Topic: Cryptopia Cryptocurrency Platform Services and Development - page 27. (Read 173234 times)

I know it's taken you eight days to respond.  The New Zealand laws are very closely aligned with the Australian Laws (Hint: it's know as the Westminster System)  Both are Constitutional Monarchies.

A theft occurred and it is being investigated by the New Zealand Police.

The follow-on of the theft is that the company was trading while insolvent (i.e. they had no money) and so the company was placed into receivership.

---

All of which has been discussed here countless times while you have been away.

Do try to keep up.

What is that supposed to mean?  Care to elaborate and not make personal statements about someone you know nothing about?

NZ law and those responsible for it is supposed to be overseeing how the remaining assets are paid back, correct?

Almost everything is gone, in November almost 40% were gone, only 7 out of 10,9 million were left, as I see the Christchurchlers will still take a lot of time to make the damage greater in their addiction and in the end to ask customers for even more money for their "honorable work". Those who have given full details will not give them back and will only charge additional fees. Steal all you can and more and more, all crimes are excused by JC, their motto seems. Even before the alleged hack, it was clear that it was a fraud model, more than three quarters of the coins were delisted and new fraud coins were added daily, which were delisted again a few days later, withdrawls were only possible for a few days. Always remember what #Crimechurch means. In no banana republic could criminals have more freedom of foolishness, I would not trust businessmen in Zimbabwe less.

I do not know any of the main protagonists but it did seem clear Intranel were investors that had long term plans to take over the whole company or a majority stake at least and when the company failed there was no need for their Managing Director Dave Sanders to turn up at Court. When Booth took his $400,000 pay off when he was sacked for the disastrous 8 month tenure he effectively severed ties with the company and would not be interested in Court proceedings so would have no reason to attend other than from a moral stand-point where he could have done it.

As for Clark and Dawson they seem to have kept a low profile after calling the liquidators but they did benefit financially overall before the company closed as their properties seem to show. Mrs Clark also seems to have received a pay-off or settlement when she quit but that should not stop any of them attending Court just to see what was going on. Their presence would not mean any innocence or guilt on their part but it would mean they had executed their moral responsibilities towards investors by taking more than a passing interest in what was going on.

I am just not surprised by anybody who once held an authoritative position within the company deciding to not attending Court to see how proceedings were going. It is clear to me it was an inside job. Exactly who did cannot be ascertained but any one person or any permutation of the following could be involved though none have been charged:

Clark
Mrs Clark
Dawson
Mrs Dawson
Booth
Any number of Intranel staff
Any number of Cryptopia staff
Maybe even John Gotts

At one time or another, they all had access to the office where Cryptopia was operated from

How you would know that or can imagine that?
Are you connected with them or know them?

I know now that Clark and Dawson wasnt there!
Just for answer you question earlier.

Intranel was playing shity from Beginn.
The have a lot of sub companies and changing there register Name a lot of Times and have there Fingers in a lot of shady things we found out after they left cryptopia.

They changed there Name after they left cryptopia.
https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/5770567
A few companies they are have there Hands in.
https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/1936833
https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/917827
https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/127086
https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/1175501
And there are more.

Not all reporters will understand what crypto is and how the whole thing works with exchanges and so on. The right thing as you said would be to wait for the liquidators to give a statement or wait for the judgement or official Court press release.

It would be somewhat disrespectful to investors if neither Clark or Dawson turned up at Court. To a degree it was their reputation at the time which was a big factor in users initially backing them when they launched their crypto exchange. I cannot imagine anybody from Intranel turning up or for that matter Alan Booth the Chief Executive - so while it was making money they all were happy to be part of Cryptopia but when it went in to the hands of the liquidator they all abandoned ship and decided not to even put out regular posts in a website or blog to let people know what was going on?

I dont know if they was or as they have or as they will tomorrow, sry.
I just have seen some posts and articles from some reporters.
But i realy dont belive 50% from the reporters or the pages of them and i just wait for the offical Statement from the liquidators.

Did Clark or Dawson attend the Court to see proceedings?

There is still one day tomorrow at the High court.
And we have to wait the full report from the liquidators after that, thats the only thing that count.
Hopefuly we get that report as soon as possible.

Seems like that only as they are just mentioning account holder's abiding the rules and nothing about reimbursing them. They did not comply with AML requirements too but could find this quote in the latest article

You don't know much about businesses that have been placed in receivership - do you?

I think this case will reflect on how a lot of people around the world feel about New Zealand and its people.  I would like to see NZ pay the right people of the world back, making sure what money is left goes to the appropriate people.

Court has started right now 10 am New Zealand time!
Courtroom 13 on floor 3, lets see what the first day brings.
Hopefuly some good news.

Thank you for the link. Many people are eager to see how this plays out, I cannot see any winners in this debacle except Grant Thornton. They are guaranteed to swallow the bulk of the recovered funds and then will leave some token gesture (no pun intended) for the people that lost all their Cryptopia holdings to distribute scraps between them.

It is not looking good, sadly.

Is this going to help us? I am not sure they are just wasting time and taking their own fees nothing doing any thing for clients its already very long time.

I just could read and understand that account holders have agreed to the abiding rules and could't get what it means. They said they altered the legal position of the Account Holders too. Is there any mention of the account holders getting back their crypto assets?

This small exchange Altsbit.com recently hacked  does refunding funds/coins/assets as much as possbiel:

https://altsbit.com/

All Cryptopia should do at the refunding its clients is to follow what Altsbit trying to do. They same way. I will accept that as maximally fair.

The problem is:

1.4 million account holders don't do anything about protecting their assets/properties/coins.

1 company (Cryptopia) owners do everything to liquidate its company. They even did (?) paying dividends to themselves despite they knew they were hacked and lost some percent of coins from their clients!

There is no need for the political decisions in the parliament at all. Cryptopia lost some values/assets/coins from their clients, and it should be considered responsible for that clients losses. They/owners shoudn't pay dividends to themselves!!! They had to return clients assets to the clients, nothing more or less (I could accept some loss proportional to the hacked coins).

Of course, 1.4 million clients (including me) will not do anything  for protecting their assets. Cryptopia owners and hired liquidators will take it enough (money, not all). They are professionals and they act as a professionals, and clients are definitely not.

Well. I'd go along to the court case just to see the vacant look on the face of the ruling judge. Just this snippet re asset v property means we got a very long wait before anything happens.

For the reasons set out in the Creditors’ Submissions and in the Liquidators’ Submissions, the Digital Assets do not fall within any existing recognised category of property.  In addition, cryptocurrencies raise unique problems for regulators and significant policy issues, as noted by counsel for the Account Holders.5 These issues have been recognised by regulators around the world, including the Inland Revenue and the Financial Markets Authority; both agencies have released issues papers about the status of cryptocurrency.6  Accordingly, there is a strong argument that any decision on whether, or in what circumstances, cryptocurrencies should be recognised as “property” should be made by Parliament.

This is an absolute cop out, to fob it off as a political decision will take a minimum of many many years. 

Update from the Liquidators for the high Court tomorrow !

https://www.grantthornton.co.nz/update-for-cryptopia-account-holders-10-february-2020/