No, I'm not convinced.  That's why I want to know whether the shareholders checked out his claim to have consulted the lawyer.  If he was consulting the lawyer on behalf of GLBSE, as he claims, then the partners are entitled to the same legal advice Nefario received (they are, after all, as liable as he is for the activities of GLBSE).  There would be a significant ethical problem with a lawyer telling Nefario not to inform the partners of the advice he was given if he was consulting that lawyer on behalf of GLBSE rather than as an individual (in which case GLBSE should not be expected to pay for the lawyer). 

It's absolutely possible for the lawyer to provide a written legal opinion advising the other partners to cease operating GLBSE immediately without revealing whether or not there is an active government investigation of GLBSE.  AML regulations do not restrict attorney/client privilege, so I'm not buying that if GLBSE is the lawyer's client the lawyer cannot inform the other partners of GLBSE of any investigation which is currently active (he may even have a positive obligation to do so).  Either Nefario is lying about having consulted a lawyer or - and I consider this more likely - he's lying about having consulted a lawyer on behalf of GLBSE and has consulted that lawyer as an individual (and should therefore pay the bill himself).

There's a post here somewhere by one of the people at the conference.  What they were presented with was the special resolution necessary to dissolve Bitcoinica and put it into liquidation voluntarily (ie, the document in the OP).  Apparently two of them just outright refused to sign (Patrick posted that he wouldn't sign it without legal advice - my response to his post stating that was that he should get his own lawyer to draft a special resolution if he didn't trust Tihan).  I think it was Donald who wasn't around when Patrick and Amir were approached to sign the paper, but I don't recall anyone ever mentioning whether he was finally presented with it.

Have they filed a response to Cartmell yet? 

Regardless of whether identity information is required to formally create a business entity - and, for the most part, it is these days for office-bearers and significant shareholders alike - there's no way I'd even consider entering a business partnership with someone without proof of their real world identity.

At least you can still use a shovel for other things, unlike an ASIC.

Why are you speaking for Nefario?  He really needs to be speaking for himself here.  Nobody is going to trust any third-party's comments regarding what is going on. 

Did any of the shareholders actually phone the lawyer Nefario claimed is advising him?

Thank you.

I'm a little confused about this bit.


This implies that theymos' RL identity isn't known to the other GLBSE shareholders.  Is that the case, because it's not hard to find apparent RL information regarding theymos. 

Japan is a FATF member country, you idiot.  So is the US. The financial intelligence units of FATF nations share information - this is no secret, but it has nothing to do with being paid for collecting and/or reporting that information.  Each member country determines its own specific AML/CTF legislation but they all follow the same broad framework.  And if you think that Dwolla isn't going to be requiring just as much KYC information as PayPal in the near future, you're a complete idiot - Veridian will start demanding it.  Dwolla and Veridian both give information to FinCEN - do you think they're getting paid for it too.

It doesn't matter whether people believe it.  Take a look at the Bitcoinica clusterfuck.  All the anger in the world still hasn't gotten people their funds back and the Intersango guys aren't exactly in hiding.

Maria is, indeed, trying - very trying - but it's never been cute.

I disagree.  The amp is definitely part of the problem - dank's work would sound much better if it wasn't turned on.

For those who don't know, FATF is the Financial Action Task Force.  It currently has 36 members and it sets international standards for combatting money-laundering and terrorism financing.  It has 49 recommendations (called the FATF 40+9) which individual member nations are in various stages of adopting - which is the reason why there is so much similarity in AML/CTF regulation from one jurisdiction to the next.  There are an additional 31 regional organisations which are linked to FATF and some nations are members of both a regional network and FATF itself.

FATF gives nations a risk rating for money-laundering and terrorism financing.  AML regulations generally require that transactions to and from high risk countries are monitored more closely than those involving low risk jurisdictions.  You can find out more about risk ratings and which FATF recommendations have been adopted so far by individual nations here.

http://knowyourcountry.com/

Here's a list of nations FATF regarded as being deficient in their adoption of FATF recommendations in June this year.

http://knowyourcountry.com/fatflist220612.html

Ah, so there's still someone who can sign for them on your behalf at the old address?  I hope they let you know immediately when they get a delivery for you, so you can pick stuff up ASAP.

For what kind of disease outbreaks would these be used?

How is this going to work for documents which have been sent by courier?  Fedex isn't going to deliver to another address simply because you put a sign up saying you've moved. 

dooglus, you're not in Australia, are you?

If I was you I'd just split the Bitcoins based on the information you have available.  You have no way of getting better information.  Even if you technically distribute them wrongly, they're not being held in Australia and an Australian insolvency trustee isn't going to pursue overseas clawback for the amount involved - it would be too costly and not result in a substantial benefit to creditors.

Also, if Andre has declared personal insolvency, then he is the one who should have notified his trustee of any assets so that the trustee could take possession of them as well as providing the trustee with a list of creditors.

I'd just keep a record of how you've distributed them.  Yes creditors can take Andre to small claims if he's not insolvent.  That's really his problem and not yours.  He explicitly told you to distribute the BTC so if someone doesn't get paid he's still responsible for whatever's owed to them.  How he pays any judgement against him is his problem.

Um, y'all should probably check out the thread in the Securities forum.  Nefario fucked up badly and paid some people twice.

I can't read a single post about this double payment clusterfuck without this song running through my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90PM4TLNgsg&feature=related

I've learnt that every time I think there's no new Bitcoin drama on the horizon for the next few weeks, I'm proven wrong.

In a "normal" situation, the business would pay out of its own funds and then seek recovery of the over-payments by legal means (they can't just reverse them like a conventional financial institution) or write it off.  In this situation, who knows whether GLBSE has the funds to cover the short-fall or sufficient information to pursue people legally even if they wanted to try to pursue the recovery of an equivalent fiat value through small claims (which I assume they don't want to given Nefario's fear of legal scrutiny).

If it was me, I'd probably keep the 10% and return the rest eventually but I'd let Nefario sweat for a few days first.