In the San Bernardino self-funding case study, which financing detail helped facilitate weapons purchase?

In the San Bernardino self-funding case study, which financing detail helped facilitate weapons purchase?

• A. A straw purchaser to obtain the weapons
• B. A $28,500 loan provided by an online peer to peer lender
• C. Funds were provided by a foreign government
• D. Received cash donations from a charity

Answer: (B)

Understanding how illicit purchases are financed is essential in AML investigations. The San Bernardino self-funding case highlights how a non-traditional financing path can enable weapon purchases: a $28,500 loan from an online peer-to-peer lender provided the funds. This shows self-funding through a readily accessible lending platform can supply the cash needed for purchases while not relying on obvious sources like government funding or charitable donations, or on a straw purchaser. The loan amount is large enough to cover a weapon purchase, and using a P2P loan can slip past conventional financial controls, making it a notable red flag for investigators.

Understanding how illicit purchases are financed is essential in AML investigations. The San Bernardino self-funding case highlights how a non-traditional financing path can enable weapon purchases: a $28,500 loan from an online peer-to-peer lender provided the funds. This shows self-funding through a readily accessible lending platform can supply the cash needed for purchases while not relying on obvious sources like government funding or charitable donations, or on a straw purchaser. The loan amount is large enough to cover a weapon purchase, and using a P2P loan can slip past conventional financial controls, making it a notable red flag for investigators.