Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by dr_ on Monday July 16, 2012 @08:03PM
(#4253386)
Whether it's money laundering or underreporting revenues, the implication is that something is awry at this McDonalds. The author is probably doing McDonald's Corp. a service by contacting them. They should address it, immediately.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by tibbon on Monday July 16, 2012 @08:21PM
(#4253432)
Precisely. You could also put a kilo of cocaine into a cane or walker. Yet, assaulting every older/disabled person using such would be downright criminal.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by einhverfr on Monday July 16, 2012 @09:45PM
(#4253691)
Assaulting anybody is downright criminal in most jurisdictions.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by aptwebapps on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @12:21AM
(#4254074)
They do it by withholding ketchup and other condiments. ;)
I'm almost serious, because I was in this exact McDonald's in 1998 (I'm not making this up) and was verbally abused for asking for more than the provided two packets of ketchup.
In their defense, it was Bastille Day and more than a little bit crazy in there.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by jaggederest on Monday July 16, 2012 @08:22PM
(#4253435)
So far as I am aware, turning illicit money into legitimate money at 30 cents on the dollar would be an excellent deal.
There are stories of people in the drug trade in Mexico having rooms in their houses full of cash that they cannot otherwise dispose of.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by rdl on Monday July 16, 2012 @08:48PM
(#4253539)
Laundering is more often 15 percent. It might go up or down based on the local market, but ex-USA has the highest price I've heard of. Once the money was in France, I'd predict more like 5-10 percent, since the hardest step (initial; moving bulk cash out in the USA thanks to effective AML controls these days) is a lot easier in Europe (fly, boat to North Africa, or drive over relative open or at least "friendly" land borders in the East and Southeast.)
Usually for businesses you use nail salons, tanning, etc which have high labor and service components to price, vs. materials.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by pessimizer on Monday July 16, 2012 @07:37PM
(#4253272)
>The profit margin is not high enough for it to be worth ordering extra stock and throwing it out.
You wouldn't have to throw it out. Sell it on to other businesses.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by RedwoodCity on Monday July 16, 2012 @08:39PM
(#4253506)
Sounds more Canadian to me
Dr. Steve Mann, PhD (MIT '97), PEng (Ontario), 330 Dundas Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1G5.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by nowarninglabel on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @02:04AM
(#4254336)
Actually, there was a well known Mcdonald's franchisee who had stores in the dozens who was later found out to have laundered millions through it. I don't have the case handy, but he was in what is generally known as the American South. It's hard to say what Mcdonald's region he was in, because they mix up their regions about every couple of years, and he ran stores in multiple states.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by aaronblohowiak on Monday July 16, 2012 @07:24PM
(#4253221)
Cups and soda would be far, far more capital efficient.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by facorreia on Monday July 16, 2012 @07:47PM
(#4253314)
I think you just showed us a glimpse of the future...
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by nikcub on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @09:15AM
(#4255512)
Get a burger with an extra meat patty in it. Money laundering.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by gcb on Monday July 16, 2012 @07:24PM
(#4253215)
unless they sell it all in soda. it's the highest profit margin you can find at such places.
but yeah, i don't think this is the best explanation. But now i can't stop picturing Ronald macdonald sitting at some backroom like vitor corleone.
Laundering money through a fast food restaurant with a supply chain outside your control is a terrible idea. Franchises are required to purchase food centrally.
Q How much cash are you banking this week?
A 1,000,000 EUR
Q So you have sold 500,000 Big Macs.
A Yes
Q Can I see your invoices for 500,000 buns please?
The profit margin is not high enough for it to be worth ordering extra stock and throwing it out. The business would effectively be paying about 70% tax. That's not digestable, even to launder cash.
More plausible reasons: Running a McDonalds franchise and significantly and systematically under-reporting revenue using unauthorised suppliers. But to involve low-level staff would seem unlikely.
This isn't exactly covert surveillance. Some bored member of staff just didn't like the look of this American weirdo with a video camera for an eye, a piece of paper that he waves around and an attitude that he is entitled to buffer everything he sees anywhere in the world and then publicly blame an entire multinational for a minor, local incident. (Not my perception, but I think it likely that it was theirs.)