Fact check: Can carding sites be used for international transactions?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, carding sites can indeed be used for international transactions. The evidence strongly supports this conclusion through multiple data points:

Cross-border fraud statistics reveal that 63% of the total value of card fraud in 2021 involved cross-border transactions, directly indicating that carding operations frequently target international markets ^[1]. This demonstrates the global scope of carding activities.

Specific case examples further confirm international usage. The Try2Check carding site was used by cybercriminals to verify stolen credit cards for cross-border transactions ^[2]. Additionally, Russian national Sergey Ivanov operated money laundering services with international reach that specifically catered to cybercriminals involved in carding operations ^[3].

Scale of international operations is evidenced by the UniCC darknet site, which operated from 2013 until its closure, listing tens of thousands of new stolen credit cards daily and receiving $358 million in cryptocurrency payments, demonstrating significant global reach ^[4]. The site's massive scale and cryptocurrency payment system facilitated international transactions.

Technical capabilities support international use, as carding shops obtain material from 'sniffers' and 'skimmers' that can capture payment card details from various international sources ^[5]. The analyses also indicate that hundreds of millions of payment card details stolen from online retailers, banks, and payment companies are sold for cryptocurrency on online marketplaces, enabling international transactions ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the law enforcement response to international carding operations. Russia has seized four major dark web carding sites, demonstrating that authorities are actively combating these international networks ^[6]. The Justice Department has also dismantled cybercriminal networks fueling the global stolen credit card trade, showing coordinated international law enforcement efforts ^[2].

Financial institutions' countermeasures are notably absent from the discussion. Visa is actively using artificial intelligence and other technologies to combat rising fraud threats, including those that cross international borders ^[7]. This represents a significant industry response that affects the effectiveness of carding operations.

Evolving fraud techniques provide additional context missing from the simple question. Chinese cybercriminals are exploiting NFC technologies through techniques like 'Ghost Tap' for fraudulent transactions, which can operate across borders ^[8]. This shows that carding is part of a broader, evolving landscape of international payment fraud.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual rather than containing obvious misinformation. However, it could be misleadingly simplistic by not acknowledging the illegal nature of carding sites and their use for international transactions.

The question might inadvertently normalize criminal activity by framing it as a technical capability question rather than explicitly acknowledging that using carding sites for any transactions, international or domestic, constitutes criminal fraud and money laundering.

Stakeholders who benefit from downplaying the international scope of carding include cybercriminals themselves, who profit from the $358 million in transactions documented at sites like UniCC ^[4], and money laundering services operators like Sergey Ivanov who facilitate these international criminal enterprises ^[3].

The question also lacks context about the victims of international carding, including financial institutions like Visa that invest heavily in fraud prevention ^[7], and the consumers whose stolen card data enables these international transactions ^[6].