Topic: [Weexchange issue] The fall of Ukyo III - Updates and references - page 2. (Read 49953 times)
August 18, 2018, 03:40:28 PM
No info regarding the coins, they are still lost or is there any info pointing to any coins recovered?
July 23, 2018, 05:09:42 AM
thank you digit, first post updated
July 21, 2018, 12:44:27 AM
BitFunder Operator 'Close to' Plea Bargain in SEC Fraud Case - https://www.coindesk.com/bitfunder-operator-close-to-plea-bargain-in-sec-fraud-case/
Jon Montroll, Bitfunder say they are close to plea agreement with US authorities - https://financefeeds.com/jon-montroll-bitfunder-say-close-plea-agreement-us-authorities/
The operator of defunct bitcoin investment platform BitFunder, Jon Montroll, is reportedly seeking a plea bargain over fraud and other charges laid against him by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).
FinanceFeeds indicated Thursday that, according to a document submitted by Montroll's legal counsel, "a plea agreement agreed upon in principle and expected to be finalized and entered by July 23" has accelerated efforts to reach a final court resolution.
Back in February, Montroll was hit with a number of charges for operating what the SEC said was an "unregistered securities exchange" and allegedly using the platform to defraud users of their cryptocurrency.
Separately, Montroll is accused of perjury and obstruction of justice over his failure to report a hack of his second business, WeExchange, in 2013. The breach ultimately saw roughly 6,000 bitcoins stolen – now worth some $68.7 million. The accused reportedly transferred some of his own cryptocurrency holdings to the exchange in an attempt to conceal the losses.
According to the New York Attorneys Office, William F. Sweeney Jr., FBI assistant director-in-charge, commented:
"As alleged, Montroll committed a serious crime when he lied to the SEC during sworn testimony. In an attempt to cover up the results of a hack that exploited weaknesses in the programming code of his company, he allegedly went to great lengths to prove the balance of bitcoins available to BitFunder users in the WeExchange Wallet was sufficient to cover the money owed to investors. It's said that honesty is always the best policy – this is yet another case in which this virtue holds true."
With the anticipated plea deal set to be finalized next week, negotiations between Montroll and the SEC are expected to reach a conclusion in the next three months, if not earlier.
FinanceFeeds indicated Thursday that, according to a document submitted by Montroll's legal counsel, "a plea agreement agreed upon in principle and expected to be finalized and entered by July 23" has accelerated efforts to reach a final court resolution.
Back in February, Montroll was hit with a number of charges for operating what the SEC said was an "unregistered securities exchange" and allegedly using the platform to defraud users of their cryptocurrency.
Separately, Montroll is accused of perjury and obstruction of justice over his failure to report a hack of his second business, WeExchange, in 2013. The breach ultimately saw roughly 6,000 bitcoins stolen – now worth some $68.7 million. The accused reportedly transferred some of his own cryptocurrency holdings to the exchange in an attempt to conceal the losses.
According to the New York Attorneys Office, William F. Sweeney Jr., FBI assistant director-in-charge, commented:
"As alleged, Montroll committed a serious crime when he lied to the SEC during sworn testimony. In an attempt to cover up the results of a hack that exploited weaknesses in the programming code of his company, he allegedly went to great lengths to prove the balance of bitcoins available to BitFunder users in the WeExchange Wallet was sufficient to cover the money owed to investors. It's said that honesty is always the best policy – this is yet another case in which this virtue holds true."
With the anticipated plea deal set to be finalized next week, negotiations between Montroll and the SEC are expected to reach a conclusion in the next three months, if not earlier.
Jon Montroll, Bitfunder say they are close to plea agreement with US authorities - https://financefeeds.com/jon-montroll-bitfunder-say-close-plea-agreement-us-authorities/
Quote from: https://financefeeds.com/jon-montroll-bitfunder-say-close-plea-agreement-us-authorities/
As a result of the anticipated plea in the criminal case, negotiations with the SEC to resolve the civil case have accelerated, the defendants in a Bitcoin fraud case say.
There is an update on the US authorities’ action against Jon E. Montroll and Bitfunder, accused of operating an unregistered securities exchange and defrauding users of that exchange.
On July 18, 2018, counsel for Montroll and Bitfunder submitted a status report with the New York Southern District Court. The document, seen by FinanceFeeds, states that “the defendants’ efforts to resolve the criminal case related to this proceeding, United States v. Montroll, 18 Mag. 1372, have culminated in a plea agreement agreed upon in principle and expected to be finalized and entered by July 23”. Put otherwise, the plea is expected early next week.
As a result of the anticipated plea in the criminal case, negotiations with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to resolve the civil case have accelerated, the counsel for the defendants says. Montroll and Bitfunder currently expect to resolve the civil case by agreement as well. The parties expect it will take 2-3 months to achieve a final resolution by agreement.
Let’s recall that in February this year, the SEC charged Bitfunder, a former Bitcoin-denominated platform, and its founder – Jon Montroll, with operating an unregistered securities exchange and defrauding users of that exchange. The SEC also charged the operator with making false and misleading statements in connection with an unregistered offering of securities.
In its complaint, the SEC alleges that BitFunder was an unregistered online securities exchange and that Montroll defrauded exchange users by misappropriating their bitcoins and failing to disclose a cyberattack on BitFunder’s system that resulted in the theft of more than 6,000 bitcoins.The SEC also alleges that Montroll sold unregistered securities that purported to be investments in the exchange and misappropriated funds from that investment as well.
The SEC’s complaint charges BitFunder and Montroll with violations of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement plus interest and penalties.
In a parallel criminal case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed a complaint against Montroll for perjury and obstruction of justice during the SEC’s investigation.
There is an update on the US authorities’ action against Jon E. Montroll and Bitfunder, accused of operating an unregistered securities exchange and defrauding users of that exchange.
On July 18, 2018, counsel for Montroll and Bitfunder submitted a status report with the New York Southern District Court. The document, seen by FinanceFeeds, states that “the defendants’ efforts to resolve the criminal case related to this proceeding, United States v. Montroll, 18 Mag. 1372, have culminated in a plea agreement agreed upon in principle and expected to be finalized and entered by July 23”. Put otherwise, the plea is expected early next week.
As a result of the anticipated plea in the criminal case, negotiations with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to resolve the civil case have accelerated, the counsel for the defendants says. Montroll and Bitfunder currently expect to resolve the civil case by agreement as well. The parties expect it will take 2-3 months to achieve a final resolution by agreement.
Let’s recall that in February this year, the SEC charged Bitfunder, a former Bitcoin-denominated platform, and its founder – Jon Montroll, with operating an unregistered securities exchange and defrauding users of that exchange. The SEC also charged the operator with making false and misleading statements in connection with an unregistered offering of securities.
In its complaint, the SEC alleges that BitFunder was an unregistered online securities exchange and that Montroll defrauded exchange users by misappropriating their bitcoins and failing to disclose a cyberattack on BitFunder’s system that resulted in the theft of more than 6,000 bitcoins.The SEC also alleges that Montroll sold unregistered securities that purported to be investments in the exchange and misappropriated funds from that investment as well.
The SEC’s complaint charges BitFunder and Montroll with violations of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement plus interest and penalties.
In a parallel criminal case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed a complaint against Montroll for perjury and obstruction of justice during the SEC’s investigation.
February 23, 2018, 08:39:13 PM
unfortunately that is true, we have no hope to get back our funds.
We can just to hope that Montroll will not enjoy them
We can just to hope that Montroll will not enjoy them
February 23, 2018, 07:33:06 PM
Ukyo arrested and Weexchange still running?
Nothing will change. He will get a fine or a short time in jail and that's it. This is only about him lying about the height of the loss. So nothing good will come out for us. They think it's more important to fine him for a lie instead finding our funds.
February 22, 2018, 06:37:57 AM
finally I can update this topic with some relevant news.
I think that the SEC is going to love this thread
I think that the SEC is going to love this thread
November 06, 2015, 02:05:34 PM
In addition to wife's porn freely available in dark web, here are the latest news regarding Jon Montroll, aka Ukyo:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12903448
Give back our bitcoins or perish in hell bastard thief. Suck your shitty ass Ukyo, die in hell man!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12903448
Give back our bitcoins or perish in hell bastard thief. Suck your shitty ass Ukyo, die in hell man!
February 21, 2018, 10:49:33 PM
They got him 
SEC Charges Former Bitcoin-Denominated Exchange and Operator With Fraud
US Gov’t Indicts Founder Of Long Defunct Crypto Exchange BitFunder
SEC Charges Former Bitcoin-Denominated Exchange and Operator With Fraud
Quote from: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-23
SEC Charges Former Bitcoin-Denominated Exchange and Operator With Fraud
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2018-23
Washington D.C., Feb. 21, 2018 —
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former bitcoin-denominated platform and its operator with operating an unregistered securities exchange and defrauding users of that exchange. The SEC also charged the operator with making false and misleading statements in connection with an unregistered offering of securities.
The SEC alleges that BitFunder and its founder Jon E. Montroll operated BitFunder as an unregistered online securities exchange and defrauded exchange users by misappropriating their bitcoins and failing to disclose a cyberattack on BitFunder’s system that resulted in the theft of more than 6,000 bitcoins.The SEC also alleges that Montroll sold unregistered securities that purported to be investments in the exchange and misappropriated funds from that investment as well.
“We allege that BitFunder operated unlawfully as an unregistered securities exchange. Platforms that engage in the activity of a national securities exchange, regardless of whether that activity involves digital assets, tokens, or coins, must register with the SEC or operate pursuant to an exemption. We will continue to focus on these types of platforms to protect investors and ensure compliance with the securities laws,” said Marc Berger, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.
“As alleged in the complaint, Montroll defrauded exchange users by misappropriating their bitcoins and failing to disclose a cyberattack on the exchange’s system and the resulting bitcoin theft. We will continue to vigorously police conduct involving distributed ledger technology and ensure that bad actors who commit fraud in this space are held accountable,” said Lara S. Mehraban, Associate Regional Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, charges BitFunder and Montroll with violations of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement plus interest and penalties.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Daphna A. Waxman, Daphne Downes, and Valerie A. Szczepanik in the New York Regional Office. Ms. Waxman and Ms. Szczepanik also are members of the SEC’s Distributed Ledger Working Group and the Enforcement Division’s Cyber Unit. The litigation will be led by Dugan Bliss. The case is being supervised by Lara S. Mehraban.
In a parallel criminal case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today filed a complaint against Montroll for perjury and obstruction of justice during the SEC’s investigation. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2018-23
Washington D.C., Feb. 21, 2018 —
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former bitcoin-denominated platform and its operator with operating an unregistered securities exchange and defrauding users of that exchange. The SEC also charged the operator with making false and misleading statements in connection with an unregistered offering of securities.
The SEC alleges that BitFunder and its founder Jon E. Montroll operated BitFunder as an unregistered online securities exchange and defrauded exchange users by misappropriating their bitcoins and failing to disclose a cyberattack on BitFunder’s system that resulted in the theft of more than 6,000 bitcoins.The SEC also alleges that Montroll sold unregistered securities that purported to be investments in the exchange and misappropriated funds from that investment as well.
“We allege that BitFunder operated unlawfully as an unregistered securities exchange. Platforms that engage in the activity of a national securities exchange, regardless of whether that activity involves digital assets, tokens, or coins, must register with the SEC or operate pursuant to an exemption. We will continue to focus on these types of platforms to protect investors and ensure compliance with the securities laws,” said Marc Berger, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.
“As alleged in the complaint, Montroll defrauded exchange users by misappropriating their bitcoins and failing to disclose a cyberattack on the exchange’s system and the resulting bitcoin theft. We will continue to vigorously police conduct involving distributed ledger technology and ensure that bad actors who commit fraud in this space are held accountable,” said Lara S. Mehraban, Associate Regional Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, charges BitFunder and Montroll with violations of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement plus interest and penalties.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Daphna A. Waxman, Daphne Downes, and Valerie A. Szczepanik in the New York Regional Office. Ms. Waxman and Ms. Szczepanik also are members of the SEC’s Distributed Ledger Working Group and the Enforcement Division’s Cyber Unit. The litigation will be led by Dugan Bliss. The case is being supervised by Lara S. Mehraban.
In a parallel criminal case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today filed a complaint against Montroll for perjury and obstruction of justice during the SEC’s investigation. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
###
US Gov’t Indicts Founder Of Long Defunct Crypto Exchange BitFunder
Quote from: https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-govt-indicts-founder-of-long-defunct-crypto-exchange-bitfunder
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have officially leveled charges against the founder of the now non-operational Bitcoin-dominated exchange BitFunder, Jon E. Montroll, Wednesday Feb. 21.
The SEC released a press statement Wednesday stating that they have charged Montroll, also known as Ukyo, with operating BitFunder as an unregistered securities exchange, defrauding the users of said exchange, and making “false and misleading statements in connection with an unregistered offering of securities.”
The SEC alleges that both BitFunder and its founder Montroll defrauded exchange users by “misappropriating their bitcoins”, operated as an unregistered securities exchange, and failed to disclose a cyberattack which led to the loss of over 6,000 bitcoins.
In 2013, hackers exploited a weakness in BitFunder’s programming code to falsely credit themselves with over 6,000 bitcoins. In an effort to recuse himself of the responsibility of having lost what was then about $720,000, today worth over $60 mln, Montroll denied the success of the hackers, and additionally provided false balance statements to SEC investigators.
The formal complaint filed by the SEC charges Montroll with violations of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of US federal securities laws. According to the press release, ”[t]he complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement plus interest and penalties.”
The DOJ also announced today Feb. 21, that Montroll has been arrested and taken into custody by the federal government. The DOJ has charged Montroll with two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. The counts of perjury and obstruction carry maximum sentences of 5 and 20 years, respectively.
Investor protection remains a priority concern for the federal government in these proceedings. Marc Berger, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office stated:
“...Platforms that engage in the activity of a national securities exchange, regardless of whether that activity involves digital assets, tokens, or coins, must register with the SEC or operate pursuant to an exemption. We will continue to focus on these types of platforms to protect investors and ensure compliance with the securities laws.”
BitFunder ceased trading on Nov. 14, 2013 amid complaints about delayed and frozen withdrawals of funds, following the August hack. Adding to BitFunder’s woes from the hack, the exchange went bankrupt after, following a ban on US traders, American traders left the platform in droves.
At a senate hearing earlier this month, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton noted that, so far, every ICO-issued token the SEC has observed is likely a security under US law, regardless of how the issuer refers to or markets the token. As of December, 2017, Clayton noted that not a single ICO had registered their tokens with the SEC.
The SEC released a press statement Wednesday stating that they have charged Montroll, also known as Ukyo, with operating BitFunder as an unregistered securities exchange, defrauding the users of said exchange, and making “false and misleading statements in connection with an unregistered offering of securities.”
The SEC alleges that both BitFunder and its founder Montroll defrauded exchange users by “misappropriating their bitcoins”, operated as an unregistered securities exchange, and failed to disclose a cyberattack which led to the loss of over 6,000 bitcoins.
In 2013, hackers exploited a weakness in BitFunder’s programming code to falsely credit themselves with over 6,000 bitcoins. In an effort to recuse himself of the responsibility of having lost what was then about $720,000, today worth over $60 mln, Montroll denied the success of the hackers, and additionally provided false balance statements to SEC investigators.
The formal complaint filed by the SEC charges Montroll with violations of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of US federal securities laws. According to the press release, ”[t]he complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement plus interest and penalties.”
The DOJ also announced today Feb. 21, that Montroll has been arrested and taken into custody by the federal government. The DOJ has charged Montroll with two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. The counts of perjury and obstruction carry maximum sentences of 5 and 20 years, respectively.
Investor protection remains a priority concern for the federal government in these proceedings. Marc Berger, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office stated:
“...Platforms that engage in the activity of a national securities exchange, regardless of whether that activity involves digital assets, tokens, or coins, must register with the SEC or operate pursuant to an exemption. We will continue to focus on these types of platforms to protect investors and ensure compliance with the securities laws.”
BitFunder ceased trading on Nov. 14, 2013 amid complaints about delayed and frozen withdrawals of funds, following the August hack. Adding to BitFunder’s woes from the hack, the exchange went bankrupt after, following a ban on US traders, American traders left the platform in droves.
At a senate hearing earlier this month, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton noted that, so far, every ICO-issued token the SEC has observed is likely a security under US law, regardless of how the issuer refers to or markets the token. As of December, 2017, Clayton noted that not a single ICO had registered their tokens with the SEC.
December 15, 2014, 07:54:54 AM
Jon Montroll's previous criminal history:
http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Texas/Collin-County-TX/Jon-Elliott-Montroll.61053463.html
A list of warrants for Plano Police Dept in Plano Texas November 12 2012 (page 120):
https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/6697252/warrant-list/120
A list of warrants for Plano Police Department in Plano Texas July 2 2012 ( page 109):
http://www.readbag.com/pdf-plano-police-warrants
What was he arrested for?
Are the warrants still out for his arrest?
http://i.imgur.com/ltkSk0X.jpg
http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Texas/Collin-County-TX/Jon-Elliott-Montroll.61053463.html
Quote
Jon Elliott Montroll was booked in Collin County, TX.
The following Official Record of Jon Elliott Montroll is being redistributed by Mugshots.com and is protected by constitutional, publishing, and other legal rights. This Official Record was collected from a Law Enforcement agency on 6/10/2013.
Mugshots.com ID: 61053463
Name: MONTROLL, JON ELLIOTT
DOB: 10/13/1980
Personal ID: 687355
Number of Warrants: 2
Total Amount: $788.10
The following Official Record of Jon Elliott Montroll is being redistributed by Mugshots.com and is protected by constitutional, publishing, and other legal rights. This Official Record was collected from a Law Enforcement agency on 6/10/2013.
Mugshots.com ID: 61053463
Name: MONTROLL, JON ELLIOTT
DOB: 10/13/1980
Personal ID: 687355
Number of Warrants: 2
Total Amount: $788.10
A list of warrants for Plano Police Dept in Plano Texas November 12 2012 (page 120):
https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/6697252/warrant-list/120
A list of warrants for Plano Police Department in Plano Texas July 2 2012 ( page 109):
http://www.readbag.com/pdf-plano-police-warrants
What was he arrested for?
Are the warrants still out for his arrest?
http://i.imgur.com/ltkSk0X.jpg
December 07, 2014, 09:30:19 PM
So what's the status Ukyo?
**BUMP**
**BUMP**
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9762460
Quote
...it appears Jon Elliott Montroll (Ukyo) has been doxxed a while ago. That address on 741 Sparrow Drive, Saginaw, Texas 76131-2912 USA checks out by the way (cousin in Texas confirmed... cпacибo!)
He may also be hiding in Japan according to this Facebook post he left October 13 2014 (which incidentally was his birthday):
https://www.facebook.com/gonzaguegb/posts/10152351184125925
He may also be hiding in Japan according to this Facebook post he left October 13 2014 (which incidentally was his birthday):
https://www.facebook.com/gonzaguegb/posts/10152351184125925
Quote
September 16, 2014, 04:10:40 AM
this thread is still going?
not surprised...
either slam the hammer down or move on.
not surprised...
either slam the hammer down or move on.
September 09, 2014, 12:55:15 AM
[h3]Request for information[/h3]
I am requesting the 'Current company information' company extract document from ASIC ( https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=152308239&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=tas6tde7z_4 ) regarding WeExchange Australia, Pty. Ltd. I believe that someone here has already paid for the document.
If you do, please email me.
I am requesting the 'Current company information' company extract document from ASIC ( https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=152308239&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=tas6tde7z_4 ) regarding WeExchange Australia, Pty. Ltd. I believe that someone here has already paid for the document.
If you do, please email me.
August 13, 2014, 10:45:24 PM
xpost:
Reactions?
Is taking coins which were indisputably mine in order to pay of WEEX's other debts legitimate, criminal, neither, or ambiguous?
Reactions?
Is taking coins which were indisputably mine in order to pay of WEEX's other debts legitimate, criminal, neither, or ambiguous?
Criminal. Ukyo stole over 8000 BTC. He stole your money, and all of the rest of ours, it's pretty simple. His address and real name is in this thread, your only chance to ever see your money again is direct action on your part. As he intended to steal your money he made it quite difficult to sue him, the way his corporation was constructed legally, so there isn't much chance of success down that avenue unless you have a shit-ton of money to put into it.
July 30, 2014, 07:11:39 AM
xpost:
Good news: the coins I had "stuck" in my WEEX deposit address have been pried lose. To be clear, these were coins sent to the address AFTER everything stopped working, from some group buy dividends I couldn't change the destination of.
Bad news: instead of giving me access to the coins sent to my unique individual address, the coins were distributed to other people via a "claim form."
Worse news: my Picostocks account is locked to that WEEX deposit address, so unless I can get the private key or some other kind of access, those coins will also be seized and given away.
Is this not robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Reactions?
Is taking coins which were indisputably mine in order to pay of WEEX's other debts legitimate, criminal, neither, or ambiguous?
Good news: the coins I had "stuck" in my WEEX deposit address have been pried lose. To be clear, these were coins sent to the address AFTER everything stopped working, from some group buy dividends I couldn't change the destination of.
Bad news: instead of giving me access to the coins sent to my unique individual address, the coins were distributed to other people via a "claim form."
Worse news: my Picostocks account is locked to that WEEX deposit address, so unless I can get the private key or some other kind of access, those coins will also be seized and given away.
Is this not robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Reactions?
Is taking coins which were indisputably mine in order to pay of WEEX's other debts legitimate, criminal, neither, or ambiguous?
July 29, 2014, 05:09:34 PM
People have to keep in mind that he (Ukyo) will be doing everything in his power to prevent a legal battle. If it comes to this, he actually may have a problem. People know his name and/or address, so suing him may become a problem for him. If he successfully lures people into believing him and also threatens them in so far as their coins would be lost forever if they pursue legal action. Wow, I mean... There's no way to attack that construct of his.
July 29, 2014, 04:54:48 PM
What's up with this punkass? It's been about a year since this fiasco and Ukyo still can't say what happened. What a fuckin' douche.
July 29, 2014, 04:50:13 PM
I would like to not "fight" in two threads so maybe read my answer here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8090750
Right... sueing him would make him talk. And i already went so far to send ukyo and graet a letter demanding information. I didnt sue him because he claims the coins are gone and without weex they cant be retrieved. And that sounds logically to me. Ill copy simply from the other post i made now: Weex dont have the coins. If sued and demanding the coins then weex has to go bankrupt otherwise ukyo would take legal risks personally. And if weex is gone then there is no one that could demand the coins back. Simple as that. So the decision is simply to believe ukyo for now or try if he lied and take the risk to kill the chance to get the coins back.
I simply would want to wait until its clear if the original coins can be retrieved. Of course that cant take forever. Im not sure that you can sue him to explain where the coins are without forcing him to set weex bankrupt. As CEO he would need to do this.
I dont believe in a NDA too. But i wouldnt be against a lawsuit when the silence couldnt be explained. For example, lets say the coins are gone, ukyo sees he has a problem. The first person would be his lawyer that would say to him "dont say anything" until things are cleared. Next thing might be an investigation and the investigator would say "Dont say anything until we cleared things in order to not hinder the investigation".
Anyway... im tired of all this. I take the shitstorm for ukyo. Maybe i should give up and dont care anymore. My life would be a bit more peaceful.
Sebastian, its quite easy. He has absolutely no obligation to pay back to coins unless sued.
He's "available", but still doesn't say where the coins are. Sueing him would force him to talk.
If they're lost (either due to high incompetence or because he used the money) we're fucked anyway. Sueing him would force him into pay back or bankruptcy (although there hasn't been a case with bitcoin yet).
If he says the coins were stolen, he needs to prove that. It's not like the court would just accept "uh, yeah, they were stolen, ups".
He tried to make it seem that there are legal reasons for the coins beeing unavailable, if beeing sued, he might be able to talk about that.
Also don't forget that he was most likely lieing when telling there were technical issues with withdrawals at the beginning of november. Its quite certain now, that the coins were missing at that point and that this was causing the problems.
Even if he launches new projects to try to pay back his debt. Who says anyone would trust him again and use his services?
He's "available", but still doesn't say where the coins are. Sueing him would force him to talk.
If they're lost (either due to high incompetence or because he used the money) we're fucked anyway. Sueing him would force him into pay back or bankruptcy (although there hasn't been a case with bitcoin yet).
If he says the coins were stolen, he needs to prove that. It's not like the court would just accept "uh, yeah, they were stolen, ups".
He tried to make it seem that there are legal reasons for the coins beeing unavailable, if beeing sued, he might be able to talk about that.
Also don't forget that he was most likely lieing when telling there were technical issues with withdrawals at the beginning of november. Its quite certain now, that the coins were missing at that point and that this was causing the problems.
Even if he launches new projects to try to pay back his debt. Who says anyone would trust him again and use his services?
Right... sueing him would make him talk. And i already went so far to send ukyo and graet a letter demanding information. I didnt sue him because he claims the coins are gone and without weex they cant be retrieved. And that sounds logically to me. Ill copy simply from the other post i made now: Weex dont have the coins. If sued and demanding the coins then weex has to go bankrupt otherwise ukyo would take legal risks personally. And if weex is gone then there is no one that could demand the coins back. Simple as that. So the decision is simply to believe ukyo for now or try if he lied and take the risk to kill the chance to get the coins back.
I simply would want to wait until its clear if the original coins can be retrieved. Of course that cant take forever. Im not sure that you can sue him to explain where the coins are without forcing him to set weex bankrupt. As CEO he would need to do this.
SebastianJu you have to wake up and smell the coffee man.
Such a dead horse . But anyways, for ole time sake: Ukyo is on IRC. Who the crap cares? He has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of substance on where the 'missing' millions of dollars of stolen bitcoin has gone every week on IRC for what, 8, 9 months now? So he's available for comment, and just 'can't talk about it'... ?
The situation is far more simple than you make it out to be.
Here is the situation:
Many of thousands of bitcoins were deposited to Ukyo.
Many of thousands of bitcoins were loaned to Ukyo.
Ukyo gave none those coins back.
Ukyo has not said any details on where the missing millions went, after many months.
Those are the key elements of the entire situation. For my 100th and final time: there is absolutely no situation or justification for owing millions of USD$ worth of bitcoin to debtors and not giving any response on why this happened. There is no NDA or legal agreement from any Earth or Alien court that would bind him not to say anything about the coins gone missing that were deposited to him, unless it was made by some secret court such as the CIA or some other dumb shit which we can very obviously disregard as next to impossible.
What ---- the ----- very highly --- most likely --- thing --- that - happened --- here ---- is : Jon Montroll took debts and either lost them (gambling, investments gone sour etc) or just straight up stole them.
Really, there are next to ZERO other scenarios that could have happened. You are being way to forgiving to a guy that stole or lost millions from the community. I'd like at least some of your pity for losing my $600 of bitcoin because I could have really used that much more than Jon Montroll.
Such a dead horse . But anyways, for ole time sake: Ukyo is on IRC. Who the crap cares? He has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of substance on where the 'missing' millions of dollars of stolen bitcoin has gone every week on IRC for what, 8, 9 months now? So he's available for comment, and just 'can't talk about it'... ?
The situation is far more simple than you make it out to be.
Here is the situation:
Many of thousands of bitcoins were deposited to Ukyo.
Many of thousands of bitcoins were loaned to Ukyo.
Ukyo gave none those coins back.
Ukyo has not said any details on where the missing millions went, after many months.
Those are the key elements of the entire situation. For my 100th and final time: there is absolutely no situation or justification for owing millions of USD$ worth of bitcoin to debtors and not giving any response on why this happened. There is no NDA or legal agreement from any Earth or Alien court that would bind him not to say anything about the coins gone missing that were deposited to him, unless it was made by some secret court such as the CIA or some other dumb shit which we can very obviously disregard as next to impossible.
What ---- the ----- very highly --- most likely --- thing --- that - happened --- here ---- is : Jon Montroll took debts and either lost them (gambling, investments gone sour etc) or just straight up stole them.
Really, there are next to ZERO other scenarios that could have happened. You are being way to forgiving to a guy that stole or lost millions from the community. I'd like at least some of your pity for losing my $600 of bitcoin because I could have really used that much more than Jon Montroll.
I dont believe in a NDA too. But i wouldnt be against a lawsuit when the silence couldnt be explained. For example, lets say the coins are gone, ukyo sees he has a problem. The first person would be his lawyer that would say to him "dont say anything" until things are cleared. Next thing might be an investigation and the investigator would say "Dont say anything until we cleared things in order to not hinder the investigation".
Anyway... im tired of all this. I take the shitstorm for ukyo. Maybe i should give up and dont care anymore. My life would be a bit more peaceful.
July 28, 2014, 10:01:13 PM
SebastianJu you have to wake up and smell the coffee man.
Such a dead horse . But anyways, for ole time sake: Ukyo is on IRC. Who the crap cares? He has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of substance on where the 'missing' millions of dollars of stolen bitcoin has gone every week on IRC for what, 8, 9 months now? So he's available for comment, and just 'can't talk about it'... ?
The situation is far more simple than you make it out to be.
Here is the situation:
Many of thousands of bitcoins were deposited to Ukyo.
Many of thousands of bitcoins were loaned to Ukyo.
Ukyo gave none those coins back.
Ukyo has not said any details on where the missing millions went, after many months.
Those are the key elements of the entire situation. For my 100th and final time: there is absolutely no situation or justification for owing millions of USD$ worth of bitcoin to debtors and not giving any response on why this happened. There is no NDA or legal agreement from any Earth or Alien court that would bind him not to say anything about the coins gone missing that were deposited to him, unless it was made by some secret court such as the CIA or some other dumb shit which we can very obviously disregard as next to impossible.
What ---- the ----- very highly --- most likely --- thing --- that - happened --- here ---- is : Jon Montroll took debts and either lost them (gambling, investments gone sour etc) or just straight up stole them.
Really, there are next to ZERO other scenarios that could have happened. You are being way to forgiving to a guy that stole or lost millions from the community. I'd like at least some of your pity for losing my $600 of bitcoin because I could have really used that much more than Jon Montroll.
Such a dead horse . But anyways, for ole time sake: Ukyo is on IRC. Who the crap cares? He has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of substance on where the 'missing' millions of dollars of stolen bitcoin has gone every week on IRC for what, 8, 9 months now? So he's available for comment, and just 'can't talk about it'... ?
The situation is far more simple than you make it out to be.
Here is the situation:
Many of thousands of bitcoins were deposited to Ukyo.
Many of thousands of bitcoins were loaned to Ukyo.
Ukyo gave none those coins back.
Ukyo has not said any details on where the missing millions went, after many months.
Those are the key elements of the entire situation. For my 100th and final time: there is absolutely no situation or justification for owing millions of USD$ worth of bitcoin to debtors and not giving any response on why this happened. There is no NDA or legal agreement from any Earth or Alien court that would bind him not to say anything about the coins gone missing that were deposited to him, unless it was made by some secret court such as the CIA or some other dumb shit which we can very obviously disregard as next to impossible.
What ---- the ----- very highly --- most likely --- thing --- that - happened --- here ---- is : Jon Montroll took debts and either lost them (gambling, investments gone sour etc) or just straight up stole them.
Really, there are next to ZERO other scenarios that could have happened. You are being way to forgiving to a guy that stole or lost millions from the community. I'd like at least some of your pity for losing my $600 of bitcoin because I could have really used that much more than Jon Montroll.
July 28, 2014, 10:52:43 AM
Sebastian, its quite easy. He has absolutely no obligation to pay back to coins unless sued.
He's "available", but still doesn't say where the coins are. Sueing him would force him to talk.
If they're lost (either due to high incompetence or because he used the money) we're fucked anyway. Sueing him would force him into pay back or bankruptcy (although there hasn't been a case with bitcoin yet).
If he says the coins were stolen, he needs to prove that. It's not like the court would just accept "uh, yeah, they were stolen, ups".
He tried to make it seem that there are legal reasons for the coins beeing unavailable, if beeing sued, he might be able to talk about that.
Also don't forget that he was most likely lieing when telling there were technical issues with withdrawals at the beginning of november. Its quite certain now, that the coins were missing at that point and that this was causing the problems.
Even if he launches new projects to try to pay back his debt. Who says anyone would trust him again and use his services?
He's "available", but still doesn't say where the coins are. Sueing him would force him to talk.
If they're lost (either due to high incompetence or because he used the money) we're fucked anyway. Sueing him would force him into pay back or bankruptcy (although there hasn't been a case with bitcoin yet).
If he says the coins were stolen, he needs to prove that. It's not like the court would just accept "uh, yeah, they were stolen, ups".
He tried to make it seem that there are legal reasons for the coins beeing unavailable, if beeing sued, he might be able to talk about that.
Also don't forget that he was most likely lieing when telling there were technical issues with withdrawals at the beginning of november. Its quite certain now, that the coins were missing at that point and that this was causing the problems.
Even if he launches new projects to try to pay back his debt. Who says anyone would trust him again and use his services?
July 25, 2014, 04:47:11 PM
Did you read what this is about and what i wrote? Im not one of the kind that dont sue. Im part of LCSH, a group of shareholders that hunt down the labcoin scammer. We know its a scam so we will sue him. At the moment the police investigation and more runs. And i would sue any other scammer, that scams me, too.
I lost coins in weex and i could sue ukyo to get my coins back. But chances for my coins returning that way are very slim. But i would sue him anyway, regardless of coins, in case it came out it was a scam. Just to show that this isnt correct.
But at the moment ukyo didnt vanish. I know he works on projects since i saw at least one of them. And he claims he works on getting the original weex coins back. He says too that in case weex goes bankrupt the original coins cant be retrieved anymore which sounds valid. When we demand the coins back but weex doesnt have them anymore then ukyo needs to close down weex in order not to be punished for not doing so. And when the company dont exist anymore then there is nothing the coins has to come back to.
So why should i sue him now? You always speak about that it has to be a scam. Maybe. I cant be sure. But sueing? Whats the sense in this now?
> but he can't scam you because then you'll sue him?
oO What do you mean? If i sue him then its clear that i was scammed.
Anyway. It sounds to me like you guys dont have coins in this. For you something went wrong so crush ukyo. But my first priority is no revenge, its my coins. And when there is a chance to get them back i can wait with revenge. Whats so hard with this? I guess iam, and most probably you guys too, made a lot of wrong business decisions based on emotions. In this ukyo case i put my anger beside, check things out and my judgement says its better to wait for the moment. No need to rush. Not sueing now will not make things any worse.
> Thing is, I don't know what happened here, and if it really is a scam or not. But as of now I don't see any reason to believe him any more.
I wish you would try to check things out for yourself before being quick with judgements. Only because its some time now already its proof for you that he lied? You cant imagine that some things, especially when legal things are involved, take much time?
Guys... im not sure what kind of problem you see weex had. If lawyers, investigators and whatever would be involved then it could easily take months. And you say you can judge that he lied because some time went by now?
> why should he do anything when he can just talk to you once a week and keep you happy?
Correct, he could do this. But at one point in time it wouldnt be believable anymore that he still works on them. Even when taking worst case scenarios in mind.
> many of those people that got scammed don't actually do anything to get their money back
Correct. Im not one of those. I would sue him when i would think its the best choice at the moment. And getting money back... if ukyo really would have stolen the coins dont you think he couldnt make a smart enough story that it looks like he didnt steal the coins? So that even an investigation let it look like it was a hacker or something like that? That they lie somewhere safe and he lives from it once he is somewhere safe? Sueing him would most probably only be for punishment since his normal personal belongings will be eaten by lawyers in full. Put the amount of coins missing against it and you will see that it would be useless sueing him for his personal belongings to get the coins back. As long as you dont know where the coins are and how to achieve them.
Guys... im not sure what you really want to say. It looks like its mostly the claim that it has to be a scam. No proof beside coins arent there anymore. And you suggest what course of action? Sueing? Dont you think i would have thought that through long ago? Im in this since months and believe me im not happy with the situation.
I lost coins in weex and i could sue ukyo to get my coins back. But chances for my coins returning that way are very slim. But i would sue him anyway, regardless of coins, in case it came out it was a scam. Just to show that this isnt correct.
But at the moment ukyo didnt vanish. I know he works on projects since i saw at least one of them. And he claims he works on getting the original weex coins back. He says too that in case weex goes bankrupt the original coins cant be retrieved anymore which sounds valid. When we demand the coins back but weex doesnt have them anymore then ukyo needs to close down weex in order not to be punished for not doing so. And when the company dont exist anymore then there is nothing the coins has to come back to.
So why should i sue him now? You always speak about that it has to be a scam. Maybe. I cant be sure. But sueing? Whats the sense in this now?
> but he can't scam you because then you'll sue him?
oO What do you mean? If i sue him then its clear that i was scammed.
Anyway. It sounds to me like you guys dont have coins in this. For you something went wrong so crush ukyo. But my first priority is no revenge, its my coins. And when there is a chance to get them back i can wait with revenge. Whats so hard with this? I guess iam, and most probably you guys too, made a lot of wrong business decisions based on emotions. In this ukyo case i put my anger beside, check things out and my judgement says its better to wait for the moment. No need to rush. Not sueing now will not make things any worse.
> Thing is, I don't know what happened here, and if it really is a scam or not. But as of now I don't see any reason to believe him any more.
I wish you would try to check things out for yourself before being quick with judgements. Only because its some time now already its proof for you that he lied? You cant imagine that some things, especially when legal things are involved, take much time?
Guys... im not sure what kind of problem you see weex had. If lawyers, investigators and whatever would be involved then it could easily take months. And you say you can judge that he lied because some time went by now?
> why should he do anything when he can just talk to you once a week and keep you happy?
Correct, he could do this. But at one point in time it wouldnt be believable anymore that he still works on them. Even when taking worst case scenarios in mind.
> many of those people that got scammed don't actually do anything to get their money back
Correct. Im not one of those. I would sue him when i would think its the best choice at the moment. And getting money back... if ukyo really would have stolen the coins dont you think he couldnt make a smart enough story that it looks like he didnt steal the coins? So that even an investigation let it look like it was a hacker or something like that? That they lie somewhere safe and he lives from it once he is somewhere safe? Sueing him would most probably only be for punishment since his normal personal belongings will be eaten by lawyers in full. Put the amount of coins missing against it and you will see that it would be useless sueing him for his personal belongings to get the coins back. As long as you dont know where the coins are and how to achieve them.
Guys... im not sure what you really want to say. It looks like its mostly the claim that it has to be a scam. No proof beside coins arent there anymore. And you suggest what course of action? Sueing? Dont you think i would have thought that through long ago? Im in this since months and believe me im not happy with the situation.
Jump to: