Straight from the horse's mouth:
Russian National And Bitcoin Exchange Charged In 21-Count Indictment For Operating Alleged International Money Laundering Scheme And Allegedly Laundering Funds From Hack Of Mt. Gox
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/russian-national-and-bitcoin-exchange-charged-21-count-indictment-operating-alleged
I can't see Putin or the Russians not doing anything in retaliation for this arrest.
Topic: BTC-e hacked ?? - page 113. (Read 199719 times)
You must be kidding, dude
The Swiss banks were as legitimate as legitimacy itself can be defined. These banks had been bragging about the bank secrecy they were granting for decades if not for ages (heck, they still seem to keep the Jewish gold that Nazis had taken for the Jews in Germany under Hitler). And now you may want to think again whether "the FBI, US government or similar" had nothing to do with these banks all of a sudden choosing to fully disclose the bank account details of their clients which have the US citizenship, and, ironically, exactly to the parties you just mentioned. Is it a coincidence, and if it is not, then what is it?
The Swiss banks were as legitimate as legitimacy itself can be defined. These banks had been bragging about the bank secrecy they were granting for decades if not for ages (heck, they still seem to keep the Jewish gold that Nazis had taken for the Jews in Germany under Hitler). And now you may want to think again whether "the FBI, US government or similar" had nothing to do with these banks all of a sudden choosing to fully disclose the bank account details of their clients which have the US citizenship, and, ironically, exactly to the parties you just mentioned. Is it a coincidence, and if it is not, then what is it?
Getting a little sidetracked here, but yes - the banks were legal, but they had no audit at all of the funds coming in or out, making it a paradise for tax evasion, money laundry and such. Who hasn't heard of a Swiss bank account in movies and such? The pressure came from Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that the swiss banks needed to update their regulation as a high percentage of accounts was used for illegal activities, which they also did. FATF is not US based, but a cooperation between countries (think UN or NATO for banks
). Sure the US might have pushed it too, but it was a unanimous vote and the Swiss banks agreed.In this case the exchange is not classified as a bank, it has no overseeing agency that can threaten them with sanctions and so on. It's a normal business. Also a business that has already taken big precautions to avoid any such illegal activities and open to auditing, making it even harder for anyone to motivate a sieze.
At this point I'd say asking for Bitstamp to be shut down would be similar to "Please close all McDonalds restaurants (or some local similar chain) in the country, we have suspicion of the CEO being involved in crimes in the US". Would never happen.
Yes, I am about to lose around $200k btc-e. Yes, this is basically all the money I made the last 15 years. Great. I was standing in front of the window already. And all because I liked to trade from time to time and stayed most of the time in fiat.
So, the guy arrested was either the CEO or just an admin. An interesting part is, the news reports say that the guy was arrested at Monday morning and at Tuesday, either an automated script kicked off, writing the twitter statements or another CEO or another admin noticed that something happened (more likely) and cut everything.
Monday night, every thing was working at btc-e.com - so the USA couldn't have had access to the server. No wallets have been touched (the 66k rumor was coinbase wallet). Are bank accounts freezed? They didn't even touch Mayzus Financial Services Ltd (the real launderer with that bank account in Mongolia) - or why didn't we hear anything from them?
This is indeed very interesting. Mayzus Financial Services Ltd is where fiat for btc-e and OKPAY is deposited (IIRC btc-e just had an OKPAY account, not their own bank account). OKPAY so far seems to be untouched. Interestingly enough, OKPAY was aquired by Mayzus last month: https://www.okpay.com/en/company/news/okpay-has-been-acquired-by-mayzus/So, the guy arrested was either the CEO or just an admin. An interesting part is, the news reports say that the guy was arrested at Monday morning and at Tuesday, either an automated script kicked off, writing the twitter statements or another CEO or another admin noticed that something happened (more likely) and cut everything.
Monday night, every thing was working at btc-e.com - so the USA couldn't have had access to the server. No wallets have been touched (the 66k rumor was coinbase wallet). Are bank accounts freezed? They didn't even touch Mayzus Financial Services Ltd (the real launderer with that bank account in Mongolia) - or why didn't we hear anything from them?
I feel like Mayzus and OKPAY is at a huge risk to be brought down by similar charges as btc-e and liberty reserve. It's a game of cat and mouse, and I'm rooting for the mouse.
My gut feeling is this is not the last of BTC-e. I'd imagine there are some pretty heavy hitters involved with this exchange given the mysterious, long running history and the amount of money involved. I think we are in for a few twists and turns in this tale and I would not be surprised to see it up and running again especially given there is still no seizure message on the site and the potential big time connections made over the years. Like the old saying goes money talks and we don't know how far reaching or how deep this rabbit hole goes yet.
Guys... why would they pay the fine? They are running an illegal money laundering enterprise (which btw is NOT an immoral act, just illegal, it is important not to confuse the two). There is no reason for them to pay that fine. If they were to pay the fine they would need to "go legal" which means revealing their real identifies, implement KYC/AML and get all the required licenses. And spend up to 55 years in jail for the rules they have currently broken FIRST.
They will continue rogue or shut down.
They will continue rogue or shut down.
The last update they gave on their twitter doesn't look promising, I have some doubts, I believe they are trying to buy some time to vanish once for all, 5-10 days is enough to make them use multiple exchanges and hide their tracks, and since their identity is not known, this make things much easier.
This makes zero sense. Why on earth would btc-e need to use any exchanges to "hide their tracks" ? They can just let the funds sit for months or years and do nothing. It's pretty clear this was not an intended scam as it was brought down by LE. Why does everyone seem to think criminals HAS to send btc to exchange and withdraw for fiat. Criminals are FAR better off holding crypto. 
I asked you about licenses specifically, and how being licensed can help you unless you obtained that license directly from Uncle Sam's hands. So how would the license issued to Bitstamp by Luxembourg authorities help that "licensed" exchange in case the FBI thinks the exchange launders money and is involved in other criminal operations and activities (as they could come to think)? In short, is there any real difference between a "licensed" and "unlicensed" exchange (unless this license is confirmed by Washington, of course)?
The FBI, US government or similar can do _nothing_ about foreign companies. US laws applies in the US, not in other countries. What they can do it ask the country to block / shut down the exchange in case of suspicious activities, but it's 100% the target countries choice to do so (if they, say, want to keep a good relation with the US). If you are licenced, you have external auditors checking your exchange on a regular basis, all the government permissions, follow all available laws and anti-money-laundry precautions and so on. It is _definitely_ harder to motivate shutting down a legitimate business because the US wants you to, instead of an illegal money transfer operation breaking local laws and regulations and being suspected for laundry (something auditors would probably catch long before the US if that was the case). So yes, I'd say you are a lot safer on sites like Bitstamp.
You must be kidding, dude
The Swiss banks were as legitimate as legitimacy itself can be defined. These banks had been bragging about the bank secrecy they were granting for decades if not for ages (heck, they still seem to keep the Jewish gold that Nazis had taken for the Jews in Germany under Hitler). And now you may want to think again whether "the FBI, US government or similar" had nothing to do with these banks all of a sudden choosing to fully disclose the bank account details of their clients which have the US citizenship, and, ironically, exactly to the parties you just mentioned. Is it a coincidence, and if it is not, then what is it?
Just another piece of interesting information from my latest experience...
It seems that the Czech accounts used for SEPA deposits are not seized.
Story:
I was just funding my account minutes before the Cloudfare 502 the other day, I was sending like 2.5k.
Then the next day, watching this thread, the moment I've seen the misteryous arrest on the Reuters news I have triggered the transfer cancellation which already shown as "processed"
Just minutes ago the money came back to my bank account so I'm relieved.
My only loss in this business were the 75EUR cancellation commission, lucky me...
It seems that the Czech accounts used for SEPA deposits are not seized.
Story:
I was just funding my account minutes before the Cloudfare 502 the other day, I was sending like 2.5k.
Then the next day, watching this thread, the moment I've seen the misteryous arrest on the Reuters news I have triggered the transfer cancellation which already shown as "processed"
Just minutes ago the money came back to my bank account so I'm relieved.
My only loss in this business were the 75EUR cancellation commission, lucky me...
On the last page of the arrest warrant published by coindesk
https://www.coindesk.com/110-million-btc-e-fined-us-vows-crackdown-unregulated-exchanges/
it is stated that
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
SERVERS CONTAINING BTC-E-
RELATED CONTENT STORED AT THE
PREMISES CONTROLLED BY
EQUINIX
then we find out Equinix is a data center based right in Redwood City, California, with several POPs worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
So the above warrant is also a search warrant for the servers location which may better explain why BTC-e wend suddenly in 502 and also why one of the tweets was saying something about "network related issues in data center" while FEDs were busy pulling out the RJ45s
don't quote me on that, it's just one of my thoughts
https://www.coindesk.com/110-million-btc-e-fined-us-vows-crackdown-unregulated-exchanges/
it is stated that
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
SERVERS CONTAINING BTC-E-
RELATED CONTENT STORED AT THE
PREMISES CONTROLLED BY
EQUINIX
then we find out Equinix is a data center based right in Redwood City, California, with several POPs worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
So the above warrant is also a search warrant for the servers location which may better explain why BTC-e wend suddenly in 502 and also why one of the tweets was saying something about "network related issues in data center" while FEDs were busy pulling out the RJ45s
don't quote me on that, it's just one of my thoughts
Equinix data center is in Bulgaria too, what makes you think BTC-e would use a Californian data center an risk FinCen problems?
They would have been taken down years ago like Mt Gox was in the US.
I didn't say the servers were in California, that was exactly my point saying "with several POPs worldwide"
While the arrest warrant had jurisdiction in Greece, the same way the search warrant was applicable anywhere between Bulgaria, Poland, etc etc ...
On the last page of the arrest warrant published by coindesk
https://www.coindesk.com/110-million-btc-e-fined-us-vows-crackdown-unregulated-exchanges/
it is stated that
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
SERVERS CONTAINING BTC-E-
RELATED CONTENT STORED AT THE
PREMISES CONTROLLED BY
EQUINIX
then we find out Equinix is a data center based right in Redwood City, California, with several POPs worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
So the above warrant is also a search warrant for the servers location which may better explain why BTC-e wend suddenly in 502 and also why one of the tweets was saying something about "network related issues in data center" while FEDs were busy pulling out the RJ45s
don't quote me on that, it's just one of my thoughts
https://www.coindesk.com/110-million-btc-e-fined-us-vows-crackdown-unregulated-exchanges/
it is stated that
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
SERVERS CONTAINING BTC-E-
RELATED CONTENT STORED AT THE
PREMISES CONTROLLED BY
EQUINIX
then we find out Equinix is a data center based right in Redwood City, California, with several POPs worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
So the above warrant is also a search warrant for the servers location which may better explain why BTC-e wend suddenly in 502 and also why one of the tweets was saying something about "network related issues in data center" while FEDs were busy pulling out the RJ45s
don't quote me on that, it's just one of my thoughts
Equinix data center is in Bulgaria too, what makes you think BTC-e would use a Californian data center an risk FinCen problems?
They would have been taken down years ago like Mt Gox was in the US.
On the last page of the arrest warrant published by coindesk
https://www.coindesk.com/110-million-btc-e-fined-us-vows-crackdown-unregulated-exchanges/
it is stated that
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
SERVERS CONTAINING BTC-E-
RELATED CONTENT STORED AT THE
PREMISES CONTROLLED BY
EQUINIX
then we find out Equinix is a data center based right in Redwood City, California, with several POPs worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
So the above warrant is also a search warrant for the servers location which may better explain why BTC-e wend suddenly in 502 and also why one of the tweets was saying something about "network related issues in data center" while FEDs were busy pulling out the RJ45s
don't quote me on that, it's just one of my thoughts
https://www.coindesk.com/110-million-btc-e-fined-us-vows-crackdown-unregulated-exchanges/
it is stated that
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
SERVERS CONTAINING BTC-E-
RELATED CONTENT STORED AT THE
PREMISES CONTROLLED BY
EQUINIX
then we find out Equinix is a data center based right in Redwood City, California, with several POPs worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinix
So the above warrant is also a search warrant for the servers location which may better explain why BTC-e wend suddenly in 502 and also why one of the tweets was saying something about "network related issues in data center" while FEDs were busy pulling out the RJ45s
don't quote me on that, it's just one of my thoughts
I asked you about licenses specifically, and how being licensed can help you unless you obtained that license directly from Uncle Sam's hands. So how would the license issued to Bitstamp by Luxembourg authorities help that "licensed" exchange in case the FBI thinks the exchange launders money and is involved in other criminal operations and activities (as they could come to think)? In short, is there any real difference between a "licensed" and "unlicensed" exchange (unless this license is confirmed by Washington, of course)?
The FBI, US government or similar can do _nothing_ about foreign companies. US laws applies in the US, not in other countries. What they can do it ask the country to block / shut down the exchange in case of suspicious activities, but it's 100% the target countries choice to do so (if they, say, want to keep a good relation with the US). If you are licenced, you have external auditors checking your exchange on a regular basis, all the government permissions, follow all available laws and anti-money-laundry precautions and so on. It is _definitely_ harder to motivate shutting down a legitimate business because the US wants you to, instead of an illegal money transfer operation breaking local laws and regulations and being suspected for laundry (something auditors would probably catch long before the US if that was the case). So yes, I'd say you are a lot safer on sites like Bitstamp.
[What "all other unlicensed exchanges" do you refer to? Where these exchanges should get their license and from whom exactly? Maybe, you mean Washington, DC, and the US government? We are not there yet. What the US authorities are doing is not very far from complete lawlessness and surely beyond outrage. Btc-e has basically nothing to do with the US, and if some US citizens are making illegal trades at this exchange, the US government should go after them, not the exchange. In other words, as long as it is not the American exchange, it is none of their business. I am eager to see them attacking, say, China in this manner
If a country signed a treaty with US and you travel to that country you can be extradited to US if US files arrest warrant based on that treaty. It does not matter your citizenship and where your business is physically located !! This is real life fact which most people don't think about. When you travel another country you are not having diplomatic immunity because you are foreigner. Everyone is practically in huge danger whenever traveling abroad because foreigners don't details of destination country laws and international treaties that they have signed with other countries.
About licensing exchanges, I don't follow much which country have options to have legal exchange but check for example this https://www.coindesk.com/philippine-central-bank-sees-few-applicants-for-crypto-exchange-license/
Also Bitstamp wrote that they are licensed exchange from Luxembourg
I guess you should learn to read
I didn't ask you about what you just wrote, I didn't ask you about citizenship and the possibility of being arrested (just in case, you can get arrested even in your home country and extradited to the US). I asked you about licenses specifically, and how being licensed can help you unless you obtained that license directly from Uncle Sam's hands. So how would the license issued to Bitstamp by Luxembourg authorities help that "licensed" exchange in case the FBI thinks the exchange launders money and is involved in other criminal operations and activities (as they could come to think)? In short, is there any real difference between a "licensed" and "unlicensed" exchange (unless this license is confirmed by Washington, of course)?
If a country signed a treaty with US and you travel to that country you can be extradited to US if US files arrest warrant based on that treaty. It does not matter your citizenship and where your business is physically located !!
While this is very true, it only applies to the person. Even if the admin of BTC-e is prosecuted in the US, they have no control over any business he runs in the country extradited him (and to be honest, btc-e seems to operate from a bunch of different countries). So while he will face charges, I doubt the US can do anything at all about the BTC-e site or keeping it from opening up again. The major problem is probably that the people behind the site would be targets for more US interventions, so they would have to either remain anonymous or stay in countries without extradition treaties.
[What "all other unlicensed exchanges" do you refer to? Where these exchanges should get their license and from whom exactly? Maybe, you mean Washington, DC, and the US government? We are not there yet. What the US authorities are doing is not very far from complete lawlessness and surely beyond outrage. Btc-e has basically nothing to do with the US, and if some US citizens are making illegal trades at this exchange, the US government should go after them, not the exchange. In other words, as long as it is not the American exchange, it is none of their business. I am eager to see them attacking, say, China in this manner
If a country signed a treaty with US and you travel to that country you can be extradited to US if US files arrest warrant based on that treaty. It does not matter your citizenship and where your business is physically located !! This is real life fact which most people don't think about. When you travel another country you are not having diplomatic immunity because you are foreigner. Everyone is practically in huge danger whenever traveling abroad because foreigners don't know details of destination country laws and international treaties that they have signed with other countries.
About licensing exchanges, I don't follow much which country have options to have legal exchange but check for example this https://www.coindesk.com/philippine-central-bank-sees-few-applicants-for-crypto-exchange-license/
Also Bitstamp wrote that they are licensed exchange from Luxembourg.
What "all other unlicensed exchanges" do you refer to? Where these exchanges should get their license and from whom exactly? Maybe, you mean Washington, DC, and the US government? We are not there yet. What the US authorities are doing is not very far from complete lawlessness and surely beyond outrage. Btc-e has basically nothing to do with the US, and if some US citizens are making illegal trades at this exchange, the US government should go after them, not the exchange. In other words, as long as it is not the American exchange, it is none of their business. I am eager to see them attacking, say, China in this manner
Bitstamp is a fully licenced exchange, for example. https://www.bitstamp.net/payment-institution-license/
But yes, I agree that the US should have no authority what so ever of an exchange in the EU.
As to me, such license wouldn't help a shit
If the FBI was going after an exchange having it. That wouldn't take long for the US government to declare this license null and void (according to the American laws, obviously). I'd rather say it all quickly comes down whether they can actually do anything rather than follow some local rules and regulations even if there is nothing wrong according to the laws of that jurisdiction. It should be as clear as day to anyone in his right mind that the US jurisdiction takes prevalence and precedence over any local one unless the local government doesn't give a fuck about Uncle Sam and can uphold their position with arms (like Cuba or Iran)
Translated from Russian
BTC-e's chief moderator:
In fact, knowing not by hearsay (by a walk through the old "not local" and possible new comments), in order to restore at least an approximate existing infrastructure on the new site, it is necessary to take about a week (3 days at least to rest and get drunk), everything here will depend on the reliability and packing Backup data and communication channel with the new DC ...
plus do not forget that there are also "political" moments in the placement of such services ...
PySy that, when, how and where they hosted and hosted it is not for me to say ...
There is a good chance that the btc-e exchange will resume its work.
I advise you, dear readers, not to make hasty conclusions, conclusions and not to read jaundice. It is worthwhile to understand that the media are now rejoicing against the background of this event, tearing away large traffic and causing panic.
I would like to remind you about 2 hacking of the BTZ-E exchange a couple of years ago. The exchange paid all to a penny in the currency in which it was stolen.
BTC-e's chief moderator:
In fact, knowing not by hearsay (by a walk through the old "not local" and possible new comments), in order to restore at least an approximate existing infrastructure on the new site, it is necessary to take about a week (3 days at least to rest and get drunk), everything here will depend on the reliability and packing Backup data and communication channel with the new DC ...
plus do not forget that there are also "political" moments in the placement of such services ...
PySy that, when, how and where they hosted and hosted it is not for me to say ...
There is a good chance that the btc-e exchange will resume its work.
I advise you, dear readers, not to make hasty conclusions, conclusions and not to read jaundice. It is worthwhile to understand that the media are now rejoicing against the background of this event, tearing away large traffic and causing panic.
I would like to remind you about 2 hacking of the BTZ-E exchange a couple of years ago. The exchange paid all to a penny in the currency in which it was stolen.
What "all other unlicensed exchanges" do you refer to? Where these exchanges should get their license and from whom exactly? Maybe, you mean Washington, DC, and the US government? We are not there yet. What the US authorities are doing is not very far from complete lawlessness and surely beyond outrage. Btc-e has basically nothing to do with the US, and if some US citizens are making illegal trades at this exchange, the US government should go after them, not the exchange. In other words, as long as it is not the American exchange, it is none of their business. I am eager to see them attacking, say, China in this manner
Bitstamp is a fully licenced exchange, for example. https://www.bitstamp.net/payment-institution-license/
But yes, I agree that the US should have no authority what so ever of an exchange in the EU.
Does anybody notice newbie accounts posting negative things in this thread?
+1, please keep in mind that many people reading this thread could have lost tens or even hundreds of thousand of dollars. For some their entire life savings. Ok, maybe not lost for sure, but at least it has a very uncertain future. Yes, there are risks trading online, but to be honest this was not expected in the least. Comments like "told you so, sucker" doesn't help people feeling really bad right now, quite the opposite. Please keep to facts and discussions.
All other unlicensed exchanges are now facing the same danger as it is happening to BTC-e now.
US can issue arrest warrant to any of exchanges and their operators (owners and employees) will be arrested when they step into any country that have signed a treaty I have mentioned above.
Lets just hope that BTC-e owners considered this possibility and that they have a way to get out of this. If not, all unlicensed exchanges might close their businesses, at least for US citizens
US can issue arrest warrant to any of exchanges and their operators (owners and employees) will be arrested when they step into any country that have signed a treaty I have mentioned above.
Lets just hope that BTC-e owners considered this possibility and that they have a way to get out of this. If not, all unlicensed exchanges might close their businesses, at least for US citizens
What are you talking about?
What "all other unlicensed exchanges" do you refer to? Where these exchanges should get their license and from whom exactly? Maybe, you mean Washington, DC, and the US government? We are not there yet. What the US authorities are doing is not very far from complete lawlessness and surely beyond outrage. Btc-e has basically nothing to do with the US, and if some US citizens are making illegal trades at this exchange, the US government should go after them, not the exchange. In other words, as long as it is not the American exchange, it is none of their business. I am eager to see them attacking, say, China in this manner
All other unlicensed exchanges are now facing the same danger as it is happening to BTC-e.
US can issue arrest warrant to any of exchanges and their operators (owners and employees) will be arrested when they step into any country that have signed a treaty I have mentioned above.
Lets just hope that BTC-e owners considered this possibility and that they have a way to get out of this. If not, all unlicensed exchanges might close their businesses, at least for US citizens.
US can issue arrest warrant to any of exchanges and their operators (owners and employees) will be arrested when they step into any country that have signed a treaty I have mentioned above.
Lets just hope that BTC-e owners considered this possibility and that they have a way to get out of this. If not, all unlicensed exchanges might close their businesses, at least for US citizens.
i am saying that since years ago...
Kraken, Poloniex and Bitfinex are next.
Jump to: