Topic: [BitFunder] Moving Forward/Resolution Process - page 30. (Read 292138 times)

Thanks man, those are great!!!

1.  If people are not buying Jon's "wish I could tell you but NO" excuse, you chiming in with "I was told some stuff that I wish I could tell you but NO" becomes particularly irritating.  Unless you're intentionally trolling, stop.

2.  Sure, Ken is at best an opportunist and more likely a thief, but bringing him up in the context of WeEx fiasco and mentioning corporate law is absurd.
Both Jon and Ken have stolen from loosely the same bunch of people, and now they're stealing from each other.  Kindly warn me before bringing up laws in the future so I won't be caught off-guard with a mouthful of coffee.

The thing is, Glendall, that I do know the reasons as they stood back in nov/dec and I do understand. If you read Danny and ukyo's posts there is a hint there that saying too much could lower the chances of us being repaid.

It's been quite a while since then and I still haven't had spoken to ukyo so I have nothing new. I am also unable to say what I do know (have been told) and I can certainly see what it's taking so long, although it's horrible for those of us owed a lot of money. It also doesn't mean we are going to get any back either.

All I can say is that ukyo hasn't lied to my knowledge and that he was actually trying to do something brave and good. That doesn't absolve him of being at fault, only that he wasn't walking away leaving us pissing in the wind. I requested a third party verify he hadn't used or stolen our money and that was confirmed.

The actm share situation pisses me off. Ken took shares off ukyo when his claim is actually over weexchange aus. Moreover, I believe we all have to be part of it in that situation. It isn't much, but those shares were either nothing to do with us unless a court found ukyo personally liable or they were to be sold on all our behalf.

Ukyo had been trying to get then sold for ages to return more money to weexchange users.

Basically ken is acting illegally, as far as I know, and shitting on WeEx users since this money was already flagged as to go to us. Ukyo doesn't owe ken money. A business for which he is owner does, and they are different in law. The shares were personally owned.

If someone can show I am wrong on this then to ahead. However, it's about the law and business entities, not what you think is right. Basically, can ken under US law claim some rights to ukyo's personal assets, as a Belize company, when ukyo's Australian company owed it money? Everywhere I read about this people are confusing who owns or owes what. And no, being sole director doesn't make you automatically personally liable for a company's debts. That's half the point of a ltd company.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bza0Sx1iSRWqYVRiMkRaLVlrcFE

Well there is the rather obvious point that those shares should have nothing to do with weex ... unless Ukyo has been using people's weex BTC to buy them ... which is something Ukyo can go to jail for doing.

Someone please post Jon Montrol's home address, passport copy, his family informations and or related stuff, or pm me and I will post them.
 

The 'legal reason' he can't tell us what happened is because if he told us, we'd be able to use that information against him in court.  There is no known NDA or government info lock down that could possibly prevent him from telling us what happened to the coins, that just is not feasible.  Government agents are not going to swoop and demand that he not allow people to withdraw the money they deposited, at the same time not allowing the owner to tell people that the government is involved.

If you believe that there is some sort of NDA or entity preventing from telling us anything, why would Jon hope to sell his Active Mining shares to give partial refunds to users? That makes just about 0 sense. It would have to be public knowledge if the exchange was shut down by the government.  And if it was a private NDA, how could that possibly be valid that he holds millions of dollars of BTC and then not be able to tell anyone about what happened to them? Like really. Why would any NDA from a company exist that would lead directly to legal actions from hundreds of users that had coins stolen? Can you think of one reason? Can you really believe that?  

Note this is my best guess. And since Ukyo is not saying anything, this is all we have.  Just look at the facts and make your own judgements.

[I apologize if I'm spamming these threads. Thankfully it seems at least finally some of you are coming around to the idea that something isn't right here.]

+1

Ukyo, this was asked already, sometimes more harshly, but could you please not ignore and actually answer this simple question.

How come you can't even provide us with a deadline for the next announcement about how the recovery is doing? I'm trying to imagine all possible scenarios, with lawyers sending other lawyers friendly letters of some sorts, etc., but at any rate, you must be waiting for something, with either a positive, neutral or negative out come, but there has got to be some damn thing that you are waiting for and you won't wait for it forever will you?

Example:

"I expect the current phase of the process to be completed no later than in 1/2/3/4/5/6/12/18/24/36/48/more? months, and then I will be able to tell you how much more coins have been recovered, if any"

How hard is this to answer even if you are under the most crazy NDA of all time? Please educate us. Thanks.

Hope we can get our coins back soon.

Actually it was me and I may have done it on reddit first.

I can also confirm that, to my knowledge, something did change and there are two distinct issues. The point is, Ukyo didn't lie. To my knowledge (and this is also why I requested third party confirmation/involvement - Danny).

Just to clarify - Ken is regaining ACtM monies not his personal BTC. The 106BTC has been taken off our balance sheet, this is and always has been company money.

Currently the market is deciding the price of these shares. There is nothing else to be done. Every ACtM shareholder would like these shares to go all the way to refund everyone but it's just not happening. The open market is deciding how much they want these shares and so far demand at this price has been low-moderate. These shares were sold to Ukyo and they have now been seized by their issuer to recover losses under lien. It's legal and for ACtM and it's hundreds of investors it's the only option we have to get our vital money back. These funds are important for our bottom line, we may come to need them in Q2 with our chip runs begining in February.

I lost 1.7BTC on WeEx and I would be pissed too if that was all my money. But ACtM simply need to act in their own best interest. Any responsible company thinking about its shareholders would do the same. This is business.

My only advice is to buy some of these shares at 0.0005. There is a shareholder guarantee of 0.0025 per share and you are guaranteed a 4x return over a max 9months (my estimate).

The withdraw problem was first reported by Lophie. Note that it was still possible to withdraw if you were lucky and didn't get the error. The error seemed to happen at an increasing frequency.

The deposit page were removed and manual withdrawals were stopped somewhere around the 16th of November. Ukyo recently said that the "legal issue" happened around the time he stopped doing manual withdrawals.



Also, a new post by Danny:

Kenslaughter of ActiveMining is selling Ukyo's shares for 0.0005 each to regain his 100 btc lost in weexchange.

This means we lost the chance to get a partial refund from Ukyo liquidating his shares (as he said we would, obviously if he was and is in good faith).

ukyo: Last Active:   Today at 06:02:09 AM

graet left western Australia on the 29th of january to catch a flight. dont know if this ties in with ukyo going offline or being online in a different time zone. they both need sorting anyway.

I think I remember reading the first reported withdrawal problems were in the 3 week of October.  But anyways here at least is proof of a problem since late October, Oct 28.

Username   WeExchange ID                                                  Amount                                Time Stamp

Falko0815  DkcQSadTbyuqcuOD2R4a2UqB0zvnGPZW                    13.3                                        2013-10-28 12:36:12
from
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-94-con-by-jon-montroll-337523

Folks should give negative trust to Jon Montroll to warn people. Unless you think it is fine with taking folks' deposits into his exchange and treating it as his personal wallet.

WeexChange Timeline:

* bitfunder closed for us-residents and verification needed 7/8.10.2013
* inputs.io got "hacked" on 24/10/2013
* bitfunder closing 4.11.2013
* weexchange claim portal opened on 17.12.2013

* weexchange withdraw problems started
* manual withdraws stopped
* neobee stepped in

Extending the search to other coincidental events, not limiting the timeline to weex&bf, might be useful, too.
So I'll just add this one:
inputs.io got "hacked" on 24/10/2013.

Does someone has a timeline of what happened with bitfunder/weexchange? For example dates for:
* bitfunder closed for us-residents and verification needed 7/8.10.2013
* weexchange withdraw problems started
* manual withdraws stopped
* weexchange claim portal opened on 17.12.2013
* bitfunder closing 4.11.2013
* neobee stepped in

And and and. It might be helpful to have all dates to hand when searching for the problem.

Please correct wrong dates and add other dates.