CEO OF BITCOIN EXCHANGE ARRESTED - page 5.

Bitco

sr. member

Activity: 746

Merit: 253

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on January 28, 2014, 09:03:43 PM

An MSB is obligated to file a SAR when the transaction meets the criteria.
The MSB is prohibited to notify the client that a SAR has been filed.
Even when directly asked or subpoenaed an MSB is prohibited from indicating if a SAR has or has not been filed.

An MSB is obligated to file a SAR when the transaction meets the criteria, but the criteria are not secret.

The MSB is prohibited to notify the client that a SAR has been filed, but the client should be able to figure out if the MSB was obligated to file a SAR.

The only thing the client is really prohibited from knowing is whether the MSB filed an unnecessary SAR.

mainline

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: darkmule on January 29, 2014, 02:29:26 PM

Quote from: ex-trader on January 29, 2014, 11:55:22 AM

Quote from: darkmule on January 29, 2014, 10:11:12 AM

Sadly true. Look at what happened to pirateat40. Oh, yeah. Nothing. There's a civil suit by the SEC, which means the worst he'd have to do is return the money he stole and pay a fine. Anyone who had run a Ponzi scam of this size denominated in dollars would be looking at hard time and would probably now be awaiting trial from behind bars or, if bailed out, the bail would be enormous.

Has anyone bothered reporting it to the Police as a fraud though? Maybe it might have been ignored a while back (what is Bitcoin etc) but I doubt it would be now if it went to the right people with evidence.

The SEC shares responsibility with the FBI and FinCEN for determining whether a crime has occurred, and the facts in the civil complaint they filed unambiguously state that Shavers was running an illegal Ponzi scam, which is a criminal as well as civil violation. Someone, somewhere in a position to prosecute considered it and chose not to do so, if not many someones. This is somewhat similar to how Full Tilt could and should have been prosecuted just for their Ponzi-like activity and criminal self-dealing, but instead, were prosecuted for running a poker site (technically mainly for using banks in doing so).

Pirateat40 most likely cooperated in exchange for reduced/dropped charges. If he had dirt to trade, he probably did.

darkmule

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1005

Quote from: ex-trader on January 29, 2014, 11:55:22 AM

Quote from: darkmule on January 29, 2014, 10:11:12 AM

Sadly true. Look at what happened to pirateat40. Oh, yeah. Nothing. There's a civil suit by the SEC, which means the worst he'd have to do is return the money he stole and pay a fine. Anyone who had run a Ponzi scam of this size denominated in dollars would be looking at hard time and would probably now be awaiting trial from behind bars or, if bailed out, the bail would be enormous.

Has anyone bothered reporting it to the Police as a fraud though? Maybe it might have been ignored a while back (what is Bitcoin etc) but I doubt it would be now if it went to the right people with evidence.

The SEC shares responsibility with the FBI and FinCEN for determining whether a crime has occurred, and the facts in the civil complaint they filed unambiguously state that Shavers was running an illegal Ponzi scam, which is a criminal as well as civil violation. Someone, somewhere in a position to prosecute considered it and chose not to do so, if not many someones. This is somewhat similar to how Full Tilt could and should have been prosecuted just for their Ponzi-like activity and criminal self-dealing, but instead, were prosecuted for running a poker site (technically mainly for using banks in doing so).

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: BADecker on January 29, 2014, 01:12:55 PM

Quote from: ex-trader on January 29, 2014, 11:55:22 AM

Quote from: darkmule on January 29, 2014, 10:11:12 AM

Sadly true. Look at what happened to pirateat40. Oh, yeah. Nothing. There's a civil suit by the SEC, which means the worst he'd have to do is return the money he stole and pay a fine. Anyone who had run a Ponzi scam of this size denominated in dollars would be looking at hard time and would probably now be awaiting trial from behind bars or, if bailed out, the bail would be enormous.

Has anyone bothered reporting it to the Police as a fraud though? Maybe it might have been ignored a while back (what is Bitcoin etc) but I doubt it would be now if it went to the right people with evidence.

The fact is that most people on here want Bitcoin to grow and be accepted as a currency and with that comes responsibilities, such as obeying the laws that relate to all other currencies......

Report to the police? Be careful about reporting to the police. People have lost valuables, lives of relatives, even their own life when or because of reporting something to the police.

Reporting something to the police is usually pretty safe for white people judging from the reports I've seen. So far at least, though there does seem to be a movement towards them being generally more intimidating. Make sense because this is the best force multiplication factor and there probably looking forward to a society in which they'll be needing it.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

What police? Remember you people abolished all governments. There is no police anymore.

Bobsurplus

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

Making money since I was in the womb! @emc2whale

Quote from: BADecker on January 29, 2014, 01:12:55 PM

Quote from: ex-trader on January 29, 2014, 11:55:22 AM

Quote from: darkmule on January 29, 2014, 10:11:12 AM

Sadly true. Look at what happened to pirateat40. Oh, yeah. Nothing. There's a civil suit by the SEC, which means the worst he'd have to do is return the money he stole and pay a fine. Anyone who had run a Ponzi scam of this size denominated in dollars would be looking at hard time and would probably now be awaiting trial from behind bars or, if bailed out, the bail would be enormous.

Has anyone bothered reporting it to the Police as a fraud though? Maybe it might have been ignored a while back (what is Bitcoin etc) but I doubt it would be now if it went to the right people with evidence.

The fact is that most people on here want Bitcoin to grow and be accepted as a currency and with that comes responsibilities, such as obeying the laws that relate to all other currencies......

Report to the police? Be careful about reporting to the police. People have lost valuables, lives of relatives, even their own life when or because of reporting something to the police.

Yes report to police, you can take your "stop snitchin" attitude and shove it where the sun dont shine!

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: ex-trader on January 29, 2014, 11:55:22 AM

Quote from: darkmule on January 29, 2014, 10:11:12 AM

Sadly true. Look at what happened to pirateat40. Oh, yeah. Nothing. There's a civil suit by the SEC, which means the worst he'd have to do is return the money he stole and pay a fine. Anyone who had run a Ponzi scam of this size denominated in dollars would be looking at hard time and would probably now be awaiting trial from behind bars or, if bailed out, the bail would be enormous.

Has anyone bothered reporting it to the Police as a fraud though? Maybe it might have been ignored a while back (what is Bitcoin etc) but I doubt it would be now if it went to the right people with evidence.

The fact is that most people on here want Bitcoin to grow and be accepted as a currency and with that comes responsibilities, such as obeying the laws that relate to all other currencies......

Report to the police? Be careful about reporting to the police. People have lost valuables, lives of relatives, even their own life when or because of reporting something to the police.

ex-trader

sr. member

Activity: 298

Merit: 250

Quote from: darkmule on January 29, 2014, 10:11:12 AM

Sadly true. Look at what happened to pirateat40. Oh, yeah. Nothing. There's a civil suit by the SEC, which means the worst he'd have to do is return the money he stole and pay a fine. Anyone who had run a Ponzi scam of this size denominated in dollars would be looking at hard time and would probably now be awaiting trial from behind bars or, if bailed out, the bail would be enormous.

Has anyone bothered reporting it to the Police as a fraud though? Maybe it might have been ignored a while back (what is Bitcoin etc) but I doubt it would be now if it went to the right people with evidence.

The fact is that most people on here want Bitcoin to grow and be accepted as a currency and with that comes responsibilities, such as obeying the laws that relate to all other currencies......

darkmule

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1005

Quote from: leopard2 on January 29, 2014, 09:45:32 AM

I admit that I have not heard of Shrem before, but I feel sorry for this guy who has obviously done nothing wrong but to exercise honest tradesmanship by selling BTC for USD at mutually agreed conditions.

Actually, BitInstant was dodgy from the word go, advertising "instant" Bitcoin transactions that often took days in practice. It went belly-up after its business model failed. I don't have any love lost for that particular service. I wouldn't say they'd qualify as a scam and, in fact, the other exchanges have similar problems. It seems they were pushing through Silk Road transactions with the added vig ahead of non-lawbreaking users.

Quote

If he had been defrauding bitcoin owners for the same dollar amount, he would be in much less trouble. US (justice) system is deeply sick.

Sadly true. Look at what happened to pirateat40. Oh, yeah. Nothing. There's a civil suit by the SEC, which means the worst he'd have to do is return the money he stole and pay a fine. Anyone who had run a Ponzi scam of this size denominated in dollars would be looking at hard time and would probably now be awaiting trial from behind bars or, if bailed out, the bail would be enormous.

leopard2

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1014

Quote from: jballs on January 28, 2014, 06:45:09 PM

Quote from: leopard2 on January 28, 2014, 06:33:41 PM

HE WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE (some of the others got busted for structuring; especially if they were in the wrong party)

You can't be in compliance. See kafka. All the Fincen/Patriot Act/Fatca legislation is intended to declare anyone a criminal as they see fit. This is the fundamental failure to communicate here. These laws are not constitutional, or if they are then we have abandoned the premise of the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold#Criminal_prosecution

They will simply find a reason if they want to take you down. The "law" provides for this and is therefore no longer a law but a bludgeoning tool for those above the law to apply as they wish.

That is 100% correct. It is a common strategy for dictators to issue foggy laws that can be used against anyone, to keep people under control.

And I am sure if there had been a Nazitalk forum at the time, many posters would write things about Landmesser like "his own fault" .. "why did he not raise his hand if that is the law" .. "the complaint is correct, he did refuse to raise his hand, read the complaint" .. "how can he have been so stupid" and so on. Angry

I admit that I have not heard of Shrem before, but I feel sorry for this guy who has obviously done nothing wrong but to exercise honest tradesmanship by selling BTC for USD at mutually agreed conditions. If he had been defrauding bitcoin owners for the same dollar amount, he would be in much less trouble. US (justice) system is deeply sick.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on January 28, 2014, 09:58:04 PM

So many mistakes in the following paragraph alone.

Quote

Even the CEO of Bitcoin, an online currency exchange, couldn’t escape the watchful eye of an undercover DEA agent. Monday, Bitcoin’s CEO, Charles Shrem, and Bitcoin user, Robert Faiella, were arrested on a charge of conspiring to commit money laundering in connection with the “Silk Road” drug website, which allows users to buy and sell drugs anonymously.

WTF! Even a YouTube video is entitled incorrectly: Bitcoin Boss Arrested ( Bitcoin executive Charlie Shrem is accused of money laundering )

Oh, I see! It must be some sort of an advanced research project to carefully study the effects of total and utter shit journalism!

What I don't understand is why they would have to sully the Northwestern University name producing their own shit journalism when there is so much dynamite material produced by the professionals every day?

jballs

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on January 28, 2014, 09:29:49 PM

Fight the good fight against the banks, I won't get in your way.

It doesn't make the claim that MSBs can legally aid their clients in structuring to avoid mandatory reporting (among a host of other falsehoods) which is the post I was responding to.

I know and it is two parallel issues. I was an institutional broker for a long while and i was trained & certified in AML for years. My revulsion to the current state of affairs comes from being inside the machine. Some cartel guy comes into my office with a suitcase full of cash i have to file. This in theory is supposed to stop criminal activity. So instead cartel guy takes HSBC execs out on his yacht and so what is the point? I have to pretend to scoop the little fishes out with a net while the sharks run free. That just wastes my time and creates the illusion of emforcement when there in fact is none. So until HSBC is held accountable there is no reason for anyone to enforce the AML regs. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.

I have no position in the financial industry currently Fyi. Else i couldnt speak of such things.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: tvbcof on January 28, 2014, 07:26:40 PM

Turns out that this is more serious than I thought. Unbeknownst to most of us, Shrem was 'The CEO of Bitcoin'!

I only know this because of the wonderful reporting here:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=227147

One sure can miss out on a lot by not following the mainstream news.

So many mistakes in the following paragraph alone.

Quote

Even the CEO of Bitcoin, an online currency exchange, couldn’t escape the watchful eye of an undercover DEA agent. Monday, Bitcoin’s CEO, Charles Shrem, and Bitcoin user, Robert Faiella, were arrested on a charge of conspiring to commit money laundering in connection with the “Silk Road” drug website, which allows users to buy and sell drugs anonymously.

WTF! Even a YouTube video is entitled incorrectly: Bitcoin Boss Arrested ( Bitcoin executive Charlie Shrem is accused of money laundering )

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Fight the good fight against the banks, I won't get in your way.

It doesn't make the claim that MSBs can legally aid their clients in structuring to avoid mandatory reporting (among a host of other falsehoods) which is the post I was responding to.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: Bugpowder on January 28, 2014, 04:09:37 PM

Quote from: Honeypot on January 28, 2014, 01:03:48 AM

This shit ain't prohibition. It's tracking down fuckin idiots who think they are internet che guevarras when they can't even take care of themselves.

When prohibition doesn't work, it's time to kill and erase everything. You think prohibition is somekind of an ultimate form of state oppression? LOL this posh ass thinking.

Exactly what I would expect from 1st world retards who believe they know anything about 'government oppression'.

This kid got his ass burned because he thought he could run his shit behind his computer without any repercussions in other people's lives. His was a crime of ignorance and irresponsibility, and now he's paying for it. Crypto can be used for all kinds, certainly as a means to pay off someone for murdering your family.

Who are you all kidding anyway?

Kid can't even take the time to shave, and he wants to be a dirty money laundering kingpin. What a joke.

Believe it or not, Charlie probably shaved at least every two days, but with an electric razor set at some minimum depth.

jballs

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on January 28, 2014, 09:10:26 PM

Are you trying to point out hypocrisy in the system? You don't honestly think I am defending the status quo. The big difference between anyone related with Bitcoin and HSBC is "you" aren't to big to fail or jail.

Sometimes the real world sucks. I think looking at what HSBC got away with and using it as a business plan is a good way to end up behind bars for a significant portion of your natural life (unless you just happen to have assets in the hundreds of billions of dollars range).

No I don't subscribe to the idea that bankers are above the law. They have managed to get there, but they cannot be allowed to stay there. Thus, any time an opportunity to bring awareness to the two tiered legal system we now have (where Shrem gets arrested for a couple mil and HSBC gets a fine for billions), that is my point of interest. We have a duty to not accept that Shrem is a "criminal" for breaking the laws the US DOJ refuses to enforce upon Wall Street bankers. Equal protection under the law, constitutional mandate, fully valid defense.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Are you trying to point out hypocrisy in the system? You don't honestly think I am defending the status quo. The big difference between anyone related with Bitcoin and HSBC is "you" aren't to big to fail or jail.

Sometimes the real world sucks. I think looking at what HSBC got away with and using it as a business plan is a good way to end up behind bars for a significant portion of your natural life (unless you just happen to have assets in the hundreds of billions of dollars range).

jballs

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 10

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on January 28, 2014, 09:03:43 PM

Quote from: bg002h on January 28, 2014, 08:59:56 PM

I don't think the subject of a SAR is allowed to know that they are...(insert horrible pseudo-reference) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report#Confidentiality

That was my point although horribly phrased.

An MSB is obligated to file a SAR when the transaction meets the criteria.
The MSB is prohibited to notify the client that a SAR has been filed.
Even when directly asked or subpoenaed an MSB is prohibited from indicating if a SAR has or has not been filed.

http://youtu.be/BnP84GN6HdI?t=5m57s

Hmmmm?

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: bg002h on January 28, 2014, 08:59:56 PM

I don't think the subject of a SAR is allowed to know that they are...(insert horrible pseudo-reference) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report#Confidentiality

That was my point although horribly phrased.

An MSB is obligated to file a SAR when the transaction meets the criteria.
The MSB is prohibited to notify the client that a SAR has been filed.
Even when directly asked or subpoenaed an MSB is prohibited from indicating if a SAR has or has not been filed.

bg002h

donator

Activity: 1464

Merit: 1047

I outlived my lifetime membership:)

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on January 28, 2014, 04:56:52 PM

... and for even notifying clients that they have filed a report with FinCEN as required by law.

I don't think the subject of a SAR is allowed to know that they are...(insert horrible pseudo-reference) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report#Confidentiality

At any rate, the allegation uses email quotes from Charlie liberally. Hard to see how that is unlikely to be true. It's not just failure to work hard enough to discover rule violations, it was failure to do the job of a compliance officer.

It may not seem fair that different rules apply to people buying eggs low and selling high than to people doing the same thing with money, but the rules are different. For this use case, bitcoins are more like dollars than a commodity like eggs.

Topic: CEO OF BITCOIN EXCHANGE ARRESTED - page 5. (Read 23761 times)