Bitcoin Forum

Please Read text in the Box Before Flaming me

---

I'm in no way in support of protecting scammers and people that commit fraud. My Issue is GLBSE breaking its own TOS and Possible Laws that would allow it to be sued and face damages and be shutdown.

I considered myself invested in the success of GLBSE because I have assets listed on them, and don't want to see any liability to GLBSE caused by Illegal Actions of GLBSE.

---

In this Thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93445.msg1205151#msg1205151 GLBSE releases the ID of a scammer.

Per GLBSE own TOS https://www.glbse.com/info/terms

8. The Exchange may at its discretion ask asset creators to provide proof of identity, address, phone number, or any other information as deemed appropriate. Said information will be held securely offline and not shared with any third party.

So GLBSE violated its own TOS by Releasing his ID.

The Scammer is in Italy, so his local laws may be different.

It appears this is illegal in Italy based on ACT no. 675 of 31.12.1996

But if this happened to a USA based asset holder, this is very illegal and could be sued.

Also even if the scammer has been accused or charged with a crimes, its still illegal to do this in the USA and could cause liability  to GLBSE.  

I think the TOS needs to be changed to provided some warning that GLBSE will do this, I think its still Illegal to do in the USA but atleast the TOS will say they could do it.

I'm only looking for the best interest of GLBSE and want to point out something that could caused financial harm to GLBSE and is Illegal in other Areas of the world.

The TOS probably does need to be clarified a bit better of the element surrounding how the niceties of the TOS don't apply to your account  info/data we have about you if you are suspect / proven of fraud.


I was not surprised Nefario shared the info/data I admit, after all, a lot of fraud has happened by those misusing his trading site. It's understandable he would be annoyed at them, as it damages his (and the companies) reputation as well.
However I am surprised his TOS didn't mention he could get away with doing that, when suspected or prove of fraud. So yes, [9.] probably should be expanded a bit to cover himself, if he's going to keep doing this.

I'm not much for legal jargon, so meh, scammers have it coming for them really.

This particular case it a little more difficult.

The scammer is natural Italian but has been living in Shenzhen (China) for quite some time now. It is a possiblity he has acquired Chinese Citizenship.

I'm not sure what the privacy protection laws are in China, but I doubt there are any.

Are we talking about the scammer who agreed when providing his ID that it would be made public if he scammed/defaulted/(de)frauded?

-MarkM-

yes

You are hereby assuming that Nefario has no other permission to release Alberto's documents and received them in the scope of GLBSE with no extra permission, so GLBSE TOS must apply. This may be the case, but this may also not be. Only Nefario, Alberto and possible witnesses know in which context and under what conditions this documents transmission took place and what rules govern their release.

afaik nefario/glbse is hosted in UK.
EU has good privacy laws which prohibit sharing of any ID information.

if nefario has a problem with a scammer he HAS TO inform the police and give the id to them.

btw: nefario: whats the progress about getting a registered company in UK?

So where did Alberto agree to this?

Nefario usually acts according to his emotion but the brain. He forget that he should only hand this to the police but not push those materials  publicly.

There are another accuse against Nefario. someone is accusing Nefario scammed 8BTC here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110504.0.

Not really the same thing, if you actually read up on the situation.

Also you could argue that GLBSE is hosted in the USA, VIA CloudFlare.

And US laws could apply ALA MegaUpload Style.

Basically the same thing. He does not pay attention to the terms. So he write the terms poorly, and does not obey it when he forget it.

Not sure what the fuss is all about in this particular case.

Nefario stated that Alberto had agreed, when he provided the ID documents, that they could be released if he scammed or disappeared with investor's funds.  If Alberto agreed to this then it has nothing to do with the TOS of GLBSE: Alberto has every entitlement to waive one of the rights he would otherwise have under his agreement with GLBSE.

If Nefario had released the ID documents of someone WITHOUT them having agreed to it, then that would be an entirely different matter.

Remember that the TOS of GLBSE are a contract that you enter into with them when you use the site.  As with an ycontract its terms can be variede with the agreement of both parties to it.  In Alberto's case, Nefario has stated that they varied the contract such that (under certain circumstances) the personal details of Alberto could be released.  Alberto did NOT have the same agreement with GLBSE after that as everyone else (by default) has.

If you want to look at things like the Data Protection Act and other related legislation in the UK (where GLBSE/nefario are based) then you'll find that they only deal with the handling/distribution of data WITHOUT the consent of the other party to whom the data pertains.  In this case Nefario has said he had Alberto's consent to release the information in these circumstances.

Obviously if you believe Nefario is lieing about Alberto having agreed to the release of his ID in the event of his scamming/running with funds then that's slightly different.  But I'm not seeing any posts from Alberto claiming that to be the case - have I missed them somewhere?  Or do you have some other reason to believe Nefario is lieing about that?

i am not sure if thats enough.
if nefario had asked alberto "may i release your information now?" -> all good.

but what court has said that alberto has scammed funds? nefario's word and the opinion of this community is not legally binding.

+1

We have not violated GLBSE terms of service as the currently are.

Alberto agreed to have his information released in the event of him scamming or running off with the funds invested when he verified, I would not have made the information public otherwise.

He was warned numerous times over the last month that if he continued to fail to take action on his obligations I would release the information.

This information has now been removed as he has begun to comply.

We're in the process of legitimizing GLBSE, as a part of that process I'm in discussion with a solicitor over a number of issues.

From this process there are likely to be some changes, certainly to our terms of service will change, and what action we take if someone fails on their contract obligations are likely to change as well.

I can't give any more details until after I've spoken with the solicitor.

Nefario.

Meni, was actually the one to revealed he was the scammer, Meni then asked Nefario to help fix a situation that Alberto would not.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93445.260

In that case Alberto should be complaining that he hasn't scammed (or run off with investors' funds) - and that Nefario broke the (privately arranged) term in their contract specifying the conditions under which his information could be released to the public.  The agreement wasn't specifically that ALberto had to scam - it also agreed Alberto disappearing with the investors' funds.  The latter is rather easier to establish than scamming - scamming requires intent, whilst vanishing with the funds is just a matter of simple facts: is he still around?  Do investors have their funds back?

Without knowing the exact wording of what was agreed (and you) can't know for certain whether Nefario releasing the ID was in agreement with their contract or not.  But what we DO know (unless you believe Nefario is lieing about such an agreement being made) is that the default contract in the TOS is not relevant - as it was varied with the consent of both parties (Alberto and Nefario).

EDIT:  Now out of date, as Nefario posted whilst I was typing this.

Was this a special Verification process for only Alberto or are you talking about the default verification process for all Asset Owners?

You should post the agreement to having his personal information released then no one could question you releasing the documents.

releasing personal info...i dont see ANY sense in it.

give it to the police: but never to a public forum...

imagine you are ill, get to a hospital... and an angry mob burned down your house

NO THANKS

Personal info was already released.  I was referring to releasing the agreement saying when and how it is OK.

He is already marked as a scammer as bitscalper. In that sense yes he is a "scammer".

Wow.

Why anyone would give another bitcoiner his ID is beyond me., The odds are one or the other is a scammer. You're either a scammer giving your ID up, or giving your ID to a scammer.

Nah. S'ok. I like nefario, but I trust him (and theymos) with private data about as far as I can throw a truck. Neither on has really shown that they're particularly trustworthy with that data. (this is why I no longer accept forum "personal" message -- private, my ass)

Without having Nefario & Theymos' personal information on one's own file, I'm not sure how anyone can trust them enough to give up his or her own personal info.  Do you know who these guys are? Enough to sue them? If not, then why on earth would you give information to them such that they could or their customers could sue you.

Nefario & Theymos, please now provide
1) Complete list of all shareholders of GLBSE
2) List of Board of Directors of GLBSE WITH ALL PERSONAL DATA requested by GLBSE for issuers,m including copies of ID
3) Articles of Incorporation for GLBSE
4) Corporate by-laws for GLBSE

Without the above, GLBSE is no more trustworthy than any other unverified lister on it and has NO business releasing personal data.

Only if you sign an NDA first :P

GLBSE isnt a legal entity yet. If/when that changes youll be able to find such infos like any other registered company. But then the shareholders will be protected from personal lawsuits.

I find this funny, "I won't give my ID to an unregistered business, but as soon as they register I'm going to sue for their ID's".

This being a UK based company you can only use the DataProtection act 1998 (I think this is the relevant legislation), this entitles you to get a copy of all the data we would hold on you (no one else), but you wouldn't even need to sue for that, just make a request and pay a processing fee. It's pretty standard.

I hear this.  Let me attempt to be succinct (lazy)

• When I want more "trust" in a contract with someone, we establish a side channel.  Either WoT or LinkedIn.  If the person has a real world identity with references, professional contacts, and an established history, the risk of fraud is reduced.  I can usually find out enough information that I have recourse in the case that things go sideways without a passport scan.
• Nefario and theymos hide behind aliases.  Nefario's implies, well, nefarious intent.  He claims his id is well known but it is not associated with each of his posts.
• As you say, theymos has admitted to reading PMs.  Encrypt any messages there and refer to email or other extra-forum communications channels.
• Nefario claims holdings of $1.5m or so on his exchange.  Those entrusting these funds to him should clamor for a greater level of identification, such as registration as a corporation or the equivalent in his jurisdiction.  While it should not be necessary to provide us with a scan of his passport, a traceable correlation identifier should be attached to his business.  I do not believe GLBSE is registered or incorporated, but I could be wrong.
• His exchange is in fact subject to US law, due to being hosted in the US, implicitly identified as a US organization due to the use of the .com TLD instead of co.uk or other domains, and solicitation of business from people in the US.

But, as is said, this is only if they want to mitigate the lack of trust they have earned when they operate without thought for short- or long-term consequences.  I'm not really sure that's a hole from which they can extract themselves.

1) Where do you get this mistaken idea that owners of a privately held corporation are public knowledge?
2) Why would the "contract" (corporate bylaws) of a privately held corporation be public knowledge?

Neither of those are true in the US, unless you mean a "US" other than these United States.

Actually people can get #1 pretty easily in the US.  Almost all states except for Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming have confidential owners of LLCs, meaning it won't be released to the public unless ordered to do so by the judicial branch.  I am not sure about corporations, but the laws for incorporating are usually more strigent as corporations are technically are held to greater accountability than LLCs.  For example, in Texas the owners of LLCs a person can get corporate officer and director information.  Director and ownership information has to be filled every year for the franchise tax.  Usually you just send a request to the secretary of state or the comptroller for whichever state it is incorporated.

 
And what is the point of that ? What do you intend to do with this "dox"

Maybe there is a typo in there.  You correct me and say #1 is easy and then go on to post how owner info is confidential and won't be released without a court order, which would imply #1 is anything but easy.  So which is it "easy" or requires a court order?  In most states unless you can show cause you aren't getting owner info.  If a person has a dispute with the corporation or it is employees the dispute is with the corporation/LLC not the owners.  Only in the event there is need to pierce the corporate veil does the owner's interest need to be known.  The post I responded to amounted to little more than a fishing expedition.  In most (all?) states, the state isn't going to release owner information simply because a third party "wants to know".

Yes you are right, instead of "Almost all states except for NV, NM, and WY", it is "only NV, NM and WY"  that have confidential information.  In the rest of the states all that is needed is a letter to the comptroller or secretary of state for their yearly filings to get owner information.

I don't know about Britain but for Texas you can just email the comptroller.  They reply back to me the next day.  No need for a lawyer.

Well you are missing at least a half dozen states from your list.  In VA for example no owners are even listed with the state corporation commission.  Directors and officers are but members (LLC) and shareholders (corp) are not.  There is nothing the state could give you even if they wanted to.  Tell you what you get me a list of owners of Tangible Cryptography LLC and I will pay you 5,000% of your costs.  

Still I somewhat doubt your assertion of getting complete owner info from the state of TX as it contradicts what their site indicates:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/managementinfofaqs.shtml#mgmt7


Also looked at the filing docs for registering a LLC or Corp in TX.  They don't even ask ownership information so how exactly did the state give you something they don't even keep records of?

Is this one of those Matthew bets?  How to verify a list of owners of Tangible Cryptography LLC when they don't want to release the information.  "Oh sorry, that is not the full list, you missed one.  No, you can't see the full list, that is confidential."


In Texas people must file a yearly franchise tax report, even if no income was made and that report must list the corporate officer and managing director.  They don't file this with the Secretary of State, they file this will the Comptroller of Public Accounts.

When filling out the Franchise report (Texas Franchise Tax Report or Public Information Report) there is Section A called:  Name, title and mailing address of each officer, director or member.

"Officer, director and member information is reported as of the date a Public Information Report is completed. The information is updated annually as part of the franchise tax report. There is no requirement or procedure for supplementing the information as officers, directors, or members change throughout the year"

Then section B:

"Enter the information required for each corporation or LLC, if any, in which this entity owns an interest of 10 percent or more."

Then section C:

"Enter the information required for each corporation or LLC, if any, that owns an interest of 10 percent or more in this entity or limited liability company."

The discrepancy is because the Secretary of State is different than the Comptroller of Public accounts where the Franchise tax is sent.  A Comptroller collects taxes, the Secretary of State just registers businesses.  I can tell you one thing.  Any state where you have to put down a name when organizing the partnership with the government is public in some way, either by legal or illegal means.

You said owners.  Directors & officers aren't owners (although a director/officer can certainly also be an owner).  Now it does look like Texas doesn't provide as much privacy for LLC  members as they do shareholders of a Corporation. Pretty strange Texas would require disclosure of members of an LLC but not shareholders of a corporation.  Kinda makes LLC a second class citizen in TX IMHO.  Looks like members only need to be disclosed if the LLC is member managed.

Let me bold it for you so you can read it.


A member is an owner in the language of limited liability companies.  From the IRS website (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Limited-Liability-Company-%28LLC%29)

Also, in Virginia according to the legal code 13.1-1028 Section A


The information may not be possible to get from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, but it is possible to subpoena the information.

What I am trying to say, in America it is not that hard to get member information.  Some states the member information needs to be updated yearly with some government agency.  In other states they do not require that information, but instead require those records to be available at a principle place of business for subpoena.  Other states do not require a certain location that membership information is kept, but they better have it in case it is subpoenaed.  A private investigator or attorney can do any of these very quickly.  If someone wants to stay anonymous, then don't register a business with the government.

The fuss is that it's not Alberto who stated that Alberto has agreed.

stochastic,

Please read the instructions for the public report filing in TX.  

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxforms/05-396.pdf

Page 11

Not sure what your rebutal was.  

You do understand that LLC are broken into two structure types.
* Manager managed (where members elect a manager much like shareholders elect officers in a corporation)
* Member managed (where all members have executive authority much like a partnership).

I clearly said that only member-managed LLC require reporting the members, which is a correct statement. What exactly were you trying to rebut?

Even in TX (your "it is public records" example state):
In a manager managed LLC no members information is reported.  
In a coproration no shareholder information is reported.  

So how exactly do you get the owner info with a quick phonecall or email?
How do you get what the state doesn't even have?

As for "legal code 13.1-1028 Section A" once again you only have part of the answer (which seems to be your continually problem):

The company (not the state) needs to keep those records.   So how do you get confidential company information "easily" from "public records" (your two false claims) when the state doesn't even have the info to give you.


When did I say it was IMPOSSIBLE under any possible circumstances to ever obtain information on company owners?  Way to move the goal post.  Your claims were 1) that it is public information and 2) that it is easy to obtain.  A subpoena isn't "easy" and there is no legal authority to demand that information without cause.   Go ahead subpoena that information and watch it get quashed.  A judge "could" compel a company to divulge that information.   However no judge is going to grant a court order simply because someone on the internets wants to know.   There has to be a compelling reason (like piercing the corporate veil, instances of securities fraud, embezzlement, etc).  

So once again not sure what your point was?  I feel we have gone round in circles and your new position is my original position.

I said (paraphrased):
* owner information isn't publicly available
* it will require a court order
* you will need to show the court why you should have that private information

You said (paraphrased)
* owner info is publicly available -
* you just need to ask the state.
* it is easy to get

 So once again what was your point?

TOS has been updated, I'm not a Spelling Nazi by any means way shape or form.
I'm lucky i can read the English language lol, but i think you might wanna fire you spell check software.  ;D

Nefario has been repeatedly challenged to show the agreement by which he has the authority to publicly dox Alberto for being a "scammer"  Nefario has yet to produce such a thing. Meanwhile, Alberto has come to the forum decidedly pissed that his passport was published on the forum and reddit - He clearly didn't feel like he'd agreed to that.