Topic: [ANN] Bitcoinica Consultancy abandons customers. Bitcoinica to enter Liquidation - page 9. (Read 54936 times)

Wasn't sent to me.  The link has been posted in every BDT thread over on reddit.  Someone in the JRO loop obviously thought it needed to be made public.

Huh.

Take this with a grain of salt, because it's unsubstantiated rumour at this point, but if it's true it would be enormously helpful to the liquidation process.


https://privatepaste.com/5241fafb45

I don't think proving the theft of bitcoins in court would be hard at all.  The thief admitted to the evidence against him, but blamed an associate.  If he can't produce the associate, wouldn't he be found guilty?  He also cannot claim the forum account is not his, because he posted specific pictures of himself using it.

Funny thing is, steal enough actual monopoly money and legal consequences might follow. The surprising thing to me is how many people seem to think virtual items are still completely nebulous to legal principles.

"bitcoin is just monopoly money" is such an old scammer motto, I've heard it from virtually every known scammer out there. How convenient.

People have been prosecuted for the theft of virtual items on Habbo Hotel before and there's a pretty solid list of prosecutions for computer intrusions and data theft/destruction (even if you don't regard BTC as an "item", it can certainly be regarded as data).

I think where difficulty might arise is in jurisdictions which look to specific laws rather than over-arching principles of law.  Many nations have existing laws which can easily be interpreted to include e-related issues and so there's been no rush to enact legislation which specifically deals with e-issues.  There may be other jurisdictions in which such issues can't be dealt with in the absence of specific legislation related to e-property and e-commerce.

I agree. The often repeated BS that there's no law against bitcoin theft hurts common and legal sense.

But in practice there are difficulties, like having to prove possession first, and pursuing theft of bitcoins in court may be harder than more physical crimes.

Technically, it's not even necessary for an item to have value in order for appropriating it without the owner's consent to be a criminal offence.  Where value comes into play is when compensation is sought through civil means.

Really? Feel free to name one. Anything that can be shown to "have value" (utility) is usually illegal to remove from another person's control against their will - there have been plenty of court decisions in various parts of the world to that effect over the years. Including "virtual Internet stuffz".

Then what sets you aside from any other poster on here? I was under the impression that you are acting on behalf of certain parties in a legal capacity? What are you actually here to do?

I never suggested anything of the sort and you know it, so it is confusing to see you jump to this defense?

Please could you answer Bruno's questions?


BB.

To Zhou Tong (serious and just in case you do exist):

Don't take any treats serious, but do keep in the back of your mind that they exist, otherwise it will consume you. I've recently been threatened, but have paid it no mind, because if they were serious they would have kept their effin' trap shut. Therefore, just carry on as if you didn't have to look over your shoulder. BTW, where are you going to be at 2PM (local) tomorrow afternoon?   (only kidding)

Later.

~Bruno~

PS: I hope you enjoy my 'walks into a bar' humor, albeit the majority have been jabs at your expense which, unfortunately, may continue, but the gist of this post is to honestly give you peace of mind if you've received any treats from here or other channels.

Stay Rucky!  

Edit: I just realized that this is the Tihan thread and didn't mean to post off-topic, but I was reply to a previous post and felt it important to post what I did. Sorry, if I was off-base, all.

Peace.

I am batman

Your stalking and threats of violence did nothing but complicate this matter.  As Zhou Tong valiantly fights to recover money from the thief for the benefit of the community he simultaneously is having to watch his back against that very ungrateful community as they attempt to bite the hand that feeds them.  

I, for one, am thankful that someone like Zhou Tong is there to stand up for justice and fight against the theft of funds.  As for those who think he is a criminal, I can only say one thing, "There are conditions worse than being unable to see, and that is imagining one sees."

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!! Are any of the Intersango Gango still thinking that there is some possible benefit to them standing up and presenting in London? Seriously, take a hint boys, you need to let the thermonuclear fires die down a bit, you are painted with the worst scandal and the greatest example of incompetence in the history of bitcoinage, and you really think you have something constructive to offer? No, you don't. Leave your donation to subsidize the event, show up and learn from listening to all the people who are NOT gigantic cluster fuck-ups and did not drop their pants to either A:) get fleeced by a 17 fraudster; or B) try to fleece selfsame 17 year old out of his business under the guise of being the white hat saviors. Either way you screwed up, and nothing, absolutely nothing you have to say in a public forum can help.

if he does someone throw a shoe @ his face.....

Has Patrick withdrawn as a guest speaker?  If not, I cannot imagine any way that his presentation will not end badly. 

As always thank Repentance for these insightful posts.


And these are the posts that started it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1099607
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1099851

New Zealand insolvency law is quite clear on the issue of creditors acting to secure assets.  Not only can they do so, but a creditor who acts to secure assets for the benefit of all creditors becomes a preferential creditor and is entitled to have both their costs in securing the assets and the whole of their claim given preference over other creditors.  So Wendon as a creditor most certainly had the legal right to retain Patrick to help with the securing of assets.  Tihan has also stated that Wendon will be making its own entitlement under receivership available to other creditors in liquidation.

Quite separately, Wendon as the limited partner of Bitcoinica LP is legally allowed to participate in a limited range of "safe harbour" management activities - one of those activities relates to dissolving the partnership.  Given the circumstances under which the partnership broke down, not only is it unlikely that it would be found Wendon acted improperly in attempting to secure the assets of Bitcoinica LP, it's likely it would be found that they had a positive obligation to do so.

People are understandably cynical, but neither Tihan nor Patrick Murck is in a position where false statements regarding Bitcoinica assets will be without consequence.  It is absolutely in their best legal interests that this whole clusterfuck proceed to receivership and liquidation as soon as possible.  The moment a liquidator is appointed, they assume total control over all assets - that the assets remain frozen on MtGox until that happens is the best option for users and Bitcoinica principals alike.

If it helps, a liquidator is required to establish the cause of business failure and whether or not any of the principals have acted in a manner which gives rise to personal liability.  If the actions of the principals rise to the level of criminal behaviour, the liquidator is obligated to report that to the appropriate authority (usually the Serious Fraud Unit, who'll then decide on the most appropriate form of criminal investigation).  Any creditor claiming in liquidation can raise concerns with the liquidator and provide additional information to the liquidator.  An initial report is sent to all creditors by the liquidator early in the liquidation process, so there's definitely an opportunity for creditors to have input if they believe the liquidator has been misled or is ignoring important issues.  It's even possible to apply to a court to have the appointed liquidator replaced if creditors are unhappy with the liquidator's performance.  

There's a hell of a shit-storm developing in the Bitcoin conference thread at the moment.  

I don't have custody of the funds, they are all held at MtGox. This is widely known so I'm not sure what answer I could give that would satisfy you?

If you are asking me to divulge confidential information and break privilege, that is not going to happen.

If you are concerned about who can exercise control over the funds, I can clearly state that I do not have any control over or access to the funds. They are frozen at MtGox pending formal procedures.

Best,
Patrick