Kazakhstan scholar S.M. Rakhmetov [45, p. 84-85], based on the criminal legislation and judicial and investigative practice in the Republic of Kazakhstan, divides the motives of crime into the following groups:
- Motives of political nature, which are the result of a hostile attitude to the state, its sovereignty, or territorial integrity;
- Base motives, which represent different forms of egoism, for example, mercenary, acquisitiveness, money-grubbing, jealousy, careerism, revenge, rage, hatred, striving to evade responsibility, etc.;
- Motives lacking political or base character, which include: a set of difficult personal and family circumstances, material and job dependence, effects of threats, intimidation, strong mental disturbance, defence of personal, public and state interests.
So, proceeding from the above division of motives of crime by S.M. Rakhmetov, crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations are committed, as a rule, with the base motives (mercenary, acquisitiveness, money-grubbing, striving to evade responsibility).
Rarely once can see in the types of crimes in question the motives that S.M. Rakhmetov includes neither to political nor base. For example, as a result of material and job dependence, a person maliciously evades payment of credit indebtedness (article 195 of the ROK Criminal Code), or under a threat, a person collects and discloses the information constituting commercial or banking secret (article 200 of the ROK Criminal Code).
As for the purpose of the crime, it is what the subject wants to achieve and strives for committing crime. The purpose of crime, as well as the motive, characterises the subjective process occurring in a person’s mind in relation to commission of the crime. Hence the purpose shows the measure of social danger of the criminal, which must affect the punishment.
In a number of articles of the ROK Criminal Code, the purpose is a mandatory element of the crime. It means that only acts that were committed with the purpose specified in the law can fall under the category of the crimes specified in those articles. For example, collection of information constituting commercial or banking secret (article 200 of the ROK Criminal Code) can be qualified as a crime only if it was collected with the purpose of disclosure or illegal use. If it was collected for other purposes, for example, to be used in scientific purposes in the future when it lost its relevance, such an act can not be considered criminally punishable act.
Thus the motive and purpose of a committed crime, event though they are closely interrelated, are not identical concepts. They characterize different sides of will. As S.M. Rakhmetov notes, «the motive answers the question why a person commits a certain act, and the purpose determines the direction of the activities» [45, p. 87]. For example, the motive of presentation by a bank employee of knowingly false information about bank transactions (article 219 of the ROK Criminal Code) can be job dependence, and the purpose to achieve a career growth or remuneration for the performed «service».
Finally, it should be noted that a complex nature of the subjective aspect of crime endures no shallow examination and hasty conclusions because it is one of the mandatory elements of any crime. Correct determination of the subjective aspect of crime makes it possible to legally correctly qualify the crime and correctly impose the criminal punishment.
1.6 Differentiation between criminally punishable offences in the sphere of financial and credit relation, administrative offences, and act committed by individuals in implementation of civil law transactions
Qualification of crimes - is one of the most important concepts of the science of criminal law, which is widely used in the practical activities of investigative and prosecution bodies and courts. According to V.N. Kudryavtsev, «To qualify means to attribute a certain phenomenon by its characteristics to a certain class, type, or category. To qualify in the field of law means to choose the legal norm that provides for the case, in other words, to put this case into some general category. To qualify a crime means to evaluate it from the point of view of the law and to identify the relevant norm of the criminal law that contains the elements of the crime» [52, p.4]. Other well-known Soviet legal scholar A.A. Gertsenzon wrote: «Qualification of a crime consists of the establishment of correspondence of a specific act with the elements of a certain crime provided for by the law.» [55] Similar by essence and content definitions have been given by Kazakhstan scholars as well, for example, I.I. Rogov notes that «different criteria can be laid down to the basis of qualification: object of crime, form of guilt, nature and degree of social danger of the act, which division of crimes by categories in article 10 of the ROK Criminal Code is based on». [56]
Since the compliance with law during investigations and judicial proceedings is the most important condition of the public justice in a wide sense, the correct qualification of crimes in the most important requirement of the law. It does not involve any difficulties in simple cases, when it is sufficient to know the law and have a certain practical experience in juridical activities. Under complex circumstances, however, when there is competition between legal norms, sometimes blanket by their sense and content, it becomes quite difficult to find the correct solution on juridical qualification of an act committed by a person. It requires fairly deep theoretical knowledge, which would allow the investigator, prosecutor, judge, defense lawyer to carry out comparative analysis of not only criminal law, but also other laws, for example, civil, bank, administrative ones. It is important to know well for that the investigative and judicial practices, governmental and departmental acts, and the practice of their application.
The content of most of articles of Chapter 7 of the ROK Criminal Code reveals that it is impossible to do without analysis of the relevant provisions of the civil, bank, and other laws because the blanket nature of their disposition both for establishment of the elements of crime and solution of the issue of their presence in acts of the guilty person. Those norms not only define the concepts of crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations, their legal characteristics and conditions for the underlying activities, but also describe specific consequences typical, for example, only for the banking sphere.
Since norms of the civil, bank, and administrative law regulating financial and credit relations, in particular, in bank sphere, and norms of the Criminal Code studies in this dissertation paper are inextricably intertwined, the problem of their interrelations inevitably arises in the process of solution of the issues of legal responsibility for violation of the existing rules and procedures in this sphere of public relations.
That is why the issue of differentiation between criminally punishable offences in the sphere of financial and credit relation and administrative offences as well as acts committed by individuals in the process of execution of civil transactions, including in the bank sphere, remain quite topical.
As one knows, every crime has a number of characteristics common with other types of crimes, as well as administrative offences and acts committed in the sphere of civil relations. The difficulties of qualification are mainly explained by this circumstance. In order to correctly qualify a crime, it is necessary to very clearly understand the differentiating lines between a specific act, related crimes, responsibility in civil law sense, as well as administrative and disciplinary offences. Establishing characteristics inherent in a specific act and discarding the characteristics that are not inherent, gradually deepening the analysis of legal norm and actual circumstances of the committed offence, one can come to the aggregate of characteristics inherent in a specific crime and differentiating it from other criminally punishable offences and acts regulated by civil, administrative and other branches of law.
This issue should be considered in four aspects:
a) Differences between the civil law and the criminal law approaches to determination of legitimacy and lawfulness of activities in the financial and credit sphere;
b) Admissibility of measures of a criminal law nature in solution of the issue of responsibility for violation of the established rules of conduct of bank and other activities in the sphere of financial and credit relations;
c) Admissibility of measures of administrative law nature in qualification of acts of persons performing activities I the sphere of financial and credit organizations (institutions); and finally
d) Admissibility of measure of disciplinary nature for unlawful acts committed by employees of financial and credit institutions in the process of performance of their professional activities.
Concerning the first aspect, it can be said that norms of civil and bank law not only give definitions and characteristics of activities in the sphere of financial and credit relations, but also provide for obligatory conditions under which such activities become lawful and legitimate.
For example, under article 14 of the ROK Civil Code, an individual has the right to be engaged in any activities not prohibited by the law, form legal entities independently or with other individuals or legal entities, perform any transactions not prohibited by the law and participate in any obligations.
These rights provided by the law also impose obligations on the individual, for example, the obligation to register legal entity in the established procedure, obtain licenses for performance of certain activities, for example, bank activities, etc.
In case of incompliance with these legislative requirements, the individual can be brought to a certain responsibility depending on the consequences that occurred: disciplinary, civil, administrative, and, finally, criminal.
For example, as was mentioned before, illegal bank activities mean the performance of bank activities (bank operations) without registration, or without a special permit (license), or in violation of the terms of licensing. At that, the criminal responsibility shall occur only if a major damage has been inflicted to an individual, organization, or the state or if these activities have been associated with deriving revenue in a large scale. In the lack of these consequences, proceeding from specific circumstances, there can occur civil responsibility of the person engaged in the illegal bank activities (for example, compensation for harm inflicted as a result of such illegal activities) or administrative responsibility. It should be noted in this connection that lawmakers, in order to meet the requirements of international democracy and market economy development institutions as well as based on recommendations of western consultants, have hastened to exclude administrative responsibility for illegal bank activities and for entrepreneurial or other activities with relevant registration or licensing (articles 137 and 138 of the ROK Administrative Procedure Code have been excluded from the Code by ROK Law dated 20 January 2006).
Thus the above demonstrates that the consequences of illegal bank activities (major damage or deriving revenue on a large scale) differentiate between criminal responsibility and civil and administrative ones.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that because different consequences are taken as the substantiation of the presence of the elements of crime, for example, provided for by article 191 of the Criminal Code - a large damage (the amount exceeding the monthly calculation index by 100 or 500 times) or an income on a large scale (the amount exceeding the monthly calculation index by 500 times) - serious problems arise in the process of legal evaluation of the acts performed by the guilty person, which entail sometimes investigative and judicial mistakes. While it is easy to determine the large damage in the first instance through simple arithmetic, it is much more difficult to determine the income on the large scale, because law enforcement bodies often identify «income» with «profit». Identifying these concepts leads to an incorrect determination of the amount of income in a criminal law sense, which in its turn may entail unjustified imposition of criminal responsibility or release thereof.
Thus whether to apply measures of criminal, administrative, or civil responsibility depends on determination of the required amounts of damage or income. At that, there is a theoretical possibility of occurrence of administrative responsibility under part 5, article 168-2, of the Administrative Procedure Code for performance by banks or organizations executing certain types of bank transactions of operations or transactions prohibited by the bank legislation, or in violation of bank legislation, or those beyond their legal capacity, unless there are no elements of crime provided for by article 191 of the ROK Criminal Code in their acts. And norms of the civil law can be activated only on the initiative of the person whose rights and legitimate interests were infringed on as a result of the illegal bank activities, or on the initiative of a prosecutor who acted to protect the injured party. In particular, in the civil law context, the whole complex of measures and means of protection of breached civil rights regardless of imposition of criminal or administrative responsibility on the guilty person. These, first of all, include recognition of the right; restoration of the position existing before the right was infringed; suppression of the acts violating the right and creating a threat of its violation; coercion to fulfil an obligation in kind; collection of losses, penalties; invalidation of a transaction; compensation for the moral harm; termination or modification of legal relations; etc.
As the investigative and judicial practice reveals, there are also mistakes in qualification of acts under part 1, article 194, of the ROK Criminal Code (Unlawful Obtaining of a Loan). It should be kept in mind here that an act can be qualified as the crime only if an individual entrepreneur or a head of organization obtained a loan, subsidy, or preferential crediting terms by submission of knowingly false information. Thus it would be impossible to impose criminal responsibility on the guilty person in the lack of evidences that the receiver of a loan (borrower) knew before he received the loan that the information he had submitted to the bank or another credit institution was false. If these acts caused harm, however, he may be subjected to civil responsibility. Proceeding from this, it should be noted that the person that carries out an inquiry or preliminary investigation is obliged to prove that the borrower had the intent to provide the bank with the false information with the purpose of obtaining the loan, subsidy, or preferential crediting terms.
Summing up the above, it is possible to conclude that that the most correct method of differentiation between a criminally punishable act and an administrative or disciplinary offence, as well as the acts regulated by the civil law, would be differentiating between crimes and non-criminal acts by certain elements of crime: object, objective aspect, subjective aspect, and subject.
As one knows, the object of crime covers a whole complex of circumstances:
a) Actual public relations between people, between people and legal entities;
b) Legal form of these public relations, i.e. some legal covering that establish legal relations that would ensure certain behavior of participants in these relations as well as protection of these relations; and finally
c) Material forms, conditions, and prerequisites of the existence of these relations.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is very difficult to differentiate between the crimes under question and the unlawful acts that do not have characteristics of a criminally punishable act only by the object of trespass because civil, bank, administrative, and criminal laws all regulate certain relations in the financial and credit sphere and sometimes the same social relations. It is very important therefore to study in detail the objective and subjective aspects of crime, as well as to correctly identify the subject of crime, for differentiation of crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations. This recipe of prevention of mistakes of unjustified imposition of criminal responsibility.
The objective aspect of crime - is the element usually most fully specified in the disposition of articles of the Criminal Code. Therefore it seems less difficult to differentiate between the crimes by characteristics of the objective aspect than by the object. However, there are more law enforcement mistakes there [57]. This can be explained by the fact that there are more possible combinations of the characteristics of the objective aspect of crime, especially as concerns crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations, than in other elements of the body of crime, because they are more numerous and often complex and sometimes have an alternative or evaluative nature.
For example, analysis of the disposition of article 200 of the ROK Criminal Code (Unlawful obtaining and disclosure of information constituting commercial or bank secret) easily shows that the objective aspect of this crime is quite complex: it provides for alternative acts (for example, collection of information constituting commercial or bank secret by theft of documents, bribes or threat, use of equipment, etc.); some concepts have a blanket nature and refer to other branches of law (for example, it is necessary to refer to civil and bank law to understand terms commercial or bank secret); provides for the purpose (for example, disclosure or illegal use of this information) that the acts specified in the disposition of this article are committed for.
Only a close and objective study of these circumstances, not a formal approach, allows making correct conclusions concerning the presence or lack of the elements of crime provided for in article 200 of the ROK Criminal Code in the acts of the person who committed them. The lack of elements of the objective aspect would suggest the lack of a criminally punishable act. For example, if a bank employee or another person collected information, which constitutes commercial or bank secret, for the purpose of a scientific research, not with the purpose of its disclosure or illegal use, there will be no elements of crime in his acts. This person may be subjected to disciplinary responsibility, however, for violation of internal bank regulations or provisions of individual employment agreement or to civil responsibility if his acts inflicted any damage (harm) to the bank.
Thus, the correct establishment of characteristics of the objective aspect is important for many reasons for differentiation between a criminal act and an administrative or disciplinary offence, as well as incorrect and sometimes unlawful acts by the person incurring civil responsibility. It often makes it possible to determine characteristics of the object and subject of a criminal trespass, because the trespass on certain social relations can be committed only by a limited number of methods and only by a special subject. In this connection, it would be appropriate to cite B.S. Nikiforof who said that «violation of an object protected by the law can be committed not by any, but only by certain acts, the nature of which shall be determined first of all by properties of the object» [58].
In case of differentiation between crimes and administrative, civil, and disciplinary offences, it is necessary to pay attention to causal relation, which is an important element of the objective aspect of crime. In the theory of criminal law the causal relation is not viewed as an independent element of crime because it inevitably follows from such main element as presence of hazardous consequences as an connecting link between specific acts by the guilty person and the consequences occurred.
For example, a submission by a bank employee of knowingly false information about transactions on a bank account (article 219 of the ROK Criminal Code) can not be qualified as a crime if there is no harmful effect in the form of infliction of large damage to an individual, organization, or the state. There should be direct causal relation between the unlawful acts by the bank employee and the consequences occurred. If a large damage was inflicted to the individual, organization, or the state by another cause, not as a result of unlawful acts by the bank employee, only civil or administrative responsibility (if there are required elements of an administrative offence) of the bank and/or the employee, or disciplinary responsibility of the employee can be the possibility.
It is necessary to differentiate between crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations and administrative offences or acts involving civil responsibility by the subjective aspect as well. In this connection, well known Russian legal scholar V.N. Kudryavtsev notes that «the criminal law attaches equal importance to characteristics of both objective and subjective aspects of crime. Overestimation of the objective aspect to the detriment of the subjective elements brings about a so-called objective imputation; on the contrary, overestimation of the subjective aspect would tend to impose responsibility not for socially dangerous acts, but for «dangerous thoughts», «bare intent», or «dangerous condition» [52, p. 147-148].
It is commonly known that the main criterion of differentiation of crimes by the subjective aspect is the form of guilt. Therefore it should be stated proceeding from the essence and content of dispositions of the relevant articles of the Criminal Code that all crimes examined in this dissertation paper can be committed only with a direct intent, and in some cases with the direct or indirect intent. Thus if a person does not understand any of the objective elements of the crimes in question, his acts fall under the effect of norms of the administrative or civil legislation or are considered disciplinary offence.
Differentiation by characteristics of the subject is also very important for crimes in the sphere of financial and credit relations. While on the whole crimes in this sphere of social relations can be committed by any person who achieved certain age and are sane (for example, illegal bank activities; unlawful obtaining and disclosing information constituting commercial or bank secret), some of these crimes can be only committed by a special subject. For example, only an individual entrepreneur or the head of an organization can be the subject of the crime provided for by part 1, article 194, of the ROK Criminal Code. In addition to an individual, the head of an organization can be the subject of crime under article 195 of the ROK Criminal Code, and only employees of a bank can be the subject of crime under article 219 and 220 of the ROK Criminal Code.
2 LEGAL ANALYSES OF SOME TYPES OF CRIMES IN THE SPHERE OF FINANCIAL AND CREDIT RELATIONS
2.1 Larceny committed in banks and other financial and credit institutions
This chapter of the monograph does not pursue the goal of analyzing all types of larceny that can be committed in financial and credit institutions, for example, by plundering or robbery, because the nature of such types of the crime, firstly, is well studied by the criminal law science and, secondly, a study of such types of crime would not fit the purpose and objectives of this research.
An attempt will be made in this chapter to provide criminal law characteristics of larceny from banks and other financial and credit institutions by theft, fraud, embezzlement, or conversion, because these are the most typical types of crimes for this sphere of economy. Moreover, they have a latent nature and are therefore difficult to trace.
Criminal machinations of modern day entrepreneurs and bankers involve first of all unlawful obtaining of loans and failure to repay loans. In such cases, criminals knowingly intend to steal bank funds, though it is very difficult to prove this. As practice reveals, such types of crimes are committed most often in a criminal conspiracy with bank employees.
The larceny of this type usually involves the following malicious illegal acts:
- Creation of fake legal entities usually owned by straw parties with an exclusive goal of obtaining and conversion of the loan;
- For the purpose of loan agreements, manufacture of falsified documents that give appearance of financial solvency, in particular, false balance sheets, corrupt business-plans and feasibility studies to substantiate the requested financing;
- Fabrication of false documents substantiating credit inquiries, for example, contracts on allegedly executed transactions;
- Submission of false or illegally obtained letters of guarantee from reliable banks or other commercial structures as the loan security;
- Submission of base or already pledged property or sometimes a property belonging to other persons;
- Bribery of bank employees to induce them to issue loans in violation of the established rules and procedures.
The use of these unlawful methods allows criminals to convert the funds received as a loan.
Sometimes those persons may intend from the very beginning to convert the loan, sometimes their acts may be initially aimed at obtaining an unlawful loan to pay debt, not to convert the funds.
In the first instance, there is no doubt that the acts committed by the criminals should be qualified under article 177 of the ROK Criminal Code (Fraud). In the second case, however, depending on specific circumstances of and direction of the intent, their acts can be qualified either under article 177 of the ROK Criminal Code or article 182 of the ROK Criminal Code, when the unlawful receipt and non-return of the loan caused a property damage to the owner (bank in this case) through deceit or abuse of trust but in the lack (failure of evidence) of the intent to steal the loan.
In some cases, depending on specific circumstances of the committed crime, criminal intent, and occurrence of certain consequences specified by the criminal law, acts of the guilty person can be qualified under article 194 of the ROK Criminal Code (Unlawful obtaining of wrong use of loan).
A shining example of the described situation is the criminal case of accusation of head of Komirbank, the bank liquidated in Kazakhstan. The head of this bank, in conspiracy with other persons, unlawfully used the funds of the financial institution he managed to issue knowingly bad loans. Being the chairman of the board of the bank, he signed a number of guarantee agreements with several limited liability partnerships - Renata, Lotus, Oil Trading Inc. for avalist CJSC Eximbank Kazakhstan. It became evident later that these guarantees were issued to the mentioned LLPs without the analysis of their financial position and without due documents that would confirm the existence of the loan repayment obligations security. Ten million US dollars was transferred to accounts of these four LLPs against their promissory notes. These LLPs did pay the loans by the due date, and Eximbank had to have fully paid their obligations from its own funds. Thus the criminal acts of the chairman of board of Komirbank and heads of the LLPs inflicted heavy damage on Eximbank.
The acts committed by the criminal group have been rightfully qualified under part 3, article 177, of the ROK Criminal Code as the larceny of bank property (funds) by deceit and abuse of trust that entailed heavy damage. Preliminary investigative bodies reliably proved that this group of swindlers intended from the very beginning to appropriate the bank’s funds.
This example evidences that illegal appropriation and theft of bank funds is often facilitated by bank employees. In some cases they themselves are the initiators of illegal obtaining and conversion of loans and other funds of the bank and receive their share of the stolen money.
In other cases bank employees facilitate conversion of obtained loans for wrong purposes. For example, for a bribe they would remit funds not as provided by the loan agreement, but to accounts of legal entities or personal accounts of the participator to the crime. The swindlers then simply cash out the funds from these accounts or transfer them to accounts of other business entities under fictitious transactions.
The appropriation of the loans is also facilitated by the fact that some business entities have several bank accounts with different commercial banks at their disposal.
Several accounts opened in the lack of an efficient control gives the criminals the possibility to execute transactions, including those with credit funds, at their discretion, beyond their main account and regardless the existence of any encumbrance thereon. It becomes possible to hide from tax authorities some transactions and accumulating on such some fund for their subsequent appropriation. An additional account can be also used for the purpose of transferring thereto of funds as preparation for a false bankruptcy.
Below is an example of a typical conversion by swindlers of an unlawfully obtained bank loan with the help of specially created fake companies, which was the subject of investigation by Russian law enforcement bodies [59].
L. and K. on the initiative of M., having used bad passports (their pictures were glued to somebody else passports) founded two commercial fake companies (Bollar LLP and Kokat LLP). The companies were registered with the South Branch of the Moscow Registration Chamber; they had opened bank accounts and executed bank services agreements. Having intended to obtain a loan and steal it from bank Aist, they concluded a fake agreement between the fake companies, under which Bollar LLP was allegedly buying and Kokat LLP selling electrich equipment. Based on this contract Bolar LLP made a loan contract with bank Aist for an amount of more than 22 million Russian rubles (about US $740,000). The money was first remitted to account of Kokat LLP, as the payment for the purchased equiment, and from there, by instructions of head of company K., to account of T., an individual, with Tveruniversalbank. The ground for that remittance was provided by yet another fake contract for sale of consumer goods. In conclusion of this all, T. turned funds to cash and handed it over to L., K., and organizer of this machination M.. Naturally, as soon as they received the cash, they disappeared.
In other cases funds are appropriated through the following mechanism: money is spent not for the purposes designated in the loan agreement (for example, development of production), but for acquisition of various valuables for the company recipient of the loan (cars, furniture, expensive office equipment, etc.). Later the head of the company, having the intent of appropriation of the funds received, founds a number of new commercial structures in his own name or in the name of his accomplices and transfers the valuables from the balance of the loan recipient entity to the balance of the new entities. Thus it becomes difficult to establish who owns these valuables and to recover them.
It should be noted that a frequent use of false guarantee letters in the process of obtaining bank loans too requires a special verification of their authenticity and legitimacy during investigation. For example, bank branches do not have the right to independently issue letters of guarantee to secure return of loans without a special authorization from the administration of the head bank. Therefore even the fact of presence of such a letter of guarantee should be subjected to a close attention by the control or preliminary investigation bodies. This circumstance serves as the ground for a thorough verification of its authenticity and legitimacy. Under the Russian law bank branches are deprived of the right to issue guarantee letters securing the retune of loans at all.
There have been also cases when not guarantee letters on the whole but some of their items concerning the conditions on occurrence of the guarantor’s responsibility were falsified. The copy kept with the bank formulated these conditions expressly and clearly, which determined the bank decision to accept the letter and issue the loan, while the copy kept with the guarantor did not contain the necessary details, which either released the guarantor from return of the loan or, at least, caused lengthy and protracted judicial or arbitration proceedings that might have ended with unpredictable consequences.
The documents concerning the pledged property should be verified very thoroughly as well [60]. In particular, the following questions should be asked: does the pledged property really belong to the borrower? Does its cost correspond to the size of the loan to receive? Have it been pledged before? Are the pledged goods or other valuables already in the borrower’s disposal (they should not be «en route», subject of doubtful future purchase sale transactions or the intent to conclude them)? There have been instances when money on the borrower’s current account was accepted as the pledged property, which is inadmissible because the amount of funds on a current account is a variable quantity, the money are in circulation and may be absent at the moment they are required. That is why the right is the practice of admission to pledge of the funds on the borrower’s deposit account, though there are certain risks for the creditor in this case as well.
A special group of crimes in the bank sphere is constituted by the larceny of funds through manufacture and putting into the financial circulation of false bank payment documents not supported by money.
Fake (falsified) documents may include payment orders, credit advices, laminated pay checks book, etc.
As the investigative and judicial practices reveals, the following schemes are typical: a fake document is released to the financial circulation and submitted for payment to a bank institution; based on it the nonexistent or sent to another address funds are credited on accounts of the accomplice companies. Yet another transfer is possible when the funds are sent to companies of the next level and the criminals finally cash out the funds and appropriate them.