Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 22. (Read 92686 times)

The evidence is in the verifiable fact that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.



Learn to read. I didn't say that it proves, but that it is reasonable to assume if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting.

Did you signed a contract with specific terms covering such requirements, like 'company address', 'serve legal paper', etc.? 

Now you're just being unreasonable!

It's perfectly fair for usagi to pay itself in BTC and pay everyone else in shares valued as it sees fit at a price that the others may or may not be able to sell at (if they can sell at all).  What could possibly be unfair about that?

[/sarcasm]

No, I do not know completely. That is why I asking for evidence, to verify if kjj accusation is based on verifiable facts.


Your assumption is certainly not based on reason.

How 'unable to provide proper accounting' proves that Usagi 'is bankrupt'?

The lack of proper accounting and a ledger of all company finances is the evidence.

Also where is Usagi's company registered so people can serve legal papers ? This is pretty much a requirement in most countries.

Since Usagi wants to act like the "big businessman" he must have a company address, right ?

That is not an answer for what I asked.

So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?

Usagi can make it all go away by providing proper records. Is it really all that difficult to ask for ?

Since they are such a great business person they should have detailed profit and loss statements , right?

As a CPA shareholder I demand to see the books right now. Consider this a letter of demand and if you havent produced the books in 21 days you will be considered insolvent.

I knew you were going to say that. Very predictable. I am not going into arguments with you about the validity of Wikipedia articles. The assertion that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime is true and you know it.



If usagi is unable to provide proper accounting, it is reasonable to assume that he is bankrupt.

Shill. How much is Usagi paying you to pick up the soap ?

So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?

A single Wikipedia is not evidence to prove the assertion. I wish to review the evidence which proves that people have been accused, prosecuted and jailed for exactly what Usagi is supposedly doing.

Moreover:


Usagi did not declared bankruptcy, so your evidence is worthless to support kjj's assertion.

Usagi doesnt even provide proper profit and loss statements which a company with actual shareholders must provide from time to time. For example how much does CPA or BMF owe in tax ?

He has been paying company tax....right? Usagi doesnt have any company records to produce just a bunch of hot air.

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

Please, provide evidence to prove that in 'the real world it is a crime as described above'.


You are implicit in accusing him of a criminal act without evidence to support your claim.

Do you remember this?

Do you get tired avoiding understanding what I'm saying?

A contract of this sort creates a legal pseudo-entity, and there are things that must be done to dissolve such entities.  The proper procedure is not "make it up as I go".  Your documents might not constitute a proper and valid contract, but you have been operating in a way that shows your acceptance for quite a while now, meaning that you won't have an easy time arguing against the validity of the agreements, should you ever end up in court (which is admittedly unlikely).

I never said that you have to pay everyone at the same time.  I gave you a flow of operations that must be done, along with dependencies between the steps.

As far as I can tell:
1.  You don't know who your creditors are.
2.  You don't know who your shareholders are.
3.  You don't know how much value you can get from liquidation.

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth.  Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Saying that you intend to pay everyone at some sort of face value is not a valid defense at this stage, because you don't know if you are capable of actually doing that or not.  Good intentions, in the real world, might reduce your fine or jail time, but it won't prevent the conviction.

P.S.  You keep talking about distributing shares owned by the venture to shareholders.  That is not a valid liquidation strategy, and your difficulties in doing so should be sufficient for you to understand why it is not allowed.  As trustee, you have the option of auctioning assets and allowing creditors and shareholders to "pay" for them using their cut of the liquidation, but it has to be open to the public.

No, I did not say that. I've said over and over that I am paying out claims as I have verified the status of the shareholders. You must have a problem understanding simple English. You keep babbling on about paying people preferentially. There is no preference. This single was sold to pay off a (one) person because it was convenient to do so. I am not going to sell it and disperse the bitcoins evenly among everyone. There is no reason to do that. it is not logical. It's like, if I have 50 shareholders, what is morelogical, give everyone 6 shares of BTC mining and 20 shares of BITCOINRS? Or give some people 12 shares of BTC-MINING and others 40 shares of BITCOINRS? (to make it very simplistic) -- it's easier to give chunks to people that to give everyone a few crumbs from the five pies you have. I'd rather give oe person one reasonable pie slice than fifty crumbs which, when bunched together, equals one pie slice.

You also seem to be under the delusion that I have to pay everyone at exactly the same time. I don't have to do that because there are several lists of shareholders involved. Paying some people first is not giving preference you idiot.. there are no other verified shareholders right now. So sorry no, that is not a crime.

Can you point out ONE... just ONE verified shareholder of BMF or CPA who has not been paid? Bingo. No victim.

Can you show that I have taken more money than should be fairly allocated to me based on the number of shares I owned? No. I haven't even taken 10%. There is no crime here, just a handful of deluded individuals crying wolf.... again.

As soon as the other lists are received I will send off what I can to those other people. No one will get any more or less than what they are owed. See? No preference. Claims get paid out as they come in. Stop being a retard.

I've made no accusations.  You said what you were doing, namely acting in your capacity of trustee to sell an asset held in trust by you, for the purpose of paying one beneficiary preferentially.  What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud.  It is also an actionable civil matter commonly known as "breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee".

No, I'm not.

Just because I sold a single that CPA owned does not mean I am giving preference to myself or to CPA. As soon as the other shareholder lists come in there will be PLENTY of bitcoins and shares to go around. It's like YARR. I will be paying out YARR before I pay out on NYAN or BMF. Do you know why? Hint: It's not because I am committing financial fraud (hint: I am not committing financial fraud). It is because I have proof of who owns those shares.

get it? The thing I need most to move forward on a claim is to know who owns the shares, so that I may begin divvying up the money.

Next time do yourself a favor and don't make baseless accusations or accuse someone of committing a crime without actually understanding what is going on. It makes you look like a retard.

No, the whole problem is that western jurisprudence has clearly decided how these things are to be done, a set of standards and practices refined over the last two thousand years, but you are ignoring your clearly defined fiduciary obligations and just doing whatever the fuck you want.

+1 for honesty, but -9 for making it up as you go.

Sorry you feel it implies wrongdoing, it doesn't, but I can understand why you might think that. No I don't see any reason to put the posts back (if that is even possible) although as before I will reiterate a mod is free to release any of the information in any deleted post.

The thing is, BCB, that copies of my contracts still exist on the forum and in other places. This is not actually about what I did. This is about some people's illusion of what is and is not fair. I've been under constant attack for months like this. When the trolls get shot down on one accusation they just fire back with another. It's endless. You're also not the first to try and intervene. Try this game: Ask them to clearly lay out what it is, exactly, that I have done, and provide proof -- any proof whatsoever. This has been asked before, but no proof is ever given. Just the vague assertion that I have done something illegal. For example, Bitcoin Oz's "preferential shares" bullshit, or deeplink repeatedly accusing me of "swindling" people.

based on what evidence? The shit that came out of his ass this morning? Doesn't make sense. The danger is, in not responding, people who should know better start to believe it, and then it snowballs.

Half of the problem here is that I am honest and I like to disclose information. Most people don't bother (and this is probably why).

look around at all the clear cases of scamming. I could name ten names. And yet this particular thread family has remained open for over four months without a statement from a mod. There is no clear evidence. In a normal scam accusation case there is clear evidence provided and a mod makes a statement one way or the other eventually. This case is completely different. The mods are neglegent here. A mod should issue a statement, close this thread and ban those trolls.