Good move
Topic: [Havelock] The Panama Fund, S.A. Acquires HavelockInvestments.com - page 2. (Read 12603 times)
November 02, 2013, 07:23:52 AM
Great !
Good move
Good move
November 02, 2013, 04:41:37 AM
Great news!
Congratulations!
Congratulations!
November 02, 2013, 02:19:53 AM
If US indeed doesn't care about exchanges operating in different countries, i believe y'all have been taken for a ride by a couple of foregnese exchanges (BTCT was registered in Belize, as i remember -- a compatriot of Active Mining, who also hail from there). Why would the two biggest exchanges just pull up stakes & abandon their trusty milkers?
I agree that being small, insignificantly small, makes an exchange irrelevant & not worth an international stamp it would take to squash it. My point is spazzing around the interwebz & yelling "we're licensed and legit" is not the smartest way to stay off the radar.
I agree that being small, insignificantly small, makes an exchange irrelevant & not worth an international stamp it would take to squash it. My point is spazzing around the interwebz & yelling "we're licensed and legit" is not the smartest way to stay off the radar.
You are still failing to realize that there is a huge difference between an unregistered exchange in a country that requires registered exchanges and registered securities; and a registered exchange in a country that does not require registered securities.
According to SEC's own website, they do not include panama as one of the countries that enforces SEC jurisdiction.
Source: https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_cooparrangements.shtml
Quote
A banana republic kept alive by the good will of its protectors is not likely to let a Christmas card from Uncle Sam go unanswered. It's both poor manners & harmful to its health.
You are living in a fantasy if you think a superpower like the US can dictate any countries laws it wants simply because it is "the protector" as you put it.
November 02, 2013, 12:02:07 AM
watching this..
congrats on the acquisition
congrats on the acquisition
November 01, 2013, 11:57:00 PM
As far as i know, either the SEC asked them to fold up their circus tents like they claimed they did, or the exchanges are lying through their teeth. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
None of the exchanges specifically said anything about SEC contacting them so we cant just assume they were given an ultimatum. It is more likely in my eyes they finally came to see the legal risks they were undertaking and didn't want to spend the time/resources to make their operations legal/safe from SEC. (its easier to just ignore them and keep collecting them bitcoins from the non-americans)
The SEC is our friend here, they JUST passed crowdfunding laws and still I doubt we are on their radar.
We need to stop acting like this is a big deal and just carry on with business
We're probably not yet on their radar, but I don't see the SEC as being our friends here. Unless they come up with some new, more relaxed regulations then they are going to suffocate the Bitcoin securities market because of a high cost of compliance. We need to stop acting like this is a big deal and just carry on with business
Yes, we are on there radar, as they have talked to Ukto about us last month. I sent Ukto our Belize documents so he could send them to the SEC.
At least we can confirm the SEC has had some contact with Bitfunder, even if it was just about ActiveMining.
November 01, 2013, 11:28:10 PM
If US indeed doesn't care about exchanges operating in different countries, i believe y'all have been taken for a ride by a couple of foregnese exchanges (BTCT was registered in Belize, as i remember -- a compatriot of Active Mining, who also hail from there). Why would the two biggest exchanges just pull up stakes & abandon their trusty milkers?
I agree that being small, insignificantly small, makes an exchange irrelevant & not worth an international stamp it would take to squash it. My point is spazzing around the interwebz & yelling "we're licensed and legit" is not the smartest way to stay off the radar.
I agree that being small, insignificantly small, makes an exchange irrelevant & not worth an international stamp it would take to squash it. My point is spazzing around the interwebz & yelling "we're licensed and legit" is not the smartest way to stay off the radar.
You are still failing to realize that there is a huge difference between an unregistered exchange in a country that requires registered exchanges and registered securities; and a registered exchange in a country that does not require registered securities.
According to SEC's own website, they do not include panama as one of the countries that enforces SEC jurisdiction.
Source: https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_cooparrangements.shtml
Quote
A banana republic kept alive by the good will of its protectors is not likely to let a Christmas card from Uncle Sam go unanswered. It's both poor manners & harmful to its health.
You are living in a fantasy if you think a superpower like the US can dictate any countries laws it wants simply because it is "the protector" as you put it.
November 01, 2013, 10:36:30 PM
As far as i know, either the SEC asked them to fold up their circus tents like they claimed they did, or the exchanges are lying through their teeth. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
None of the exchanges specifically said anything about SEC contacting them so we cant just assume they were given an ultimatum. It is more likely in my eyes they finally came to see the legal risks they were undertaking and didn't want to spend the time/resources to make their operations legal/safe from SEC. (its easier to just ignore them and keep collecting them bitcoins from the non-americans)
Quote
No, it becomes panama vs some random guy. Please keep in mind that this is IRL & not Equestria, podunk countries try not to piss off the big players. The president of the Panama (republic?), whose name is right on the tip of my tongue, given a choice between pissing off some_random_guy & USA, is likely to pick teh prior.
You do realize that in the real world the US doesn't give two shits about exchanges that operate in other countries. And even if they did they cant just walk over to panama and tell them they have to abide by their rules. Can you imagine how the world would react if the US decided that another countries laws were incorrect and they have to comply?
What would have to happen is the Panamanian government would have to comply willingly, which wont happen if they feel that a company in their country is operating legally. And it is not a contest of who you are pissing off more the US or some guy, it is a matter of being forced to change your countries existing laws to appease to the US. The most the US can do is try to block US users but that will never happen because again they don't give two shits about a legally operating exchange in another country.
If US indeed doesn't care about exchanges operating in different countries, i believe y'all have been taken for a ride by a couple of foregnese exchanges (BTCT was registered in Belize, as i remember -- a compatriot of Active Mining, who also hail from there). Why would the two biggest exchanges just pull up stakes & abandon their trusty milkers?
A banana republic kept alive by the good will of its protectors is not likely to let a Christmas card from Uncle Sam go unanswered. It's both poor manners & harmful to its health.
I agree that being small, insignificantly small, makes an exchange irrelevant & not worth an international stamp it would take to squash it. My point is spazzing around the interwebz & yelling "we're licensed and legit" is not the smartest way to stay off the radar.
November 01, 2013, 10:15:57 PM
no, they'll just seize the servers.........
And have a massive law suit on their hands? Doubt it. It is not worth their time to go after a company that is operating legally in another country.
Isn't that what they did with Mega?
November 01, 2013, 10:15:15 PM
Isn't that what they did with Mega?
I assume you mean megaupload which happens to still exist in the form of mega. And mega was taken down with compliance with NZ government. If Panamanian government chooses to not comply and stick to their own laws and legal system the US cant do anything.
And I'm sure you're aware of the huge lawsuit that followed the illegal seizure of megauploads servers.
November 01, 2013, 10:12:58 PM
As far as i know, either the SEC asked them to fold up their circus tents like they claimed they did, or the exchanges are lying through their teeth. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
None of the exchanges specifically said anything about SEC contacting them so we cant just assume they were given an ultimatum. It is more likely in my eyes they finally came to see the legal risks they were undertaking and didn't want to spend the time/resources to make their operations legal/safe from SEC. (its easier to just ignore them and keep collecting them bitcoins from the non-americans)
Quote
No, it becomes panama vs some random guy. Please keep in mind that this is IRL & not Equestria, podunk countries try not to piss off the big players. The president of the Panama (republic?), whose name is right on the tip of my tongue, given a choice between pissing off some_random_guy & USA, is likely to pick teh prior.
You do realize that in the real world the US doesn't give two shits about exchanges that operate in other countries. And even if they did they cant just walk over to panama and tell them they have to abide by their rules. Can you imagine how the world would react if the US decided that another countries laws were incorrect and they have to comply?
What would have to happen is the Panamanian government would have to comply willingly, which wont happen if they feel that a company in their country is operating legally. And it is not a contest of who you are pissing off more the US or some guy, it is a matter of being forced to change your countries existing laws to appease to the US. The most the US can do is try to block US users but that will never happen because again they don't give two shits about a legally operating exchange in another country.
November 01, 2013, 10:03:51 PM
no, they'll just seize the servers.........
And have a massive law suit on their hands? Doubt it. It is not worth their time to go after a company that is operating legally in another country.
Isn't that what they did with Mega?
November 01, 2013, 10:01:11 PM
Unfortunately, with international trade agreements, lifting a finger is about all that's required.
As far as I know SEC has yet to do anything about exchanges outside the US.
As far as i know, either the SEC asked them to fold up their circus tents like the exchanges claimed, or the exchanges are lying through their teeth. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Quote
Quote
Finally, please pay attention. It is illegal to sell unregistered securities to US persons, no matter what the law of your banana republics say.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
This may be true but if panama says its ok for the exchange to operate, it becomes SEC vs panama not SEC vs random guy.
No, it becomes panama vs some random guy. Please keep in mind that this is IRL & not Equestria, podunk countries try not to piss off the big players. The president of the Panama (republic?), whose name is right on the tip of my tongue, given a choice between pissing off some_random_guy & USA, is likely to pick teh prior.
But we're drifting off topic & shitting up this nice fishing thread.
November 01, 2013, 09:59:13 PM
no, they'll just seize the servers.........
And have a massive law suit on their hands? Doubt it. It is not worth their time to go after a company that is operating legally in another country.
Are US players going to be able to participate freely, still?
to quote OP "US users are fine"
November 01, 2013, 09:57:34 PM
...funds don't need to cater to the information age....
hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide...
hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide...
wat
SEC ban on general solicitation is being relaxed, funds could only talk to accredited investors ie. not poor people or the general middle class.
Are you talking about title ll of the JOBS Act? You do know that public solicitation still means that all but accredited investors must be excluded from the funding round to comply?
This stopped being lulzy awhile ago, now it's getting both sad & desperate.
yeah, thats about how they can attract accredited investors. they couldn't use the press, just tightly nit closed circles
this is about why a fund doesn't need to have a presence on internet search engines
November 01, 2013, 09:55:50 PM
Unfortunately, with international trade agreements, lifting a finger is about all that's required.
As far as I know SEC has yet to do anything about exchanges outside the US.
Quote
Finally, please pay attention. It is illegal to sell unregistered securities to US persons, no matter what the law of your banana republics say.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
This may be true but if panama says its ok for the exchange to operate, it becomes SEC vs panama not SEC vs random guy.
no, they'll just seize the servers.........
November 01, 2013, 09:55:28 PM
Are US players going to be able to participate freely, still?
November 01, 2013, 09:49:10 PM
Unfortunately, with international trade agreements, lifting a finger is about all that's required.
As far as I know SEC has yet to do anything about exchanges outside the US.
Quote
Finally, please pay attention. It is illegal to sell unregistered securities to US persons, no matter what the law of your banana republics say.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
This may be true but if panama says its ok for the exchange to operate, it becomes SEC vs panama not SEC vs random guy.
Also something I found: "Panama has taken several steps to modernise its economy and promote foreign investment. Most Panamanian and foreign investors choose to form Corporations. There are no exchange controls, currency restrictions or reporting requirements, and Panama imposes no limits on monetary transfers to and from the country."
http://www.atrium-incorporators.com/panama-mutual-funds-and-investment-corporations/
November 01, 2013, 09:46:15 PM
Does this mean AML or blocking US users
November 01, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
...funds don't need to cater to the information age....
hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide...
hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide...
wat
SEC ban on general solicitation is being relaxed, funds could only talk to accredited investors ie. not poor people or the general middle class.
Are you talking about title ll of the JOBS Act? You do know that public solicitation still means that all but accredited investors must be excluded from the funding round to comply?
This stopped being lulzy awhile ago, now it's getting both sad & desperate.
November 01, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
there's a really simple explanation that seems reasonable to me.
If I wanted to shift jurisdictions, I'd buy an established shelf company in the jurisdiction I want to move to, then have that shelf company "buy" the ownership shares from whatever entity owns it now.
It's very likely that's all they're doing - just moving the corporate entity to Panama for legal/tax reasons.
If I wanted to shift jurisdictions, I'd buy an established shelf company in the jurisdiction I want to move to, then have that shelf company "buy" the ownership shares from whatever entity owns it now.
It's very likely that's all they're doing - just moving the corporate entity to Panama for legal/tax reasons.
Yeah, i'm with you on that, but suggesting that this shell game makes the new entity "licensed" or on different legal footing when it comes to dealing with US customers is simply bull.
I think it definitely does create a different legal footing because it may be legal to sell unregistered securities in panama as a licensed exchange for all we know and for the US to go against that would never happen. The problem is unlicensed exchanges having literally no legal backing which is why they are so vulnerable. If this exchange can operate completely compliant of panamas security laws that would be huge for bitcoin/bitcoin securities.
Panama security laws? Quick, what's the official national currency of Panama, no googling! Not another shot at registering a company in some god-forsaken backwater, and hoping that the law won't take you seriously enough to lift a finger.
Unfortunately, with international trade agreements, lifting a finger is about all that's required.
Finally, please pay attention. It is illegal to sell unregistered securities to US persons, no matter what the law of your banana republics say.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
Jump to: