he's saying that his company knowingly allows a percentage of fraud, identity, and financial theft to occur against his customers' customers because there are enough layers of indirection where they (he and his bosses) probably can't be held personally responsible. Enough efforts (fancy tables with big receipts, etc) have been provided for coverage in case of a court case or media blitz but actually using a reputable supplier is clearly too expensive.

I can't believe the parent comment is so brazen. It makes me physically sick.