(Bloomberg) -- Want the lowdown on European markets? In your inbox before the open, every day. Sign up here.

The so-called Troika Laundromat was a financial network set up by a Russian investment bank to help clients move money out of the country and hide it. The scheme exported about $4.8 billion over seven years, with the help of a now-defunct Lithuanian bank.

That much we know from disclosures by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project and its partner news organizations. Almost daily revelations over the last week have widened the group of banks involved and added to a picture of massive laundering -- perhaps facilitated by the absence of a central enforcement agency in Europe.

What we don’t yet know is the identity of many of the participants on the Russian side, what proportion of the money was illicit, and whether additional banks are likely to be named. Financial institutions from Stockholm to Amsterdam already face uncomfortable questions, with investigations under way in the Baltic nations, the U.S., the U.K. and the Nordic countries.

While the sums reported by the OCCRP are small -- at least compared with the $230 billion handled by a tiny Estonian unit of Danske Bank A/S between 2007 and 2015, much of it suspicious -- the disclosures this week give a more detailed glimpse of the Russian money trail.

Here’s what we know:

• The scheme consisted of at least 75 shell companies set up by Troika. Money was moved between them for deals that were entirely made up, including fake invoices, in order to disguise the recipients. In total, $8.8 billion of internal transactions were generated to obscure the source of the money. Clients used the funds to buy real estate or luxury yachts, while criminal groups worked to launder illicit funds.

• Troika needed a commercial bank that wasn’t looking too closely at contracts and trades. It chose Lithuania’s Ukio Bankas. Ukio set up accounts for 35 of the companies in the Laundromat, probably more, OCCRP says.

• Because Lithuania wasn’t yet using the euro, it needed correspondent banks to handle euro-denominated transactions. That’s how most of the Western banks seem to be connected to the system. Analysts say for that reason, potential fines, if any, would be limited, because the onus is usually on the respondent bank to vet clients.

• OCCRP previously exposed three similar money-laundering schemes. The latest is based on a subset of a data trove that includes about 1.3 million leaked transactions from 238,000 companies, the bulk of them between 2003 and 2013. Reports by the group’s media partners keep adding fresh details about the role of Western banks.

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.