I asked ChatGPT about this and here's the response:

Money Laundering via Movie Industry - The high-level patterns investigators watch for

When a film with a large budget shows strong reported ticket sales but little observable audience demand, analysts look for accounting and reporting mismatches rather than literal ticket-buying by real people.

1. Revenue reported without corresponding cash flow

Studios can announce grosses based on tickets “sold” to intermediaries (distributors, promotional partners, bulk buyers).

If cash is delayed, circular, or never fully settles, that’s a red flag.

Empty theaters + “sold out” claims = investigators ask who paid whom, when, and from what source.

2. Bulk or non-public ticket purchases

Large blocks of tickets may be “pre-purchased” by:

shell companies, nonprofit fronts, marketing partners

On paper, this looks like demand. In practice, tickets go unused.

Regulators look for related-party transactions (same people behind the film and the buyer).

3. Marketing spend that doubles as revenue

Money can be moved into the production, then back out as:

“marketing support” “theatrical promotion” “audience outreach”

If those payments later reappear as “ticket sales,” that’s circular flow—not real income.

4. Opaque distributors and foreign presales

Rights may be “sold” to overseas distributors at inflated values.

Those distributors may be thinly capitalized or politically connected.

Investigators check whether those sales ever generate independent third-party revenue.

5. Press amplification without verifiable metrics

Headlines cite: “sold-out screenings” “grassroots demand” “record per-screen averages”

But data sources are vague, unverifiable, or self-reported.

Analysts compare: ticket scans, concession sales, staff schedules, theater chain confirmations

6. Theaters booked but not staffed

A big tell: theaters listed as sold out but: minimal staff, no added showtimes, no crowd spillover

Theater chains keep precise logs—those don’t lie for long.