Topic: To Bitstamp: Gox's coins are being sold on your exchange (Read 5455 times)

I agree. Found what bitstamp need to do in regard of aml. As i am aware, they do it very strict.
Its good to read and to see why they must so many ''annoying question''. Interesing that each kind of money business ( exchange, bank, casino) has separate aml regulation and what happens when exchange as a whole is a bank client.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/mlr/your-role/resposibilities.htm

There currently exists no mechanism for Bitstamp to be regulated in the UK. AFAIK, they have repeatedly asked to be regulated, and been repeatedly turned down. But because they exist on the membrane between the fiat and the crypto worlds, they have to comply with pretty standard AML rules. Failure to take these rules seriously would result in their relationship with their Slovenian bank being terminated.

+1

Seem that many still confuse money transmitter licence what US require and what lead to money seize from mtgox located in US.
Bitstamp does not operate or have any bank account in US.
Each country has at own their financial regulation and in fact depend on laws in their country (UK). At present time I thnk ( not sure) that they can operate without mandatory registration to Uk financial institution.
However, that does not mean that anyone with evidence can not write official report/complaint to bitstamp or law enforcemant in UK in which response and further action would depend on presented evidence.
Forum are not a place for such things.

We should all appreciate that Bitstamp will incur no legal obligations stemming from forum posts that they may or may not be reading.

As others have noted, they will have a designated AML officer, email and registered letter is the way to go. Even a support request.

Whether it is 'suspicious' or not will depend on the nature of the existing relationship.

It is entirely likely that MTGox held accounts at Bitstamp and vice versa, most exchanges will deal with other exchanges as a way of boosting overall market liquidity. It could therefore be a normal transaction for MTGox to send coins to Bitstamp and vice versa. Obviously only Bitstamp will know the full history and details of all these transaction and can therefore make decisions about who they report this to, if anyone.

I would imagine that Bitstamp would already have frozen any accounts that they knew related to MTGox when they became aware of the MTGox formal Japanese suspension/liquidation/re-structuring (whichever it is legally).

I hope you sent that a copy of that directly to them, ideally by registered post to their registered business address as well as by email. They have a Money Laundering Reporting Officer so it should probably go to him or her.

Whether or not they are legally required, they say they intend to conform to UK AML legislation voluntarily. As far as I can tell, their main extra duty in this case would be to report the transactions as "suspicious" to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, if they agree that it is suspicious. SOCA would then be responsible for investigating it.

Are you a creditor? You didn't say so anywhere, and certainly didn't offer any proof of that in your letter. If you want an exchange to release customer data, you'll do better to go through legal channels. Please do post here if Bitstamp do pony up the info you want, I'll add them to my list of mickey mouse exchanges not to be trusted.

exactly

"near-proof" ?!

So... you don't have proof ?

I would agree that the coins are more likely to be being mixed, rather than sold.

Secondly, the coins are gone. Appealing to centralised authority to fix our problems is, quite frankly, embarrassing. Too many Bitcoin users are trying to use a decentralised currency (although I'm not sure Bitcoin would be classed as this) with a centralised mindset. This is the wild west. Innovate accordingly.

Ideologically I agree with you.

1) Bitstamp needs to verify the source of the coins; they need to place a hold on the account and audit the account. If the account doesn't belong to a party implicated in the legal proceedings then they can release the hold. Really, they need to focus on the account holder more than the coins... (This isn't about the stolen coins, this is about protecting the USD bank accounts containing Bitstamp exchange users' funds). Gox lost the USD bank accounts because of AML violations; Bitstamp needs to protect its users.

2) I agree, the AML law should be ripped out of the book, crumbled into a ball, then dropped into a crucible of molten iron... But it's the law right now and Bitstamp has an obligation to follow the law. If Bitstamp doesn't follow the law, the account holders will stand at risk of  losing their money along with the money belonging to Bitstamp...

3a) The government is already involved, I agree about not running to the government in most cases. This time, the government is already a party of an investigation. Withholding information would be unwise.

3b) This isn't a free market. If it was you would be correct...

3c) I didn't write the law. Every Bitstamp user is exposed to counter party risk, Bitstamp has an obligation to its users to mitigate that risk by following the law and acting reasonably. Every user has a right to insist...

I never understand what you people mean.  "Weak hands" ?  It doesn't make sense.   It was a huge crime and there is little reason to think it won't happen again.  Trustless currency works by giving the wallet owner absolute power.  Whenever people have their coins somewhere else, the same shit will happen.  This stuff will be constant but cryptocurrencies are not going anywhere.

Then there is the question of "ownership" of said coins and whether they can be considered part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

If both Gox and the Whales had access to the same key, isn't that more akin to having your bank account linked up to a trading account - until Gox actually draws on those particular funds they might not be considered under their exclusive control.

Still, if true the idea that a select few had privileged access to private keys and were free to move their funds out while everyone else got suspended is reprehensible.

1) What if the real crooks used a mixer and you are looking at the wrong coins? (I haven't read the whole thread, has this been answered?)
2) Much of what passes for "AML laws" is complete BS and those laws need to be changed.

3a) "Self-regulation" of our community is not the same as running to the Gov, just because some people got badly burned.
3b) In a free market Bitstamp can run their business the way they see fit (people who are satisfied will tend to remain customers)
3c) You have no right to tell Bitstamp what to do.  

Stolen coins are still coins.

It's not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police" but an allegation of money laundering involving funds from a high profile heist/lawsuit demands a response. Bitstamp is in control of those coins now; Bitstamp has an obligation to operate within the law.

The entire USD balance owned by Bitstamp is at risk based on their actions and how they treat money laundering allegations. Gox should be a lesson; their bank accounts were seized because they ignored AML laws dealing with the Silk Road.

Bitstamp has an obligation to its users. They need to ensure that the proper steps are being taken to avert the legal risk.

Once the allegation is made the water gets muddy. Bitstamp can't just ignore the allegation if it wishes to remain compliant with AML laws...

Bitstamp needs to run an honest exchange.
It is not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police."
To avoid "legal liability", they treat all customer deposits the same. 

Your op talk about so called ''near proof'' so there is a answer to your first comment.
Respond to whom? Not responding to you or online pastebin will make them liable? Liable of what? What evidence? Only authority reqest are legit request of which bitstamp is legaly obligated to comply.
Bitstamp does not have anything with mtgox creditors and why would bitstamp or any other party affect eventual legal actions of mtgox creditors?
And since when any investigation are run and discussed in online public forum?

If you want to fill oficiall complain do it with appropiate legal chanell, not on public forum.

I am not sure why everybody likes to talk about "proof". The law deals with evidence, not proofs. Law is not maths.

Bitstamp needs to respond because any delay in responding may open them to legal liability. If they are investigating the matter then sure, but say so, if the account is to be locked or not locked affects the decision/s that a creditor may make.

Any delay therefore by a creditor in applying for an injunction can lead to legal liability. If they wish to take that risk, together with the PR risk, then that's their legal and business decision.

As far as I know,  MK has not been accused of fraud in a court over mtGox.  It's probably a good idea to get a lawyer to make the accusation and ask a court to freeze the funds.   I really don't think your email sufficiently demonstrates that bitstamp is in possession of your personal funds from mtGox.