King of Pix: Easy money hides criminal scheme

​Pix royalty is in the networks. Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok accounts of self-styled payment method kings and queens offer up to 1,000% return on amounts sent in transfers. This is how scammers exchange amounts from illicit activities, which can be blocked by the bank, for money free for use.

The profiles usually offer a list of possible exchanges to the user: if you send a Pix worth R$10, you receive R$100; when you send R$500, you receive R$5,000.

It may be that, after sending the money, the person does not receive anything in return: the money is quickly withdrawn by the scammers, preventing banking institutions, when contacted, from undoing the transfer. But there are cases where the promise comes true — at least for a short period of time.

Thiago Chinellato, chief of the Cyber ​​Crimes Division of the Civil Police of São Paulo, explains that the scammer sends a sum from crimes (such as cloning a card) and, given its origin, there is a high chance of being confiscated. In return, he receives a smaller amount from the victim, but it comes from a regular account and, therefore, can be freely used.

Many of the profiles make it clear that the money comes from illicit activities, displaying information about hijacked bank accounts and cards. If proven, the citizen’s knowledge of the origin of the amount received allows his characterization as an accomplice to the crime.

The scheme has a simple operation. In the initial contact, the scammer asks the person what the desired package is, that is, what amounts he wants to deposit and which ones to receive. Then, she is instructed to send the amount to a certain account, which usually belongs to oranges or was kidnapped by the scammer.

After sending, the person may not receive a return of the amount. If you do, the money is usually from cloned or hijacked accounts or cards. Thus, the scammer exchanges “dirty” money, arising from illicit activities, for amounts coming from a regular bank account, deposited voluntarily by the victim.

Scammers profiles vary. Some sell the scheme as an “investment opportunity”; others present themselves as a way of “circumventing the system”.

There are profiles that explain the illegal activities that support them; openly celebrate account hijackings and say that the shipment is made from orange beads.

Sometimes, they also use the names and logos of banking institutions in an attempt to demonstrate legitimacy, as well as testimonial videos and messages from alleged “customers”.

The report tried to contact the owners of these profiles, without success.

From victim to accomplice

Chinellato explains that it is common for the person who sent money to the embezzler, theoretically a victim of the coup, to be held criminally liable.

“If he did not know, theoretically, the person would not be held responsible. But in general, in this type of fraud, the person knows, because there is no easy money technique. There is no explanation for a person to make a transfer of R$ 50, receive R$1,000 back and think it’s a normal transaction.”

The delegate also spells out the risks related to data sharing. “The exposure of personal data is always a risk, because this data can be used for the practice of other scams or other frauds, such as having the data used to open accounts”, he says.

Lawyer Plínio Higasi, a specialist in digital law, says that even if it is not described in the profile that there is involvement with illegal activities, illegality can be presumed at the civil level, .

“The Judiciary considers the average man a person with full discernment, a person with reasonable knowledge about social situations, a person who uses the internet with some frequency. How does she understand such an absurd situation in which she pays and receives twice the amount ?”, asks Higasi.

In the criminal sphere, however, there is presumption of innocence; then, criminally, when there is a situation that raises doubts about the victim’s knowledge, she can be exempted from responsibility by the presumption of innocence.

“But if there is any type of connection that the bank makes in relation to the values ​​of illicit origin and the use by that person, the bank itself may end up blocking and withholding these values”, he says.

If the person really was not aware that they were participating in a fraud, it is recommended to contact the bank to block Pix. “Try immediately, as soon as you became aware of the illicit situation, to contact the bank to receive the values. But it is very rare to be effective because there was probably a withdrawal of the values ​​as soon as people received on the other side”, concludes the lawyer.

Chinellato says that the most important thing is not to believe in the promise of easy money. “That doesn’t exist, even more so in a current environment of economic difficulty for many people.”

The delegate recommends not participating under any circumstances in groups that promise an exaggerated financial return. “This avoids that the person, in addition to losing money, can have the complication of facing criminal proceedings.”