BT answered with a form letter that basically said: we hear what you're saying but cannot do anything about it (...) Then came this odd disclaimer: "BT would like you to know it does notwish to profit from this type of problem. BT takes only £1.85 per £100 worthof calls, the remaining revenue going to the service provider, and BT has pledged to donate its share of the revenue to Childline." (...) In 2002 the company [=network operator REDSTONE] nearly went broke and was forced to sell its national telecom network - to BT! Today, Redstone resells network products on behalf of BT, which means BT has an interest in Redstone, making BT's claim - that it only has a 1.85% stake in premium-rate calls -ratherless than the whole story. (...) Redstone's clients' fines amounted to more than 23% of the total. (so 'ne Art UK-Goodlines?) (...) The total repayments [of B&B Services -->
siehe Guardian came to about £30,000. M* [IL*X TRUST Lugano] also admitted what I already knew: that Icstis had penalised B&B £100,000, and that the company had paid the fine. (...) the £130,000 paid out amounted to less than 1% of the business B&B did during those four months. (...) on its website, BT refers to the problem as a "scam", one dictionary definition of which is: "A fraudulent business, a swindle". Therefore, having publicly stated that it knows this is illegal, BT's donation of 1.85% to charity may be less altruistic than it seems.
What other conclusion can any reasonable person make but that BT was trying to wash its hands of suspect money? But before anyone can give anything away, they must possess it, and
knowing that you are in possession of the proceeds of crime is a criminal offence in itself.. As I see it, BT could be open to the charge of being involved in money-laundering if at any stage it knows or suspects customers are victims of a premium-rate scam. Money-laundering can be defined as the acquisition, possession or use of the proceeds of another's criminal conduct. (...) Yet, knowing that certain dialler fraudsters have been banned by Icstis because they were in direct violation of the codes, and in the face of so many complaints of fraud, BT continues to insist on its right to collect unpaid fees derived from highly suspect premium-rate activities. In some instances, it has threatened to shut off people's phones for nonpayment. That BT has paid money to Redstone before collecting from its own customers - leaving itself exposed to the loss - is BT's problem, not its customers'. (...) Because some people take criminal behaviour seriously, tomorrow morning I will make a formal complaint to the police against BT, Redstone, B&B,Ilex and others for money-laundering and theft-act violations
