Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :) - page 1240. (Read 3377857 times)

"We" ?

Discuss whatever the fuck you like son.

If a single word ain't your thing there is a shitload of 'walls of text' you can amuse yourself with right in front of you.

Coin Fire is not Coin Brief, which is the news site that employed the writer allegedly linked to ISIS.

There is nothing linking GAW to ISIS except some deranged ramblings by Vlad the village crazy.

READ people, fucking READ, it's free, educational, and as a bonus helps you look less of an idiot.

There are also NDAs at play.  If they come forward to anyone other than the government then they can be sued merely because of the NDA.  IT will also harm their ability to work in the future as many tech jobs require NDAs and breaching one makes you less employable in an already tight market.

I do know for a fact that there are NDAs for at least some of the people who worked at or with GAW in relation to paycoin and the cloud mining.  I do not know if every employee had to sign one.

Whoa.

https://forum.gethashing.com/t/gaw-miners/67/668




Legal threats? No wonder none of the current or ex-employees are coming forward....

he is known to be in Europe, his Belgian train ticket was in the email trove.  

DHS was apparently investigating GAW for what appears on  the surface to be "no questions asked" money transmitting which qualifies as laundering for what is purported to be  terrorist funding.  No questions asked is how they got Charlie Shrem for doing an exchange of TSR coins.  Not everything on TSR is illegal, nor are some of the transactions illegal in the US but he still was charged.

The stuff about "jot" is silly though.

That does not mean it was ISIS, although it is a strong indicator since so many princes there (and their subordinates) are known to support it.    Additionally the individual may not be Saudi.  I have not yet had time to go through the article posted yesterday (its been opened in a new tab since it was published).  I have not seen what direct quotes they have from that investigation which is why I asked.  There have just been too many people misreading things lately so I wanted to be careful slinging group names around (eg the "coinfire editor" that turns out it was never said to be an editor in the original source material).

Are we seriously discussing the use of the word "jot" and making up random conspiracy theories about Josh being in Europe to purchase coin-swap and discussing paycoin's involvement in terrorism? I thought they were supposed to be the crazy ones, not us...

Not asking enough questions is sufficient to get indicted for money laundering when it comes to bitcoin.  Making it harder for the US to track does qualify as money laundering.  Its as bad as structuring which is basically doing financial transactions to avoid IRS reporting requirements.  There were some legal cash businesses operating in the area  that did so much business they would take $7-8k to the bank 2-3 times per day.  They got charged with structuring (a lesser form of money laundering) because they were depositing into a bank account in amounts less than $10k even though the reporting requirements now are on any amount even as little as a couple thousand that is suspicious to the banks.  

Maybe they just did not want to keep tens of thousands in cash around.  I guess the solution would be to hire an armored car company do the pickups or something.  Sigh.  

Financial crimes in the US are sometimes as bad as tech law which is pretty bad.  There really is no area of the law where its not.  Once upon a time it used to be you actually had to do something "bad" to be charged.  Over time it has evolved into "you might be able to do something bad even though you never did" which is why shoe laces are sometimes considered machine guns and copper pot scrubbers are sometimes silencers.  (yes really, ATF has flat out said that - selective enforcement if they dont like you they charge you).  Mere possession is enough to trigger a raid, arrest, and yes even a conviction.  

This is not to say everyone charged is innocent of any actual wrong doing, it is not to say that specifically the GAW cult is not culpable, but prosecutorial overreach is common.  They often indict with everything and then offer a plea to drop the BS they could never convict on to get the other stuff.  

One thing to note, if it comes down to criminal charges from the feds about 95% plead guilty and about 75% of the 5% that go to trial are found guilty.  This leads to about a 1-2% acquittal rate.  If you were charged by the feds and not convicted you are either very very good (as is your lawyer) and you probably spent well over a million on a legal defense or you were absolutely not guilty under any circumstances.  State courts are totally different in this regard.  Federal civil cases do not have quite the same conviction rate when brought by federal agencies like the SEC.

This means if the GAW cult leadership is charged criminally it is extremely likely they will be found guilty or plead guilty.  They can make a plea deal and the judge can accept the guilty plea but not the terms and is free to sentence as they see fit (although they usually do go along with the deal it is deviated enough that its a real concern for defendants).  If they can convince a grand jury to indict they will almost assuredly get a conviction.  I wonder if Garza would entertain a 5k1.1 departure (substantial assistance  to the gov against someone else) and rat out everyone he can possibly know about especially related to the "terrorist funding".  That may put him into witness protection with a new identity although he would have to stay away from crypto for fear of someone recognizing him.

You make a good point. Released govt documents have pointed to people with anti-government views as being "terrorists," while the current powers that be try to avoid using the word "terrorism" when actual jihadi attacks occur (e.g., Paris). I see a lot of jihad-denialism on forums like these. It's annoying. (It's also a jot demeaning to Muslims -- like they're not capable of being evil unless the *real* evil people, us, have made them evil. Not just ahistorical, but dumb.)

This is from the coinfire article:


Assuming this is correct, it's foreign not domestic. (Edit: I see vnhyp0 just posted another quote from the article pointing to Saudi Arabia.)

Now that you've brought this up though, there are a hell of a lot of anti-government types in crypto. DHS could easily target every exchange using the pretense of having "domestic terrorists" as customers. (Maybe they should add a couple of questions to their KYC: 1. Do you think the constitution is, like, really old and out of date? 2. How much do you (sigh) really love our glorious President Obama?)

This is all on-topic because I used the word jot.

we already know he had dealings with ppl from india (rishab). im not sure how he lured such persons in but if id have to bet the method they used to attract rishab also brought in these people from saudi arabia

From Coinfire article:

"The DHS investigation also names a second individual based in Saudi Arabia as a potential second suspect in money laundering operations. This individual gave Mr. Garza large sums of cash off the books via wire transfers and was complacent and intimately involved with Mr. Garza."

very good point but we might never know the answer to that :/
there is so large set of groups looking for clean funding, it woudnt matter if its -500% value if its clean

Mr. Gonzo has shown to be so stupid that i doubt he actually got mixed up in funding actual terrorism agaisnt international targets

I disagree, terrorism, as defined by the US government includes more than muslims.  There is a reason they said that if you believe in the US constitution, ever served in the military, use ham radio or internet chat and a whole bunch of other things you might be a terrorist.  It is basically anyone the US gov disagrees with or is unable to politically control.  

Further jihad answers the "why" question where terrorism answers the "how" question.  You can be a jihadi without being a terrorist and you can be a terrorist without being a jihadi.

The reason this is on-topic is because of the claim of terror funding.  Was it specified if it was domestic or foreign terrorism?  For all I know he was helping support one of the activist groups (ELF is listed as a terror organization), militias (some but not all are terror orgs some just do the more historical role), or perhaps some other crazy group out there somewhere in the world.  

I ask because while there are things mentioning ISIS there are also a lot of conclusions people have jumped to and I did not know what was factual and what was speculation with the ISIS ties.

nothing

he needs good attention indeed
he has spammed HT forums and social media like no other. trying to kill dissenting views at any cost

So someone tell me then, what separates him from Homero himself?

Another part of this is how the US defines money laundering, which for the most part is something the Anti-Money Laundering Coalition agrees with.  

To conceal or disguise the origin or destination of the money.  

Historically terror funding has come from charities, where some front man will promote a charity (which they may even believe is legit) and solicit donations.  On the back end terror groups siphon off money.  Because the donations are to the charity for helping whatever the destination is disguised and that is laundering under US law.

One could make an argument that anonymized bitcoin transactions are laundering because sending them through a coin mixer or whatever disguises the source and destination.  The law is more or less that generic.

This is not the only definition found in the statute, but it is one of them.  There are also a few more elements but meh.

Charlie Shreem was charged with money laundering because he knew the coins came from TSR (or so count 2 alleges) and some of the transactions there are illegal in the US.  This is one of the other definitions of laundering, promoting illegal activity.  

The result is absent more specifics I tend to disregard money laundering charges because that does not mean someone actually knew what was going on.  They might, then again they might not.  

He is HT's chearleader in command. He's pumping like there is no tomorrow. He's also been buying accounts at rock bottom price. If XPY goes for a bullish run, he's going to make a killing.

Just for the record: what is currently misnamed "terrorism" is actually "jihad" -- and has a very long bloody history predating the US by more than 1000 years. This is obviously completely off topic in this thread.

On topic: If Garza took a few million from jihadis and "laundered" it into worthless paycoins, then that sound like the first good thing about GAW I've heard. It's more effective than the "anti-terrorism" governments have engaged in.

That guy really bothers me. Despicable liar. Some here know exactly who he is but won't cough up. His name is Colin and he has an account on this forum under colinfx. There is a ColinFX out there out of the West Coast US in the tech field. But it doesn't appear to be him. FX in this Colin's name must for foreign exchange. He's out of Europe and appears to be elderly based on his Southern Europe vacation pictures. Colin is a very British name so the UK it is.

All we need is a few more pieces of info to make him stand in front the class and explain his behavior.