Settle an argument for me. Assume a criminal does the following:
1: goes thru trash to find a cancelled check 2: using a wifi hotspot like McDonald's and "Hide my ass" buys bitcoins with stolen bank info 3: sells bitcoins and transfers money to his personal account.
Which step does he get caught?
My friends says he gets away with it, I say he gets caught when he sells them. Who's right?
Most sites that sell Bitcoin for cash require more information than just "bank info" in order to run the transaction. So the scenario you outlined is not quite complete for the purposes of "not getting caught".
Assuming the criminal has enough information to complete step (2) successfully (complying with regulatory/identification requirements using a stolen identity, probably not just a bank account number), then the probability of getting caught through the bitcoin transactions alone is low. For further dissociation, the criminal could send the newly-purchased coins to a mixing service before transferring them into his own wallet.
There is not enough information in the question to provide an answer. Some criminals following those steps won't get caught, so your friend might be right. Some will get caught because they were recognized during step 1. Some will get caught because of step 2 if the wifi hotspot leaks information, the seller happens to be a hacker spying on his customers, and investigators are smart enough. Some will get caught because of step 3 if the bank and the seller cooperate with smart enough investigators and they identify the criminal's personal wallet (unless they use Greg's advice).
In any case, the problems the criminal faces are 1) self-esteem, and 2) sustainability. As more bitcoin crime happens, the community gets better at preventing it, either through punishment or increasing the burden on the criminals. As a criminal continues earning his living by creating victims instead of partners, his relationship to the rest of his species degrades.
