Could someone potentially set up a session account in order to catch others in nefarious acts?
Executive summary
Yes — law enforcement and private actors routinely create fake accounts, websites and personas to lure suspects into committing crimes; examples include international cybercrime stings where agencies set up fake booter services to register thousands of suspects and multi‑agency “reverse sting” operations that posed as launderers or victims [1] [2]. Academic and government guides say sting operations intentionally create or exploit opportunities, use undercover agents or surrogates, and end with arrests — but they raise documented ethical and legal concerns, including risks of entrapment and increased crime [3] [2].
1. What “setting up a session account” looks like in practice
Law enforcement creates online personas, websites and user accounts that appear to offer illicit services (for example, fake DDoS/“booter” sites) and invites people to register and interact; the UK NCA and partners tricked thousands into registering with a sham booter site as part of Operation PowerOff [1]. In money‑laundering stings, agents may pose as criminals or launderers and offer services to draw in suspects — sometimes by initiating contact and later substituting undercover agents [2].
2. How agencies justify and design these operations
Police and prosecutors argue sting operations reveal conduct that ordinary records cannot — money laundering “is a crime of subterfuge and concealment,” and undercover operations can tie innocuous entries to criminal schemes, or provide evidence of intent and planning that would otherwise be unavailable [2]. The Office of Justice Programs’ guide lists four common elements: a created or exploited opportunity, targeted likely offenders, undercover surrogates, and a “gotcha” arrest phase [3].
3. Evidence these methods work — and at what scale
Multinational efforts have produced large takedowns: the NCA‑led effort targeting DDoS‑for‑hire infrastructure included creating decoy services and helped dismantle or disrupt dozens of sites [1]. Reverse stings have led to arrests in scams and child‑exploitation cases; local and federal agencies have publicly announced arrests resulting from such operations [4] [5].
4. Legal and ethical limits — risk of entrapment and controversy
Government sources and defense practitioners warn sting operations can cross lines. The OJP guidance notes stings sometimes increase crime and pose negative ethical and legal problems that must be weighed against benefits [3]. Legal commentators and defense firms emphasize defendants often argue entrapment or improper inducement; online sting litigation and critique have featured in reporting and legal blogs [6] [7].
5. Two common models: “stinging the launderer” vs. “stinging the criminal entrepreneur”
Scholarly and justice‑office literature distinguishes operations that pose as criminals seeking laundering (asking for proceeds) from reverse stings that pose as launderers or service providers inviting criminals in. Both are used to gather evidence, but they differ in who is enticed and how the opportunity is framed [2].
6. Private sector and cross‑border cooperation complicate accountability
Recent high‑profile stings and anti‑piracy efforts have included private companies and global coalitions; an antipiracy sting that involved entertainment companies assisted in taking down a large streaming operation and led to arrests and seizure allegations [8]. Cross‑border collaboration increases reach but raises questions about differing legal standards and oversight across jurisdictions [1] [8].
7. What this means for someone thinking of “catching others” themselves
Available sources document law enforcement and authorized agencies conducting such operations [3] [2]. They also document significant legal and ethical limits; untrained private individuals setting up deceptive accounts risk criminal exposure, civil liability and ethical violations — available sources do not mention laypeople lawfully mounting independent stings outside official or authorized efforts (not found in current reporting).
8. Final assessment: feasible for law enforcement, fraught for unaffiliated actors
Stings are an accepted investigative tool when conducted by or with authorization from law enforcement; they demonstrably produce arrests and evidence when carefully planned [1] [2] [3]. They carry tangible risks — legal challenges, ethical controversy and potential to exacerbate crime — that the justice literature and recent reporting underscore [3] [6].