Too many doubters on here. Do some research guys, stop with the conspiracy theories, give Ken a call, ask for a site visit. Cheer up for pete's sake.

Great video, what do they call it in Japan? Bit a Bee??

No-one laughs at the mention of Bitcoin which is a good start. If it's taken seriously as a currency then it will be adopted when using it as a currency becomes easier.

TOP OF THE POPS!!!

We just had a new entry at No 7 on Eligius!!!!



There is only 0.02TH/s in it between us and No 8!!! So do expect the positions to swing, but our 7th place looks solid long-term!

Great work at the datacentre Ken, keep up the progress, long way to go before we start making some decent money but you and the team are doing a good job with getting more machines online.

Maybe I will get a lawyer to take YOU to court for blackmailing ACtM?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=344219.0

You are a dirty little criminal. How rediculous it is for YOU of all people to talk about seeking legal advice.

BLACKMAIL IS ILLEGAL.

Running a startup company in a new-tech field and opening a verifiable DATACENTRE but not being allowed to re-issue shares because of an investigation by securities regulators IS NOT ILLEGAL.

YOU are the criminal here - ironically.

For anyone interested in the MSD investigation this is essential reading:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/securities/orders/AP-09-09.asp

I'd advise anyone to have a go reading through it slowly, it has some similarities to our case.

Some main points:

-Like the previously mentioned case it took 12months from the opening of the investigation until a ruling was made.
-Involves a CEO of a startup selling unregistered securities/shares to investors in MO.
-The ruling is that CEO is prohibited from issuing shares/must cease the share issue and pays a fine of $10k (max fine 'per violation') for breaching the MO securities law.
-States that the costs of the investigation will/may be charged to the defendant, depending on his excuses/explanations.



Apart from the issuing of unregistered shares the defendant is also found to have helped an agent and/or to have acted as an agent in the selling of unregistered securities in MO. There is also an additional finding that the CEO misled the investors by saying when he sold the shares that there was 'no risk involved'. I'm not sure if these would also entail a $10k fine per breach?

Two people who bought the shares have created the MSD complaint and the reason seems to be that they have had no return from their investment. One has asked for his investment money back (as had been promised as an option) but has not been given the money back. The CEO says the company is in financial difficulty. The MSD are not involving themselves in the issue of the return of the money and don't seem to be investigating whether this is a sham company or not - they are just solely looking at the Securities Laws that have been breached.

This lets us see the sort of issues the MSD will be looking at. IF they find 'securities have been issued' (grey area as we know) then our CEO is looking at a $10k fine (possibly for each breach that they find I'm not sure) plus covering the costs of the investigation. Ken would also (if the MSD think securities have been issued to residents of MO) be barred from issuing unregistered shares. So he would need to register them in the future or use a non regulated solution (such as Coloured Coins) if the MSD was happy with that solution.



I would say that the MSD seem to be a very thorough and professional outfit and also a fair one. They see a lot of cases through the year and they clearly make business-like cut and dry rulings on breeches of regulation. I'm confident they will rule sensibly in this case BUT having said that we may be the first crypto-currency/alt-security case they have seen. So I'm sure they will be finding this a very interesting case and may need to consult widely on it. My personal judgement would be that firstly these shares were offered world-wide not to MO residents in particular and second that they are not 'sold securities' in the traditional sense but crowd-funding in a digital currency. Crowd funding is OK in the US now right?

Whatever happens this shouldn't kill the company but it could lead to a very large fine and loss of money which we can't afford to lose out of the business. That could very easily mean the company looses it's place in the ever expanding mining market and we have to close due to lack of reinvestment funds. That would be tragic. Hundreds of investors WOULD then lose everything. So I really hope that the MSD take into account the effects a fine would have on a business in breach before deciding on the level that fine should be.

Any comments? Sorry for length of post.  

Can you list some of the ones you mention so I can have a look? Thanks.

 

This has literally been answered several times. Can I call BS on your question because I don't think it is genuine and is just another attempt at stirring up trouble?

Trading is not still going on. BF was shut down directly/indirectly by the SEC and since then trading has not been going on. Except on CT where Ken took a risk by listing a small number of shares with a possible upcoming MSD investigation - but he had to to quickly make sure the Ukyo lien progressed before Ukyo could take legal proceedings against the move. Ken took a chance and a risk here to safeguard company funds as he clearly said at the time. Company funds which he has likely spent on getting OUR mining farm running. Not that he gets much credit it seems from you about that knybe.

Are other companies trading without harassment? HOW do you know that? BF, BTC-TC closed down, you don't think anything else is going on? Maybe no other companies have had immature little Canadian boys (VE) reporting them to local authorities?

The source is a link to a post of Ken's??? Are you for real? This is what you pm'd me, a link to this forum, as if it's some sort of 'evidence'?!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=252531.6380

A CEO freely admitting he is buying/has bought shares is NOT illegal.

You said he was 'manipulating' the market - that IS illegal.
But you have ZERO evidence of him manipulating the market. ZERO. Buying shares for his own portfolio is neither illegal nor is it manipulation of the market.
The price chart of ACtM shows NO signs of price manipulation to my experienced eyes. I can recall NO accusations of price manipulation (other than from Trolls) in this or previous threads. I can not recall ever thinking that ACtM price was behaving other than how you would expect.

Second to that, LIEN IS LEGAL.

Get some EDUCATION and save us from your lies and NONSENSE buddy.

I would also say don't post complete lies which have zero verifiable evidence and make out they are facts.

I will miss you emkay47! You have been persistent but always polite. Good man. Let us know if you get the boards and show pics please. I hope your box is full this time.

He's Mirceau, so MPOE is his everything - soon to be US funds. They will confiscate the lot.

I don't have time right now but you could try to find press info about any of these concluded cases being opened/first mentioned. Then you might get an idea of how long a case can take based on when it was first mentioned in the press and when the MSD made their ruling.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/securities/orders/

This one might be in the press somewhere:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/news.asp?ID=965

EDIT - BINGO!

Huntleigh’s failure to supervise McClellan and other deficient compliance procedures were discovered during a November 2009 for-cause, on-site audit of the firm led by the Securities Division’s Audit Unit.

and the ruling was made in Dec 2010. So a fairly complex case I would say, 18 people sold 'off the book' houses so 18 contracts to examine, and a company and individual to investigate. That took 12 months from discovery that there were irregularities to completion and ruling. That's very quick in my book. Our case is far simpler I would think. However the issues are not so serious I wouldn't think so we might not be as high a priority as a case like this.

Romania is THE online-fraud heart of Europe. It was so bad a few years ago that Romania agreed to an extradition agreement with the US after US businesses widely threatened to pull out of the country. Since then the FBI has been extraditing dozens of people/hackers a year.

Trying to sully the name of Panama when you come from ROMANIA is a bit rich Mirceau! Every European knows what your country is like.


This is typical of the coordination that now goes on between the US and Romania:

The Romanian government, particularly the Ministry of Justice, the Romanian Internal Intelligence Service, and the Directorate for Combating Organized Crime, provided significant assistance and support during the investigation, arrest, and extradition of the defendants.

http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2013/three-members-of-international-cyber-fraud-ring-extradited-from-romania-to-the-united-states

Dumbest post of the day. Despite hard facts (yes even Wiki can be trusted on some things) you repeat the nonsense that a Continent with 2,000 Billion GDP and over 1 Billion people has less money in it than a 6 Billion dollar market cap digital currency based on a few mill speculators. Get a life dude.

32 of the 52 countries in Africa EACH have a bigger GDP than bitcoin's market cap.

These are all Sub Saharan nations:

Kenya - 34 Bilion
Sudan - 64 Billion
Ethiopia - 31 Billion
Ivory Coast - 24 Billion
Zambia - 19 Billion
Tanzania - 23 Billion
Botswana - 17 Billion
Uganda - 16 Billion
Namibia - 12 Billion
Cameroon - 25 Billion

There are many more and this data is 3 years old.

errr that's why I mentioned the AG Office and ONLY the AG Office when talking about late shipping.
Seriously are you drunk or not?


I think it's a good idea for you to knock it on the head. Too much puff for you tonight Mirceau. Too many drugs - that wont fix your problems, makes them worse. Junkie.

Sounds good - write that down before you forget it.

Where do you get that from?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

GDP of Africa must be over 2,000 Billion USD by now and it's rising quickly.

lol I guess so, maybe a speeding ticket from a speed camera might be a better one.

Could we get a cop to escort all the shareholders to hospital if the company goes bankrupt? I'm sure DTS atleast will needs some meds to calm down.

Difficult one. I'm sure this lawyer dude who is very good and has relevant experience will be making that clear to them.

I mean at this point it's common sense that far more US investors are being frustrated here than the single idiotic complainer (obviously VE) who isn't even from the US as he is Canadian. But even if they accept that's the case they still have to make a judgement based on a possible breach or not of regulations. It's like you might run a red light because you have a pregnant lady who needs to get to hospital because the baby is coming out but you are still prosecuted for the traffic offence. I'm sure the judge would say you did the right thing by rushing to hospital but he still needs to uphold the law and enforce the traffic offence. So yes I'm sure they understand the situation, they just have to do what they were set up to do. And that unfortunately CAN take time.

rethink - you are conflating the two documents which isn't helping.

The IPO document and this later statement on his website say two very different things, so let's stick with the IPO document as we know what the later statement says (he intends to sell the controlling shares).

So the IPO document explicitly states: 'Mircea Popescu further warrants that he will never sell more than half the total shares' Can you tell me in clear words what that means because I think it is already 100% clear.

It then goes on to say directly below as you mention: (g)In the event of the sale, merger or voluntary liquidation of MPOE/MPEx all proceeds will be distributed fairly to all shareholders by proportion to the shares they hold.

Now a sale that would involve shareholders receiving a proportion of the 'proceeds' is NOT THE SAME thing as the CEO selling a part or all of his controlling shares is it? If there is a sale where all shareholders receive a proportion of the proceeds that is a one-off complete sale of the entire company which would involve all shares being destroyed. ie the shareholders no longer are shareholders and the proceeds of the complete liquidation is compensation for that.

I'm sure you can see there is a difference between the CEO selling 65% of the shares whereby the remaining 35% IPO shareholders get nothing and the CEO selling the company and the new owner thereby paying off the shareholders and in essence inheriting a non-listed company.