It's likely that "what is owed" would be calculated as what people put into the ponzi less any payments they received from it.  Some early participants probably received back more than their original investment and are owed nothing in real terms.  The amount of unreturned principal is probably substantially less than the $5 million figure which gets bandied around as many people were "re-investing" their weekly interest and including that compounded interest in the figure they thought pirate "owed" them.

And yeah, it's kind of hard to "freeze and seize" a cold wallet under someone's personal control.  I doubt pirate ever kept any substantial amount of BTC on exchanges so I'm not sure that freezing any exchange accounts he holds would recover anything even if those accounts could be identified.  
GLBSE obviously has some records of which users put funds into some of the pass-throughs but I don't think it has RL information on those users. Some of the pass-through operators didn't list on GLBSE so they obviously have some information about their users but again it might not be RL information.

Obviously the only people who can answer what information the SEC needs are the SEC themselves so that needs to be a top priority so that people aren't wasting energy on gathering information whicn will be useless to the SEC.

I would guess that a great deal will depend on the willingness of the PPT operators to co-operate with the SEC - they are the ones who hold the evidence of what was "invested" with pirate.  Some of them did not want to give details of who was owed what to pirate and they may not want to give that information to regulators either.

I agree that any kind of civil action by those who lost funds to pirate would be a dead end.  Its pretty much only government regulators who have any chance of recovering anything from him.

There is no need to re-post the identifying information for pirate here.  God knows it's already been posted 7,000 times before.  It only needs to be communicated to the authorities -  if they don't already have it, which I very much doubt.  The evidence that they likely need is evidence that he actually took funds from people.  No amount of message-board posts prove that.  They would need stuff like transaction IDs which can be followed to wallets thought to be controlled by pirate/GPUMax.  No-one who chooses to remain anonymous to the investigators is ever going to see any restitution.

Find out what information it is that they need and then see if there's a way the community can provide it.  As anything which is filtered through third parties is unlikely to be usable by the SEC, the chances are that people who hold information which constitutes actual evidence will need to contact the SEC directly and be willing to turn that evidence over to them (and possibly to testify in court if no deal can be cut with pirate by the regulators).

I think that proceeding with extreme caution is advisable here so that people's enthusiasm for amateur sleuthing doesn't inadvertently create some kind of legal technicality which would compromise the SEC's ability to take action against pirate.

It definitely sounds like it would be worth The Lending Partners talking to the guy from the SEC.  There may well be other scams for which pirate could be prosecuted if there's currently insufficient evidence for them to move forward with the BTCST investigation.

As far as conclusive evidence that pirate is actually Trendon Shavers rather than someone who merely hijacked the identity of Trendon Shavers goes, the photo Goat has posted of the LV meet-up confirms that and everyone who was present at that meet-up are potential evidence-givers in that respect.  The person in that photo is the same person who showed up on the social networks of the Shavers family members as "Trendon Shavers" and the internet presences of those family members weren't recently created (the relationships are also supported by public documents like marriage certificates).  A government agency can easily find the same evidence we did even though most of those social network pages are now hidden/deleted.

Given that the existence of an investigation into pirate's ponzi is already public knowledge, there is no reason whatsoever for the investigator not to make a direct appeal to the community for information to further the investigation. 

These are the most relevant posts.  The OP only made 9 in total.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82560.msg909953#msg909953

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82560.msg909985#msg909985

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82560.msg910000#msg910000

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82560.msg910050#msg910050

Complete list of posts by that user is here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58277;sa=showPosts

Read the history.  An agreement to sever the original complaint was reached back in April.  The entry dated yesterday - 23 October 2012 - now lists pirate as "Disinteresed Third Party Trendeon Shavers".  It looks like the continuance was granted because they're waiting for pirate to produce documents before the case can proceed but he's no longer a defendant in this particular action by the looks of things.

Just find a troll avatar.

Like Atlas has never done that before.

At one time there was a post from a sock-puppet account in which the user claimed to know Trendon in real life and said that he was becoming reckless and drawing undesirable attention to himself.  The post was dismissed as "FUD" because it came from a sock puppet account and people still wanted to believe in pirate and his promises of untold riches, but I was never entirely convinced that it wasn't legit.  There are so many threads about pirate that I'm having trouble finding the original post, but if someone can find it perhaps it would be worth PMing the user who posted it.

Found it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82560.0

Zach is one of the GPUMax partners and a former employee of The Lending Partners.

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Unknown/Unknown/gpumax-technologies-llc/101278778.aspx

Rylan Shavers is Trendon's brother and before he took down his social media accounts (most of the family has either taken down or locked their social media accounts) his name came up as being in Zach's circle on Google +.

Trendon's family connections have been verified ad nauseum through the family's social media accounts - they were known and posted here well before pirate even defaulted.  Given the open threats which were made in past threads about inflicting "collateral damage" on Trendon's family, I would fully expect them to have now closed ranks and be actively hostile towards anyone seeking information about Trendon though.  Also, as pirate still logs into this board, one has to assume that he's aware of the SEC contacting people about his activities and that he's probably far more concerned about a government investigation than he is about possibly being sued by users (if users even have legal standing to sue him).

If theymos creates a "troll" user group, it may well have more active members than the regular user group.

Phin was contacted by The Lending Partners, a former employer of Trendon's.  I believe that a phone call was made to them and that the caller was going to try to find out whether they had any information about Trendon's current activities/location.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119590.msg1293289#msg1293289

I'm curious about whether any attempt has been made to contact the other GPUMax partners (Zach was FB friends with both Ryland and Trendon Shavers and used to work at The Lending Partners - it's almost certain he knows Trendon in real life).

Also, is there any reason to assume that Trendon can't be found through the addresses which have been posted previously?  While it's certainly possible that his family have all up and moved, it doesn't seem especially likely.  If the end game here is to have him served with legal documents, then check into whether Texas allows for service at an address where the defendant can be reasonably expected to become aware of service.

Also, it might be worth phoning the guy from the SEC to see if he is able to shed any light on Trendon's location.  While he can't reveal the progress of any investigation, he might be able to reveal Trendon's address to a lawyer for the service of legal papers.

You mightn't be able to post elsewhere but you can certainly read the rest of the forums.  This log has been posted and discussed elsewhere on the forum and even before that happened the other BG shareholders were talking about the grounds on which Nefario was trying to justify his actions.

Even without the avatar which uses an image of a former Miss World, "Maria's" delusion rantings about being important in the Bitcoin world and influential in the real world should have tripped people's scam-dars.

I don't know whether you're being deliberately obtuse but AML/KYC is not "half American legal terminology".  It's the legal terminology used by all FATF member nations - the UK is a FATF member.

Nor am I talking about businesses using legal scare stories to run off with people's money.  I'm talking about them having cash flow problems when their banks freeze their accounts because the activity on those trips the banks AML flags.  This has happened on multiple occasions to services which are still operating and it's catastrophic to any service which doesn't have sufficient reserves to cover any frozen funds.

Nothing you've posted makes me believe that you've consulted a lawyer who is familiar with financial services law.  You say that you're modelling your service on BitInstant - which is actually licensed as a retailer of stored value and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on proper legal advice. Have you even read the AML issues which BitInstant had to consider?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:RPpi7wWrta4J:https://www.bitinstant.com/static/aml.pdf+&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESibwpiHk1UYElm5461VMZs4YeS1V22QZOSSXFXPVkxwDG_KxelFppTezRHp15Mr8K8iU5fqXqIr4sCY1-R8sUDreil7IZoMw8_a-H5LE30GQL9akw_0hv9D2h5eiKxileIvPT6_&sig=AHIEtbT0UBE-XA7MA94-GnWMg1CeYjtcwA

Again - your "advisor"  needs to specifically address the issue of why you will not be regarded at law as offering a financial service or product, because financial service/product providers are generally regulated in FATF countries and are required by law to implement AML/CTF/KYC measures.  You've made no convincing argument whatsoever that your service would not be subject to financial services regulation.  Your bullshit about cigarettes and alcohol is just that - it's not remotely equivalent and it's not a comparison which anyone practising financial services law would have made.  

Frankly, I don't believe that you have consulted a financial services lawyer.  Your financial projections are also ridiculous.  I'm not willing to call "scammer", but your lack of proper research and preparation marks are the hallmarks of the kind of incompetence which we've seen all too often before in the Bitcoin community.  You're either lying or you're incompetent, and neither one makes you a good investment.

And for fuck's sake tighten up your listing rules BTCjam.  You're going to get a reputation as a scammer haven sooner rather than later if people keep coming here to publicise dodgy listings on your service.

Being unprofessional is almost an unwritten law for operating a Bitcoin business, it seems.

3.   Rule 8

I can still access them.  Not sure how a paywall would benefit them anyway when the log has already been posted elsewhere.

I'm more interested in why you think that your service won't encounter the same AML/KYC compliance problems with the banks which other services have had to deal with, resulting in the sudden freezing/shut-down of their bank accounts - something which would be absolutely catastrophic to your service given the business model you've outlined.

You've also said nothing which addresses the issue of whether you'd be regarded as operating a financial service or selling a financial product under UK law.  Potential investors are going to want more than just your assurances on this - it's totally reasonable for them to require a written legal opinion setting out why your service will be exempt from regulation.

Also, potential investors are going to be less interested in best case scenarios (this mythical land in which you have no significant over-heads and nobody ever rips you off and your bank doesn't slam you with KYC/AML issues) than they are in worst case scenarios.

Are you trying to get the gibbis thread closed?

The problem is that "unofficial" statements through third parties look like weasel behaviour.  We have no way to judge their veracity and it gives Nefario plausible deniability.  He needs to make an official statement regarding when he intends to resume the repayment process.  If 75% of the overpayments have been returned there seems to be no good reason why the repayment process can't be resumed right now - from what we've been told, GLBSE should have enough reserves of its own to cover any remaining shortfall.  For someone who's suddenly so worried about legal consequences, Nefario is acting very stupidly if he believes that he can simply refuse to make further repayments or not put issuers and users in contact with each other until the entirely internal problem of some people not having returned their overpayments is solved. 

God knows Goat isn't one of my favourite posters, but I'd also like an answer as to why he was banned and whether that ban is permanent (can we please start referring to 7 day time-outs as suspensions).

I don't think that people should be able to "clean up" their threads and remove evidence of what they've previously posted in the way that usagi did, so if this has something to do with Goat removing content from the OP in his Securities thread then I'm OK with that.  But if that's the case then can we please have a public statement saying that people will no longer be allowed to do that (a policy which I believe is much needed) and will be banned if they edit their threads in a manner which either deletes their posts or which revises their posts in a manner which obscures what they originally posted?