Topic: Scammer - HashKing - page 2. (Read 10069 times)

How can I not prove that he received Bitcoins from me? If you log on into his website, he has the status of a deposit change when he actually receives the coins.

There is zero use trying to convict him cause you cannot prove he received Bitcoins from you. You can prove a transaction exists and that you have the private key for the origin. You cannot prove he controls the destination address.

So may be stop this discussion? All I'm asking (besides the return of my funds) is communication, which I am clearly not getting. I just see he is sending money out and no Bitcoins hitting my wallet.

The problem with judgements is they are hard to collect. Unless you have a private company handle it for you, it's a HUGE involvement to identify and seize assets. It's not something most people can handle on their own without dedicating their life to the task. And in this case, you're part of a class... Typically the lawyers suck up the bulk of the judgement in a class action.

I currently have 2 judgements against people in my area who have caused damage to my boat. There are a lot of yah hoos out there on the weekends. Unskilled operator crashes are a daily occurrence in the marina on weekends. People buy boats without knowing how to use them.

I'm finding it near impossible to collect these judgements. It's my responsibility to identify their assets and I just don't have the time and skill to do this on my own. For $5000, My time is turning out to be more important than collecting the judgement. I have a lien on a car in one case and a lien on a home in another case. The guy's car is shit and not worth the lien. He can never sell it but who would buy it. The home is deep underwater and it's about to become bank owned. That is probably the only judgement I will collect and it's been 8 years in the works.

I would like to add in the above post by Hashking. As he states that it was a business, it should be filed for taxes. And as with sole proprietorships, I expect that he will be filling for a business loss on taxes and using that money for part of the "insurance".

I do believe that his threatening to walk away speaks greatly about what he has done, though.

Under the wikipedia topic of Insurance in general, theres a few interesting things that may apply to this case. I haven't really followed this, as I haven't invested in anyone, but I know the jist. Feel free to read through the link, but heres a few things that caught my attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance

"Utmost good faith – the insured and the insurer are bound by a good faith bond of honesty and fairness. Material facts must be disclosed."
if the fact that he was investing in Pirate was not disclosed, that goes against that aspect.

"Insurance scholars have typically used morale hazard to refer to the increased loss due to unintentional carelessness and moral hazard to refer to increased risk due to intentional carelessness or indifference. Insurers attempt to address carelessness through inspections, policy provisions requiring certain types of maintenance, and possible discounts for loss mitigation efforts."

"The policyholder may hire their own public adjuster to negotiate the settlement with the insurance company on their behalf."

Very Interesting here - "Business interruption insurance covers the loss of income, and the expenses incurred, after a covered peril interrupts normal business operations."

What I did learn here though is, just by saying that the asset is insured, that by default gives it EVERY type of possible insurance (including those odd ones such as kidnap insurance, nuclear insurance, etc) as long as they are related to the business model HK had. So if you owe someone money, that you have tied up in your HK account, and you are kidnapped because of this, HK is liable for this as well, and by law are required to pay for any damages that may result. But either way, look into it yourselves, very interesting concepts.

Then again, how you would get this enforced is above me, but I'm just providing a bit of insight that you can interpret any way you like.

He also says that he's 15. Unless that was a lie.

Hopefully I'm being helpful with this post.

Here, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-am-looking-to-borrow-10000-btc-to-expand-my-current-bussiness-75480 , Hashking states he has rental income and has an established LLC. Perhaps that claim can be checked as part of this Scammer Investigation.


I'd, also, just like to say I'm almost as frustrated by people choosing the riskiest offerings as the people running them dishonestly. I'm running my own GLBSE listing as honestly as possible and it's incredibly hard to compete when the majority of investors aren't evaluating offerings and claims well (ASIC press release information taken almost as gospel, comes to mind).

Honestly it is going to take some lawsuits (probably a lot of failed ones before a successful one) before debtors feel they have anything to lose.  Still given HashKing has shown no evidence of a legal entity (LLC, Corporation) "me" could only be interpreted to mean him, his person, his assets.  Without an LLC or corporation he has no personal liabilities.  Every cent he owns from his car to his house to the clothes in his closet and the balance of every bank account could be used to satisfy a judgement.  Still it remains to be seen if a judge would consider bitcoin debts to be enforceable.

In all honesty this would be a horrible trial case.  Poorly worded contract, interest rates above the usary limit of any state, no hard evidence of real world identity, no promisary note, no signed deposits. 

Sadly it seems these investors Bitcoin ATMs really not want to learn a lesson.  Scam after scam after scam they just keep doing the same dumb crap.   Hell there are 3 or 4 active ponzi on the forum right now.  Clueless idiots haven't attempted to pull their funds out.  When they crash and burn in a couple weeks you can just take this entire thread do a copy & paste replace HashKing with the name of the next scammer and save everyone a lot of time.

I believe pirate falls under "bad investments," as quoted above

Or I was guaranteed by Pirate to return my funds back to me.

EDIT: Another batch of payments went out.

Also, we need to evaluate this statement:
Again, this brings up the issue of time. However, he was never specific about what he meant by "me". You could argue that he guaranteed the program with his personal assets. Should hashking be required to liquidate all assets that can be forcefully liquidated by law?

Of course, since the insurance was based off of mining, regular payments towards the debt would be expected. That way, he can't just ignore the issue for 3 years.

As for the timelines for paying out, it's fairly obvious that the original terms applied only as long as the insurance wasn't needed. As for how long insurance can take to pay out if they don't state a timeline for insurance payouts, it'd be interesting to see the case law on that. I'm absolutely shocked that nobody requested a clarification on that while the business was still running.

It's absolutely pathetic how many people are caught up in shit like this.
It's kind of like a reverse Oprah show...

YOU get robbed, and YOU get robbed, and YOU GET ROBBED!

I have sympathy for people who lose their wallets to trojans.
Less so for those that are a victim of their own greed.

The issue is not the delay (which will last until eternity), its that he lied in his contract, promised an insurance against pirate default while secretly investing that insurance money in pirate. Its a scam, there are no two ways about it.

Once more with feeling. It wasn't insurance (that was just the pirate accounts). It were guaranteed accounts. This whole discussion is moot.

See:

It's obviously fraud if he doesn't pay the insurance within some reasonable time. But I'm thinking it's possible 3 years is reasonable if he was using the profits set aside for insurance to buy mining hardware.

It's like an insurance company having all of its money tied up in certificates of deposit so it can't pay for a few years. If the insurance contract doesn't explicitly say that insurance will be paid within some time period, is this OK? Does "insurance" necessarily imply that insurance is paid within a short period of time? I'm interested in how cases like this have been handled legally.

So how much information do you guys have about him to get your "contract" enforced?

It's pretty amazing that so many people have been caught in shit like this.

Maybe? For "Guaranteed Fully Insured", with explicit lock-ins of none and 8 weeks?

If any of CecilNiosaki's points A or B are true, this is obviously fraud, because it advertised with wrong information. Q.E.D., what do you need a "legal precedent" for? Besides, legal precedent where? On any classical market, investors bring police along when such bullshit comes to light.

Is it really just me who thinks that lying about relevant parts of a contract crosses a line? I'd put scammer tags on all insurances that can't pay, because they fail at the only thing insurances are good for. Totally counter-intuitive contract interpretations are also not okay. If someone says "insured", nobody expects a three-year delay in there. To make it clear: if you let this pass, every contract that doesn't involve a payment time could say "I'll pay in three years" and not get a scammer tag until then. Reasonable? Bad luck, even that doesn't suffice! Because remember, there is a time-frame given in the OP of the Lending thread: an 8-week maximum lock-in, guaranteed fully insured!

This is not a matter of opinion!




How about... A MILLION YEARS!


...

Why am I arguing on this forum. Sanity Points -= 2

I'm not "attacking" you. Read back over what I wrote and you'll see that I just summarized the other thread and then every time you said something false or misleading, I complained. Just stop saying false or misleading things and I'll stop replying. You don't have any of my money. I don't have any personal interest in this. I just detest when people who were trusted with money lie and weasel about their obligations.

Had you not claimed that you could take 10 years to pay back lost funds and still be providing full insurance, I wouldn't have said anything.

HK: If you try you will find I can be extremely understanding and cooperative. You will need to communicate though. Most of the problems in the world between people are caused by insufficient communication.

So please, I implore you, ignore the trolls and answer all the sensible questions that are asked. Work with us, not against us.