Topic: Alpha Technology Litecoin (Scrypt) ASIC Miner Order Batch 1 Now! - page 147. (Read 529056 times)

rofl, I called this one from the start. Tough luck.

Just so you guys don't think you have no legal recourse and Alpha Tech holds all the cards.  Recent events prove otherwise....

OFFICIAL Terrahash: News and Lawsuits
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4865552

Can always count on my evening going from bad to worse getting caught up on this thread :/

Yep that's what I'm reading. If so, Alpha customers are pretty F&%KED. This guy sounds like a clown (I flipped through his twitter feed too). If this guy is involved Alpha must be really desperate.

Personally, I think Alpha ran out of money months ago. The post from the brother stated they owed him and his father thousands and the recent transfer of shares would indicate that too. I think this Laurus guy has promised them a cash injection for a 10% stake. They are waiting and praying for this money to materialise so they can pay for the chips and the other components Dexcel are holding and complete production. If this Laurus guys exploits are to be believed that may never happen.

I think the big update will only come when/if they get this money. If they don't Alpha will probably go bust, as it seems they have tapped out every source of funds and cannot get a CC provider to play ball.

P.S. Another great deconstruction of the Alpha BS Anderl

Apparently this top law firm wasn't advising them on Jan 10th when they sent forum member "spacedcowboy ths email:


So 2checkout was their payment processor? If so take a gander at their prohibited merchant list: https://www.2checkout.com/policies/prohibited-product-list

Notably this:

Well  paying a 30% deposit and then the 70% balance is splitting the transaction across multiple payments. That would pretty much explain why Alpha have removed the 30% deposit and now require new purchases to pay in full. I'm pretty sure 2checkout would not be happy about a vendor selling a product that doesn't exist either.

So it looks like the Doctor was lying to us. No surprise there, 2checkout were probably upset about their payment terms and lack of product so decided to drop Alpha until they revised their terms an produced a tangible item. This would explain why the Doctor insists they will have a CC provider when they are ready to ship. It's all speculation at this point but one thing is for sure Alpha are up to something and are lying to cover it up.

Edit:  The doctor has confirmed 2checkout was their payment processor:

So my analysis was probably correct and he is a lying sack of s**t

Alpha-T's company records are certainly interesting.

Share Holder Records:
2013-11-30 :: Share Holders:
Mohammed Akram - 100 Shares (100%)

2014-05-13 :: Share Holders:
Mohammed Mubasher Akram - 75 Shares (100%)

2014-07-11 :: Share Holders:
Mohammed Mubasher Akram - 90 Shares (90%)
Andrew Laurus - 10 Shares (10%)

Other interesting occurrences:
2013.04.11 Company originally incorporated as CHESHIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD
2013.04.23 Application to dissolve the company
2013.07.19 Dissolution request withdrawn
2013.07.20 Registered office changed from, 3 MOTCOMBE FARM ROAD, HEALD GREEN, CHEADLE, to 64 DICKENSON ROAD
2013.07.22 Company name changed to Alpha Technologies (INTL) LTD.
2013.11.30 Director appointed MR MUHAMMAD AKRAM
2013.12.29 Appointment terminated, DIRECTOR MUHAMMAD AKRAM
2013.12.29 Registered office changed from, 64 DICKENSON ROAD to 66 DICKENSON ROAD
2013.12.29 Director appointed MR MOHAMMED JAFAR AKRAM
2014.04.06 Appointment terminated, DIRECTOR MOHAMMED AKRAM

Company directors and board members:
MOHAMMED MUBASHER AKRAM (current) 2013.04.11 - ongoing
MOHAMMED JAFAR AKRAM (resigned) 2013.12.29 - 2014.04.05
MUHAMMAD AKRAM (resigned) 2013.11.30 - 2013.12.29

---

I find the recent distribution of 10% of Alpha-T shares to Andrew Laurus, very interesting indeed.  See post news about this guy: http://www.asicbitcoinmining.info/2013/08/avalon-might-be-getting-200-million.html and elsewhere around the web.

My bet from this data:
Project went to complete shit; device was built and failed for some reason - faulty chips, crazy power consumption; who knows...  
Company is desperate, so they contracted the entire thing to a third party, offering him stake in the company for his investment.
Alpha-T falls silent on updates because they are no longer running the project.

Also, notice that the fallout with dexcel designs happened right around when MOHAMMED JAFAR AKRAM resigned from the company.  Obviously something went badly, and it seems even the Managing Director's own brother decided to distance himself from the project.  Mohammed Mubasher Akram got desperate, and attempted to outsource the entire project to someone else.

---

*Fetches some popcorn and gets ready for the storm*

So much back pedalling being done there.  And it is very coincidental that he resurfaces months after that post to quickly try to distance himself from Alpha technology.  And who can blame him.  His posting on that blog was in the role of a tax "geek" as the book keeper for Alpha Technology.  So his certifications may now on the line.

So it goes from a family involved businesses to a one man show who's father and brother just happened to loan the company several thousand dollars.  yet the company only has a few dozen pounds as per the public record.  I am a little concerned that the company is raking on those debt obligations as shareholders will take precedence to customers in a liquidation of the company if it ever goes into bankruptcy.  So there better be evidence of actual financial transfers being made from the father and brothers accounts to Alpha Technology to support those claims and not that it is a bookkeeping line item that appeared as soon as insiders find that they are at risk of the company capsizing.

I've traded penny stocks in the past and I've seen corporate executives state taking on large deferred salaries, stock as compensation or load tons of money and huge interest rates to a public shell company only for public pump and dumps so they can wipe out the company and get paid before public shareholders.  I want to point out that Alpha Technology is NOT a public company and that there CANT be a pump and dump going on here.  I only state that a lot of financial activity goes on when companies are at high risk going forward.


I like this little exceprt form his post.

...and as a professional I cannot and will not advice on any area that I am not qualified to do so in. However, I would like to make the following point; the issue of whether or not people are businesses is a much wider concept than that of trading.

I like how he states that as a professional he will not give advise. he is not qualified to do.... However.  

Why do people do that.  I mean its like saying.  I'm an honest and open person and I would never lie to you... however.  you try to step back from a a place that is in some legal limbo that you want to distance yourself from but you just can't leave it alone.  You have to jump back in and put yourself back in that risky place you were trying to walk away from.

And the whole people are businesses is wider than the concept of trading.  Hey Mister tax geek.  Who said it was only in the context of trading.  HMRC did not single out trading.  They covered the whole gambit of all "Cryptocurrency activities", that includes trading, mining, storing, probably even hacking.  You do NOT have to be a business to be a trader.  In the United States you can be an individual and be qualified as a day trader by having an account with a minimum of $25,000.


This is another fun snippet.  Again with the not an expert but I'm going to give you my opinion anyway.  LOL

I am no expert in this area, however, if this situation was as simple and straightforward as some of these self-proclaimed “experts” are suggesting in certain forums, which I have just had a skim read through, and for arguments sake Alpha Technology’s solicitors who are actually experts in this area were wrong or Alpha Technology misunderstood the advice

So lets stop right there.  I never said I was an expert.  I only said that it was the first time that I saw AT identify that it was the HMRC guidelines that AT was using as the definitive clause that makes all miners businesses.  However    I do know how to read.  I think I am am somewhat expert in the language of English.  ANd I DO know what the word OR is for when it is in a sentence.  Like for example.  "will be subject to Corporation Tax, Income Tax or Capital Gains Tax ", "Gains and losses incurred on Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies are chargeable or allowable for Capital Gains Tax if they accrue to an individual or, for Corporation Tax on chargeable gains if they accrue to a company."

See funny thing about the word OR.  It means there is an option, that there is one way of looking at it and at least another way.  That it can cover businesses or individuals.  That does not sound like a definitive anything.  And if Mr Tax Geek and Alpha Technology wants to prove that their expert legal team is right they can go present their position in a court of law when customers start filing claims against them.

, I am sure Trading Standards or any other regulatory body in charge of this would have forced Alpha Technology to change their terms to comply by now. I mean it has been 7 months or so since these terms went up.

OMG!!! This is another supportive argument?!?!?  "Well no one has noticed that we are doing this so it must be okay, right?!??!!  If I drive on the highway at 100KMH I'm not violating the law because no one has pulled me over saying I'm driving too fast.  I really hope that this is not the legal advice Alpha Technology is getting.  And this is also the one statement that doesn't pass the smell test and makes all this expert legal advice questionable.  Why would he come out and say that a regulatory body would have told us to stop if we were wrong.  If a legal team gave them a solid footing to stand on their would not have to make a statement like that.  If a regulator body did appear and tell them that it is wrong they could bring in their legal team and have them fight it out with the regulatory body.  But to say well we haven't been found out yet.  That just doesn't sound right.  Like they don't have confidence in the interpretation that they made or that their expert international ninja lawyer team gave them.

(Again, I am no expert and neither do I speak on behalf of Alpha Technology… Just my thoughts)

Again with not being an expert.  Very good you know how to play dumb.  Good for you.  I'm sure it wasn't that much of a stretch.  I' don't speak for Alpha Technology but I was a former director involved in the family business of Alpha Technology.  I"m posting with an Alpha Technology account on an Alpha Technology website forum touting my work for the company doing bookkeeping.

All the backpedaling, identifying he is not an expert anymore even though he branded himself as a tax geek and expert in taxation of mining, trading and holding cryptocurrencies.


But now he is distancing himself from his expertise provided and trying to help distance his father all the while publically saying how much the company owns them.  I'm sure if it ever goes to court he is going to print out all these posts point out how he was not as involved as everyone thinks he is.

So put up or shut up tax geek.  Post publically the report from your legal team defining miners as businesses.  I mean its not like it is a trade secret.  It domes give you any economic advantage and will actually help your case as it will put a freeze to all the claims that are starting to be filed against Alpha Tech.

Yes I can see that re-reading it.  So they may have an attorney that they have put on retainer and did a preliminary investigation on cryptocurrencies.  However I've never seen the attorney's law firm posted.  Alpha _technologies always call them a top legal law firm or international law firm.  So who is it that was so expert in determining that only businesses min cryptocurrency even though the precedence over the last 4 years has been that it has been a hobbyist pastime and there was never a requirement or regulation that stated you need to be incorporated to mine cryptos on a CPU or GPU.  

It's like saying that you need to be a business to fix your car even though millions of people do it all over the country.  Yes there are businesses specialized in auto repair but there is no legal requirement for.  And HMRC has NEVER come out and stated that it is illegal for individuals to mine cryptocurrencies, or stated that you must be incorporated to mine cryptocurrencies.  

If they are so confident that only businesses can mine cryptocurrency then why hasn't their lawyer publicly come out and said so.  Why doesn't ALpha Technology publically publish the position paper or draft that they paid thousands of dollars to a lawyer for that proves that they are right beyond a shadow of a doubt.  So far they haven't and I don't believe they will because I believe they do not have it.

I've read the HMRC and I see several statements that identify that individuals as well as business can conduct cryptocurrency activities which include mining.  If Alpha Technology says otherwise the onerous is on them to prove otherwise.  Because they are depending on that legal position because it prevents them from having to follow consumer protection laws.  

And that is the critical point here.  The ethics of the law is to protect individuals from businesses that can strong arm them, take their money, withhold it, sell them shoddy products or fail to deliver.  Businesses will draft lengthy agreements with each other and will have  lawyers on both sides draft those agreements so that both parts knows when they are in breach of the contract.  Individuals typically do not have the capital to higher a team of lawyers to help negotiate an agreement.  That is why there are consumer protection laws.

Alpha Technology never asked if you were a business, never asked for a business identification number, was willing to accept personal as well and corporate debt and credit cards to purchase miners.  If any investigation is don't on the Alpha Technology customer database I doubt you will find even half of the purchases have a business name.  Most have used personal names and not business names.  Most of the miners are going to residential addresses.  I have dealt with wholesalers and B2B corporations and there are forms that you have to fill out that go above and beyond just putting your name address and purchase information on.

To make my point here is a distributor I worked with.  They only work wholesale with businesses.  This is 1 of 2 pages they required me to fill out in order to establish a business to business relationship.
Notice what they are asking for on the form.  Notice how it takes 1 to 2 business days to confirm.  Notice how I had to attach a resale tax certificate/business license/company document in order to prove I was a business.  Notice how they ask me about my anticipated monthly purchases.  How they ask for a list of authorized buyers from my company.  Notice that I have to CERTIFY that I to business in a local (State/Province/Region).

Now ask yourself.  Did Alpha technology ever ask you for even a small portion of what this business asked for?

That is why I believe that the spirit of the law is on the side of the Alpha Technology customers as individuals and that Alpha Technology only identifies customers as businesses so they can bypass consumer protection laws.

Lots of interesting google hits on Andrew Laurus ...

And here's their latest Statement Of Capital:

Class of shares: ORDINARY
Currency: GBP
Number allotted: 100
Aggregate nominal value: 100 (GBP)
Amount paid per share: 1 (GBP)

Shareholder 1: 90 ORDINARY shares held by MOHAMMED MUBASHER AKRAM
Shareholder 2: 10 ORDINARY shares held by Andrew Laurus

---

Okay, wtf... Andrew Laurus?  That guys was involved with Avalon, no?

Well if we skip the contractors and PR employee only Mohammed Mubasher Akram left. 

Courts seriously frown upon cases where the claimant has made no attempt to negotiate with the defendant themselves.

I've seen a case thrown out of court simply because the defendant said that they had posed a legitimate response to the claimant's request, and received no response, and the claimant couldn't deny it.  If you do what you suggest, and Alpha-T responds with legitimate questions (whether you deem them legitimate or not), then you won't have a leg to stand on in court under any competent judge.

It's perfectly reasonable, and I'd argue that it is the responsible approach to try to settle things with Alpha-T yourself before taking it before the law.

---

That said, it's about time everyone brings this before the law, and I generally agree with your sentiments.

I think at this point it's more about understanding for many people.  The money, meh... Me, I want to know what happened or is happening at Alpha.

What I can't understand is why those of you who got ripped off are still playing games with this company?  It is fairly obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in the outcome, that none of you will get the product you paid for, nor will AT ever willingly return your money.  So why all the posturing and back-and-forth?  File a claim, contact a lawyer, get your money back.  Or not, I guess.  But giving them deadlines and such isn't really all that productive as all it does is give them more time to move the money around, and also makes your position clear (i.e., not really willing to take legal action).

The process itself isn't that difficult.  You send them a certified letter (or whatever it is called in your country, a letter requiring a signature to receive) stating what you ordered, what you paid, your wish to cancel your order and receive a full refund of whatever amount you paid and a deadline to receive the money, something like 7-14 days in the future.  There is no need to give reasons or explanations why, as it isn't their concern (besides, they already know why), nor explain that you aren't a business (they already know that too) or anything like that.  The whole thing should be like 5 lines long, if that.  That's it, done.  Then when they don't pay you, file against them.  

If that isn't something you are comfortable with then hire an attorney, but really the whole thing can be done by yourself.  You're not going to wake up tomorrow and have a meaningful update from AT sitting in your inbox, everyone knows that, so why wait?

Has anyone had the opportunity to look at Alpha-T's statement of capital document from 2014.07.14?

I'm waiting for a copy to be e-mailed to me, with any luck it'll be in the next hour.  This might be very telling (or, typical of alpha, it might say nothing).

Well we're officially 7 days past their original "worst case shipping date", with not even a peep from them. Product development appears to have stopped, with the last known update of their needing to revise the boards. They never mentioned finalizing case design. They threw out the LCD, wifi and built-in controller. Then supposedly brought back the LCD, but then threw it out again. Since then, they claimed to be almost through tapeout and about ready to receive chips (end of May, estimate), and that they'd be having a big update soon!

Then it was, there are some delays which we can't disclose.. but a big update soon!

..There are delays.. but a big, big, HUGE update way soon!

Credit card processing is up!... hours later, Credit card processing has been revoked!

..Delays.. we know we haven't provided an update in (2+ months), but we have some absolutely record-breaking news coming soon!

..yep, just trust us, it's coming! Ignore the fact our phone line has been disconnected, half the staff has been fired, and we've been removing all digital presence from the whole internet!

...yeah. That's about what's been going on.

Try reading at least a few pages of the forums thread your in?

Thanks2All for advices, here is email I just send them:

Hello Alpha,

1. Well I must say just again, that I'm not a business customer, I'm an individual. Ask MJAkram, your Accounts manager, he understands it , see attached Tax01. You don't even know for what I would use purchased hardware, so the statement "the hardware we are selling can only be used for mining cryptocurrencies which is a business practice according to HMRC" is completely nonsense. What if I use it for science/experimentation purposes?

2. I have no business license, I am a standart consumer and I'm not acting as a business. That's only your fradulent claim. There is NO WHERE in the HMRC does it say that mining cryptocurrencies is only a business activity. HMRC do not classify mining as a business activity, it can be done as an individual and profits treated as a Capital Gain not income. See this:
HMRC identified that all generation of profits from cryptocurrency transactions are taxable as corporate OR personal income tax.  There was not specification that the income generated was specifically corporate tax.  I hope this puts this B#$@#HIT that Fiaz is spouting to rest.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/briefs/vat/brief0914.htm

Corporation Tax, Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax treatment of Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies
As with any other activity, whether the treatment of income received from, and charges made in connection with, activities involving Bitcoin and other similar cryptocurrencies will be subject to Corporation Tax, Income Tax OR Capital Gains Tax depends on the activities and the parties involved.

Whether any profit or gain is chargeable or any loss is allowable will be looked at on a case-by-case basis taking into account the specific facts. Each case will be considered on the basis of its own individual facts and circumstances. The relevant legislation and case law will be applied to determine the correct tax treatment. Therefore, depending on the facts, a transaction may be so highly speculative that it is not taxable or any losses relievable.. For example gambling or betting wins are not taxable and gambling losses cannot be offset against other taxable profits.
For businesses which accept payment for goods or services in Bitcoin there is no change to when revenue is recognised or how taxable profits are calculated.
Corporation Tax: The profits or losses on exchange movements between currencies are taxable. For the tax treatment of virtual currencies, the general rules on foreign exchange and loan relationships apply. We have not at this stage identified any need to consider bespoke rules.

For companies, exchange movements are determined between the company’s functional currency (usually the currency in which the accounts are prepared) and the other currency in question. If there is an exchange rate between Bitcoin and the functional currency then this analysis applies. Therefore no special tax rules for Bitcoin transactions are required. The profits and losses of a company entering into transactions involving Bitcoin would be reflected in accounts and taxable under normal Corporation Tax rules.

Income Tax: The profits and losses of a non-incorporated business on Bitcoin transactions must be reflected in their accounts and will be taxable on normal income tax rules.

Chargeable gains - Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax: If a profit or loss on a currency contract is not within trading profits or otherwise within the loan relationship rules, it would normally be taxable as a chargeable gain or allowable as a loss for Corporation Tax or Capital Gains Tax purposes. Gains and losses incurred on Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies are chargeable or allowable for Capital Gains Tax if they accrue to an individual OR, for Corporation Tax on chargeable gains if they accrue to a company.


3. About the terms - what terms did you fulfiled? The one about updates every week? With video and/or pictures? Or the one about project completion on 15.7.2014 (See the roadmap attachment.)? If you are going to consider your news items as contractual terms, then what about the other terms you are violating??? See the roadmap attachment.

4. There has been UK Citizens Advice Bureau contacted and they clearly explain this about distance orders:
Your rights and obligations
When you enter into a contract with a trader by means of a distance communication (telephone, internet, mail order etc.) you will often have cancellation rights under what is known as the Distance Selling Regulations. These state you are entitled to a written notice confirming the details of your order and the fact you have cancellation rights. If you have been given the notice at the time you place the order, your cancellation rights run from the time of order until  7 working days starting from the day after  you receive the goods. If you have not been provided with this written information, your cancellation rights are extended for up to 3 months and 7 working days. The trader must provide this refund within thirty days.

So as is written in my first email, I did everything according to law and now you have 30 days starting from 21.07.2014 to do a full refund to me.

Kind regards
...............

Can You please post the email here? It can help others, including me :-)

How?