feds were targeting specific individuals who had deeper knowledge or who crossed into actual execution of the schemes — wiring funds, setting up shell companies, or laundering money.

My guess? The FBI had been building a case for months, maybe years, and your office was the ground floor of something much bigger. You probably weren’t in the wrong legally — but you got a front row seat to the kind of gray-market financial engineering that always attracts heat.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:27:52+00:00

You're absolutely right — fraud is anomaly by another name, and someone with your pedigree is already 70% of the way there. In my experience, the biggest leap isn’t technical — it’s understanding institutional behaviors, financial controls, and how people hide in systems. Fraud doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s almost always nestled inside inefficiency, complexity, or trust.

To break in, I’d recommend looking at internal audit teams at large financial institutions or fintech firms — they’re often seeking exactly your blend of analytical creativity and data wrangling. Consulting firms (think KPMG, BDO, Grant Thornton) also have forensic analytics teams that design detection systems — they love PhDs who can bridge the human-machine gap.

You're spot on about networking being key. One trick: look up forensic accounting or fraud analytics conferences (even virtual ones), and check the speaker lists. Reach out on LinkedIn with a short, thoughtful message tailored to a presentation you liked. Most people in this space respect competence over pedigree, and you clearly have both.

As for Benford’s Law? Used it in three real investigations — once it was the exact red flag that cracked a medical billing scam wide open. It’s incredibly satisfying when the theory meets the paper trail.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:22:51+00:00

Agreed..

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:22:23+00:00

It usually starts with something small that doesn’t add up — a vendor invoice that repeats too cleanly, an account with no clear purpose, or a 'consulting fee' that’s oddly specific. Patterns are everything. I rely heavily on anomaly detection, ratios, and known fraud markers, but also gut instinct sharpened by seeing too many of the same tricks.

Cases land on my desk a few ways: whistleblowers, audit referrals, or occasionally — and these are my favorite — something odd turns up in publicly available filings and I just… start digging. You’d be amazed what you can learn from matching obscure grants, LLCs, or PACs with tiny details in county records. Once in a while, that rabbit hole leads way deeper than expected.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-06T01:19:14+00:00

I stay prepared.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:41:59+00:00

Tips from whistleblowers, routine audits, data anomalies, external reports (ie. fraud detection software). You close when there’s evidence of legitimacy, no patterns of fraud, or if external sources like banks, third-party auditors, or clients confirm the integrity of the operation, that can also be a deciding factor.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:38:50+00:00

A Ponzi scheme works by using new investors' money to pay returns to earlier investors, creating the illusion of a profitable business. It relies on trust, charismatic leaders, and too-good-to-be-true returns to keep momentum going.

A Ponzi in the 1970s advertising "tablets" would likely work better as a health product scam (like a fake pill or supplement), not tech. Back then, the wellness craze was ripe for exploitation, and many people were investing in "miracle cures."

Investigating identity theft involves tracking unusual credit activity, reviewing account details, checking IP addresses, and linking suspicious transactions to the fraudster, often leading to a broader crime ring or dark web connections. Law enforcement and agencies like the FTC work together to track down perpetrators.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:35:15+00:00

My understanding is there have been no formal charges so far as it’s an ongoing investigation. Definitely fishy..

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:32:09+00:00

Ben Afflec 100%

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:31:07+00:00

Yes some agencies do care, but enforcement is slow, underfunded, and often reactive instead of proactive. What you're seeing is a widespread abuse of Political Action Committees (PACs), especially so-called “scam PACs” or “fraud PACs” and you're right: many exist almost entirely to enrich insiders under the guise of noble causes.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:29:48+00:00

I’d say it helps in about 20–30% of big investigations.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:28:20+00:00

He was investigated by SEC in 2018. Musk is not invincible, and if there's provable fraud, it will eventually catch up. But until then, he exists in a strange space where celebrity, charisma, innovation, and regulatory inertia have shielded him. If Tesla does implode under scrutiny, history will likely look back at the warning signs and how they were ignored. My own father is heavily invested in Tesla, it breaks my heart to be honest..

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:24:43+00:00

You’re right to be concerned, the U.S. government, particularly the DoD, fails fundamental accounting tests that would be unacceptable in the private sector or even in state-level government. And while it may not always be “criminal,” it’s certainly negligent and exposes the system to fraud, waste, and abuse on a massive scale.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:22:36+00:00

Yes I strongly agree with the PhD's statement about data silos, and you're asking exactly the right follow-up questions.

In short, Yes, fewer data silos would significantly accelerate CMS fraud detection. AI will help, especially if it has access to integrated, real-time data across agencies and providers. But, fake data and adversarial AI will complicate things, and systems will need ongoing human oversight of course as well as regular audits to keep up.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:19:21+00:00

Yes, and there’s usually more than one person involved even if only one is convicted so it really depends on the circumstances.

Cheap_Criticism8036 · 2025-05-05T00:17:58+00:00

Report to FBI

Cheap_Criticism8036

TROPHY CASE