Making bad movies as money laundering scheme?
<p>There is this youtube channel called I Hate Everything in which, among other things, this youtuber reviews Imdb's 100 lowest ranked movies in search for the worst movie: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxOKy-G3phBomkGrPJuQwUawQmS_1ysNN" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxOKy-G3phBomkGrPJuQwUawQmS_1ysNN</a></p>

<p>In one of such movie reviwes he points out that the budget was way too much for a movie that basically looked like it was recorded with an average hand-held camera, terrible actors and no movie sets whatsoever (one part of the movie was apparently recorded with an hidden camera at a real hospital with real, seemigly oblivious people instead of a movie set and extras). </p>

<p>This youtuber comments that it seems unlikely that such a terrible and lazy movie could have had such a big budget, and that it seemed like some sort of money laundering scheme (this company has more movies of similar "quality").</p>

<p>My question is, how does someone exactly launder money by making terrible movies and lying about the budget?</p>

<p>Suppose you want to pay for your son's college tuition with cocaine sales proceeds. You hire your son as an actor in your miserable movie and pay him $90,000 for doing so. The movie is produced by a corporation that you don't have to 1099 when you give it money. The corporation treats the money in as a loan which isn't income to it and doesn't have to report the lender to anyone. The son has the money (after paying income tax on it) and can pay for college for the year. The movie company and son don't appear to be doing anything other than being incompetent movie producers and lousy overpaid actors unless you know the big picture. The money has effectively been spent in a way that conceals its illegal origins and makes it look legitimate. Ergo, money laundering.</p>

business fraud money-laundering