mtgox antwortet auf die 75 Mio US$ Klage.
Quintessenz:
1)
Coinlab hat nicht wie vertraglich festgelegt eine MBS Lizenz in den USA.
Nur eine “prepaid access” provider Lizenz.
Lt. Coinlab's Meinung sollte diese ausreichen.
2)
$5,315,210.79 liegen noch bei coinlab, gehören eigentlich den Kunden von mtgox. Sind jetzt im Limbo.
http://numismatics.pwnz.org/coinlab-v-mtgox-answer-complaint/
Quote
In one or more of those early discussions Vessenes made statements to the effect that CoinLab was compliant with all laws and regulations relevant to conducting the Bitcoin exchange business that was the subject of the parties’ negotiations; and, that CoinLab was registered as a “prepaid access” provider and such was sufficient. Vessenes refused to disclose or why this was the case even though requested by MtGox, claiming it to be a “trade secret”; and, that if it were disclosed MtGox would have no need for CoinLab. Based on such 5 assurances, MtGox continued negotiations with CoinLab and ultimately entered into the Agreement.
On or about March 20, 2013 MtGox sent an email to CoinLab which set forth a list of the states which had MtGox customers and the approximate percentage of U.S. customers located in each such state. Between approximately March 19, 2013 and April 20, 2013 MtGox personnel and CoinLab personnel had several oral and email communications in which MtGox sought todetermine if CoinLab was properly registered with FinCEN as a money transmitter and properly licensed as a money transmitter in those states in which MtGox customers were located. In such communications CoinLab personnel admitted that CoinLab was not registered with FinCEN as a MTB and that CoinLab had not been licensed as a MTB by any state. By the expiration of the Transition Period on March 22, 2013 CoinLab was not FinCEN registered as a money transmitter and was not licensed by any state to be a money transmitter. During these communications MtGox personnel made requests for a detailed and precise plan of how CoinLab would become compliant; in response CoinLab personnel repeatedly made vague statements, without a schedule, a deadline or a plan to finance the application process.
Notwithstanding that it was not compliant with applicable federal and state statutes and regulations, CoinLab nevertheless demanded that MtGox complete transfer of the customer accounts that were to be transferred under the Agreement. MtGox refused to do so because if CoinLab was not properly licensed or registered, CoinLab could be held in violation of federal and/or state laws, which could, among other things, prejudice customers.
On or about March 20, 2013 MtGox sent an email to CoinLab which set forth a list of the states which had MtGox customers and the approximate percentage of U.S. customers located in each such state. Between approximately March 19, 2013 and April 20, 2013 MtGox personnel and CoinLab personnel had several oral and email communications in which MtGox sought todetermine if CoinLab was properly registered with FinCEN as a money transmitter and properly licensed as a money transmitter in those states in which MtGox customers were located. In such communications CoinLab personnel admitted that CoinLab was not registered with FinCEN as a MTB and that CoinLab had not been licensed as a MTB by any state. By the expiration of the Transition Period on March 22, 2013 CoinLab was not FinCEN registered as a money transmitter and was not licensed by any state to be a money transmitter. During these communications MtGox personnel made requests for a detailed and precise plan of how CoinLab would become compliant; in response CoinLab personnel repeatedly made vague statements, without a schedule, a deadline or a plan to finance the application process.
Notwithstanding that it was not compliant with applicable federal and state statutes and regulations, CoinLab nevertheless demanded that MtGox complete transfer of the customer accounts that were to be transferred under the Agreement. MtGox refused to do so because if CoinLab was not properly licensed or registered, CoinLab could be held in violation of federal and/or state laws, which could, among other things, prejudice customers.
Ist dann halt so eine "VIP"-Überweisung 
