Topic: Nefario - page 69. (Read 198705 times)
who did he scam?
I've decided Nefario will get a scammer tag for this. Speculating on intents and motivations behind his actions is fun and all, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he broke his contract or not. Like I said in Goat's thread, my role is to decide if he deserves a scammer tag based on his actions. If Nefario can't or won't elaborate on why he took the actions he did, that's his problem and he should take it up with the appropriate people.
Even if he doesn't have control over his current actions (which I doubt), he did have control when he decided to start the business, and he did have control when he made the agreement and sold pieces of the company to the shareholders.
This was a pretty good analogy that made me look at it a different way.
Even if he doesn't have control over his current actions (which I doubt), he did have control when he decided to start the business, and he did have control when he made the agreement and sold pieces of the company to the shareholders.
This was a pretty good analogy that made me look at it a different way.
You cant sue people for obeying the law. Which is basically what Nefario is doing,
That is absolutely not true. Otherwise, an unlicensed contractor could make a contract to do some work for you, take your money, and then say, "Sorry, I'm unlicensed. I can't legally do the work."Quote
and you cant force the shareholders to do something illegal.
Of course, but it's always legal to pay damages. You're certainly right that you couldn't force the contractor in my example to do the work. But you can certainly get your money back alone with any other damages, including punitive damages.Quote
If it goes well people will get their coins back, it sucks that AMl is involved but you gotta do what you gotta do.
That's pure speculation at this point, at least so far as I know. If the contractor in my example says, "Sorry, the contracting board says I'm not licensed to do the work. Bye.", do you just take his word for it and let him off the hook for any damages you suffered? Asset owners have suffered damages because they relied on GLBSE.*golf clap*
I've decided Nefario will get a scammer tag for this.
Thank you.
I am curious why scammer tags don't include a ban? Or at least a posting ban
I've decided Nefario will get a scammer tag for this. Speculating on intents and motivations behind his actions is fun and all, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he broke his contract or not. Like I said in Goat's thread, my role is to decide if he deserves a scammer tag based on his actions. If Nefario can't or won't elaborate on why he took the actions he did, that's his problem and he should take it up with the appropriate people.
Even if he doesn't have control over his current actions (which I doubt), he did have control when he decided to start the business, and he did have control when he made the agreement and sold pieces of the company to the shareholders.
This was a pretty good analogy that made me look at it a different way.
Even if he doesn't have control over his current actions (which I doubt), he did have control when he decided to start the business, and he did have control when he made the agreement and sold pieces of the company to the shareholders.
This was a pretty good analogy that made me look at it a different way.
You cant sue people for obeying the law. Which is basically what Nefario is doing,
That is absolutely not true. Otherwise, an unlicensed contractor could make a contract to do some work for you, take your money, and then say, "Sorry, I'm unlicensed. I can't legally do the work."Quote
and you cant force the shareholders to do something illegal.
Of course, but it's always legal to pay damages. You're certainly right that you couldn't force the contractor in my example to do the work. But you can certainly get your money back alone with any other damages, including punitive damages.Quote
If it goes well people will get their coins back, it sucks that AMl is involved but you gotta do what you gotta do.
That's pure speculation at this point, at least so far as I know. If the contractor in my example says, "Sorry, the contracting board says I'm not licensed to do the work. Bye.", do you just take his word for it and let him off the hook for any damages you suffered? Asset owners have suffered damages because they relied on GLBSE.
I achieved the legendary mpex ignore list, nefario has not commented on anything once. Lots of guesses and hopes of getting coins back. And lots of "I talked to nefario, I know what he is thinking, but I swear I am not a Puppet."
Haven't been here for a few days. Please could anyone sum up the situation for me?
I'm getting my popcorn ready
I'm getting my popcorn ready
I stopped taking Nefario seriously when I read this joke of a thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitdrop-or-shadydeliverynetwork-a-non-robotic-courier-system-6279
I think we all knew GLBSE wasn't going to end well... But this worse than I imagined.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitdrop-or-shadydeliverynetwork-a-non-robotic-courier-system-6279
I think we all knew GLBSE wasn't going to end well... But this worse than I imagined.
Hi all,
This might be useful... so you're aware of the next "official" move.
RSS feed tracking changes (from now on) on GLBSE.com website:
http://www.changedetection.com/accountfeed.xml?feedid=472464928346072
This might be useful... so you're aware of the next "official" move.
RSS feed tracking changes (from now on) on GLBSE.com website:
http://www.changedetection.com/accountfeed.xml?feedid=472464928346072
GLBSE didnt hold much coin at least for the asset issuers. Since they buy equipment etc. Lots of user may not even be over the amount where AML kicks in.
There's a lot more to AML compliance than just transaction thresholds. It's a pain in the ass because you can't just "set and forget" - you have to evaluate everything on an ongoing basis and have systems in place to flag anything which might be reportable and then you have to carry out enhanced measures in respect of anything flagged.
Fair enough, but I doubt an active investigation into glbse is far enough to have a search warrant issued for servers controlled by someone in the UK... point is, he's had plenty of warning and notice and could have simply shut things down in a matter of days instead of suddenly... I know if it were me I'd find a way to get rid of funds not belonging to me and then go from there.... at the very least stop incoming transactions....
As far as anyone knows, there is no active investigation into GLBSE and the shut-down is purely pre-emptive because Nefario and some of the share-holders feel that continuing the business in its current form is too risky from an AML viewpoint. They may be right or they may be wrong about the level of that risk, but they're the only ones who can decide the level of risk they're willing to assume.
It could have been handled differently, but we weren't the ones making the decision so it gets handled the way those making the decision decide to handle it. Hell, I would have suspended trading in everything with known exposure to pirate the minute pirate defaulted, but the GLBSE operators clearly didn't think that was necessary.
Honestly, they should have had an orderly disaster plan in place to implement in the event of them shutting down due to legal concerns. That they don't yet have a claims process in place suggests that they didn't have such a plan and that is pretty inexcusable when you're dealing with such a large amount of other people's funds.
GLBSE didnt hold much coin at least for the asset issuers. Since they buy equipment etc. Lots of user may not even be over the amount where AML kicks in.
Fair enough, but I doubt an active investigation into glbse is far enough to have a search warrant issued for servers controlled by someone in the UK... point is, he's had plenty of warning and notice and could have simply shut things down in a matter of days instead of suddenly... I know if it were me I'd find a way to get rid of funds not belonging to me and then go from there.... at the very least stop incoming transactions....
As far as anyone knows, there is no active investigation into GLBSE and the shut-down is purely pre-emptive because Nefario and some of the share-holders feel that continuing the business in its current form is too risky from an AML viewpoint. They may be right or they may be wrong about the level of that risk, but they're the only ones who can decide the level of risk they're willing to assume.
It could have been handled differently, but we weren't the ones making the decision so it gets handled the way those making the decision decide to handle it. Hell, I would have suspended trading in everything with known exposure to pirate the minute pirate defaulted, but the GLBSE operators clearly didn't think that was necessary.
Honestly, they should have had an orderly disaster plan in place to implement in the event of them shutting down due to legal concerns. That they don't yet have a claims process in place suggests that they didn't have such a plan and that is pretty inexcusable when you're dealing with such a large amount of other people's funds.
Are those timestamps "may 10th" or "october 5th" ... around these parts, it looks like "may 10th" (and you didn't specify elsewhere in the post)
October. My IRC client does use a strange date format. Slashes usually indicate American format.
They MAY decide to investigate GLBSE after the BCTST investigation, but these investigators are already busy with another investigation. They typically do not multitask on whitecollar crimes.
They do, however, information share with other, equivalent agencies, both domestically and overseas. If they discover something which may be of relevance to another agency, they typically turn that information over to that agency for further investigation. Most Western nations have formal information sharing agreements with each other regarding financial crimes.
Fair enough, but I doubt an active investigation into glbse is far enough to have a search warrant issued for servers controlled by someone in the UK... point is, he's had plenty of warning and notice and could have simply shut things down in a matter of days instead of suddenly... I know if it were me I'd find a way to get rid of funds not belonging to me and then go from there.... at the very least stop incoming transactions....
Written on my phone, excuse any errors or wrong words from auto correct
what was nefario's reasoning for closing GLBSE?
[05/10/2012 16:25:51]
[05/10/2012 16:25:54]
[05/10/2012 16:26:00]
[05/10/2012 16:26:01]
[05/10/2012 16:26:03]
[05/10/2012 16:26:05]
[05/10/2012 16:26:07]
[05/10/2012 16:26:09]
[05/10/2012 16:32:52]
He managed to convince some of you to support him, so he must have had a good argument, what was it?
Nefario promised to start a 100% legal stock exchange after GLBSE is closed and transfer the BitcoinGlobal shares over. Clearly, this will be super successful.
[05/10/2012 17:43:33]
[05/10/2012 17:49:27]
[05/10/2012 18:53:41]
Some other shareholders became resigned to GLBSE's fate and were at least somewhat convinced by Nefario's dreams of BitcoinGlobal's future.
Are those timestamps "may 10th" or "october 5th" ... around these parts, it looks like "may 10th" (and you didn't specify elsewhere in the post)
At the end of all of this if you're still right, ask me and I'll give you a bitcoin
To quote a source who puts it plainly...
Quote
Well, times have changed. I became convinced that the SEC had gone mainstream when it was featured on the Simpsons a couple years ago. Homer unwittingly gets caught up in a company gone bad. The SEC swoops in and arrests him, and he gets sent to prison. But, unlike the depictions on this and other shows, we do not carry M-16s, chase down yachts of inside traders in SEC police boats, or parachute James Bond style into illicit corporate board meetings. It is much tamer than that. We don’t carry guns; we have no boats; we have no planes. We do not even have authority to arrest people.
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2006/spch102006psa.htm
So your contention is that if it's not actually the SEC arresting people, it doesn't count?
From earlier this year, an SEC investigation leads to 16 year old British citizens being arrested, convicted and sentenced to a one year suspended prison sentence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17794272
How much notice do you think he had? For him to message me that afternoon saying it is safe to deposit money, and then the site going offline 12-18 hours later, do you not find that a bit suspicious?
I don't think he got a takedown notice that day. It was a scam, and I am going to discuss this with my lawyer and see what we can do about it.
edit: is this his current information, does anyone know?
http://networktools.nl/whois/glbse.com
Could you clarify which day "that day" was. The IRC log refers to him having a lawyer's appointment on Wednesday (UK time) last week. It's what he found out at that appointment which seems to have led him to hit the eject button. The major thing he'd expressed concern about was the AML implications of GLBSE's activities. None of us know whether he consulted a lawyer who specialises in financial services law or a generalist lawyer, but there certainly seems to be a relationship between that consultation with a lawyer on Wednesday and the closure of GLBSE.
Ah, the day of the shutdown, our IPO was only listed a few hours before it shut down, see my post for details:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1254159
I assume that HKT is Hong Kong Time, so that response from Nefario was sent to you at 19:51 Wednesday UTC.
If the SEC ... really shows up the people they go after will end up in jail.
I can promise you one thing: If the SEC does indeed "show up" they will not be sending anyone to jail.
He would know:
Who is in your counsel and what credentials do they hold?
As Internet Lawyers and Internet Attorneys, Random Internet Asshat Galambo Internet Law specializes in protecting small, medium and large businesses on internet law issues related to online defamation, copyright infringement, internet and online trademark infringement, software trade secret theft and other internet law issues. When you need a real internet lawyer, talk to us first then compare the rest. Chances are we have already represented a client like you on an issue like yours.
If you have an internet law question, whether it involves website agreements, affiliate marketing, selling counterfeit unregisterd (and unexempted) online securities, online contract drafting or negotiation, copyright infringement, internet defamation of character, domain name disputes, hacking or unauthorized access, trade secret theft, trademark infringement or other issue arising on the world wide web, contact us today.
Founding Partner Random Internet Asshat Galambo began practicing law yesterday when he wrote a blog post about the internet and has been specializing in internet law ever since! As an intellectual property lawyer who understands the internet, Mr. Random Internet Asshat Galambo has been featured in articles and interviews ranging from his own blog to Bitcointalk.org. Random Internet Asshat Galambo Internet Law is large enough to handle complex litigation against the largest law firms, but nimble enough to offer innovative approaches to solving legal issues.
Retard level firmly in the carmine.
How much notice do you think he had? For him to message me that afternoon saying it is safe to deposit money, and then the site going offline 12-18 hours later, do you not find that a bit suspicious?
I don't think he got a takedown notice that day. It was a scam, and I am going to discuss this with my lawyer and see what we can do about it.
edit: is this his current information, does anyone know?
http://networktools.nl/whois/glbse.com
Could you clarify which day "that day" was. The IRC log refers to him having a lawyer's appointment on Wednesday (UK time) last week. It's what he found out at that appointment which seems to have led him to hit the eject button. The major thing he'd expressed concern about was the AML implications of GLBSE's activities. None of us know whether he consulted a lawyer who specialises in financial services law or a generalist lawyer, but there certainly seems to be a relationship between that consultation with a lawyer on Wednesday and the closure of GLBSE.
Ah, the day of the shutdown, our IPO was only listed a few hours before it shut down, see my post for details:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1254159
Could you clarify which day "that day" was. The IRC log refers to him having a lawyer's appointment on Wednesday (UK time) last week. It's what he found out at that appointment which seems to have led him to hit the eject button. The major thing he'd expressed concern about was the AML implications of GLBSE's activities. None of us know whether he consulted a lawyer who specialises in financial services law or a generalist lawyer, but there certainly seems to be a relationship between that consultation with a lawyer on Wednesday and the closure of GLBSE.
He knew what the issues were even before talking to an attorney.
There are two issues here
1) Taxes, which only really becomes an issue when amounts involved become significant.
2) Money laundering, which IS an issue, and is one we're working on, it becomes more of an issue as amounts grows.
1) Taxes, which only really becomes an issue when amounts involved become significant.
2) Money laundering, which IS an issue, and is one we're working on, it becomes more of an issue as amounts grows.
I'd imagine during the initial consultation Nefario outlined exactly what was wrong (and illegal) with his business model while his solicitor nodded solemnly, parroting back what was said whilst sizing Nefario up, and guessing how much money he had.
Unfortunately, he will be disappointed because selling phony securities to children and college students isn't a particularly profitable endeavor.
Jump to: