I think the only thing that would make it fraud is if the PPT knew for a fact that BCST was a Ponzi. They would only be committing fraud legally if there was intent or "mens rea".
You don't need to know "for a fact". You just need to know. Any PPT operator who is on record as saying that they think Pirate is operating a Ponzi is a scammer. It's no different from a guy who pays someone $50 for a TV thinking that person will likely steal a TV and give it to them. |
|
|
|
Don't do it, hashking! It may be a trap. As PPT operator, you might have a legal claim against pirate's assets, but your passthrough holders certainly don't. If pirate is declaring bankruptcy, you may be throwing away a chance to get a share of what's left.
That's far from clear. If they're intended third party beneficiaries, then they have a claim against Pirate. This makes legal sense because the arrangement between the PPT operator and his investors doesn't give the PPT operator any incentive to pursue Pirate (because he just has to pass on any money he collects, and it's not even clear if he can deduct things like legal fees). This is a case where equity would require the holders to be able to enforce their indirect debt. (See my other post with the example about the guy who buys a car for his daughter.) |
|
|
|
Nobody disputes that the pass through owners are blameless. They all made it very clear up front that whatever happens happens..
I dispute that. Any PPT owner who can be documented as having stated that they think it's a Ponzi scheme, but who nevertheless operated a PPT, is *not* blameless. They are almost as guilty as Pirate is. If you go to a guy who you have reason to know steals televisions and give him $40 to get you a television, you're as guilty of the theft as that guy is. PPT operators who can be shown to have stated that they thought it was a Ponzi scheme knowingly paid Pirate to transfer other people's money to them knowing that Pirate collected that money by stating that it would be used for legitimate investments and knowing that such payments to them were not legitimate investments. The issue is not the arrangement between them and their bondholders. The issue is that they knowingly paid Pirate to make them the recipients of fraudulent transfers, making them an accomplice to that fraud. (Also, I predict that before this is all over, PPT operators will start breaching their agreements. Already there are whispers of them conspiring with Pirate to absolve themselves of their obligation to pass through payments and force their depositors to obtain their own settlements.) That doesn't even make sense. The guys giving PPT did not know Pirate was going to run. They all clearly stated that It might be a Ponzi and that any investment in a PPT would be a risk. That doesn't mean they stole peoples money. The PPT can not be put at fault. Not to be rude, but it looks like you didn't even read what I wrote. Please read the sections I bolded. The problem is that they knowingly paid Pirate to fraudulently transfer other people's money to them. (Note that this only applies to PPT operators who can be documented to have stated that they suspected Pirate was likely operating a Ponzi scheme.) |
|
|
|
A contract is a contract, even if it does say 3300% interest.
In the real world this interest is no problem: simply print more money. But in the Bitcoin world, you know, it can resist only for some time. So this contract is invalid. At some time I red, pirate could change his interest, so in my opinion he did not default: ... +7% +7% +7% -100% All fine, or not? Nice try. No. In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform their contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_%28law%29You can't sneak a secret "I win, you lose" clause into a contract and use it to deprive the other party of the benefit of the contract. If you could, every contract would have to be gone over by teams of lawyers and probably include many more pages of carefully-worded terms which would likely require more pages to clarify them. It would be bizarro world. |
|
|
|
how about the people who choose to, do, and those who don't want to, don't
That doesn't work. It breaches the pooling agreement. Say you turn over your details and I don't. That enables Pirate to make a private payment to you, defrauding me out of the share of that payment that I was entitled to under the pooling agreement. (Remember, the original agreement was that payments on all of the debt would be made according to the rules of the pool.) If a pass through operator facilitates this, he's breached the agreement. Perhaps operators can find some way to ensure this doesn't happen. But until they do, I don't think they can pass anyone's information on to Pirate. |
|
|
|
It is highly unethical bordering on illegal to hand over users data to a third party without their express permission.
In this case even with their permission, because it facilitates a breach of the pooling agreement. If Pirate negotiates a private settlement with one of those people, that defrauds the others out of their agreed upon share of the payment by Pirate on that debt. |
|
|
|
payb.tc you can go ahead and pass on my info to pirateat40. i dont have any problems with that.
I don't think he can. That would enable you to negotiate a direct settlement with Pirate, ripping off his other bond holders who are, by agreement with him, entitled to a share of any payment on that debt from Pirate. If he knowingly facilitates that, hasn't he breached his agreement with the other bond holders to ensure that payments from Pirate are distributed to bondholders as agreed? (I'm using terms like "bond holders" and generically. The argument applies to any shared investment scheme.) |
|
|
|
hashking I suggest you have a quick chat with a lawyer before you hand this over
I would consider handing that information over breaching your agreement with your depositors. Payments on that debt from Pirate are supposed to be shared by all depositors. Handing that information over to Pirate would allow Pirate to make direct payments to your depositors, cheating the other depositors out of their share of those payments. |
|
|
|
Nobody disputes that the pass through owners are blameless. They all made it very clear up front that whatever happens happens..
I dispute that. Any PPT owner who can be documented as having stated that they think it's a Ponzi scheme, but who nevertheless operated a PPT, is *not* blameless. They are almost as guilty as Pirate is. If you go to a guy who you have reason to know steals televisions and give him $40 to get you a television, you're as guilty of the theft as that guy is. PPT operators who can be shown to have stated that they thought it was a Ponzi scheme knowingly paid Pirate to transfer other people's money to them knowing that Pirate collected that money by stating that it would be used for legitimate investments and knowing that such payments to them were not legitimate investments. The issue is not the arrangement between them and their bondholders. The issue is that they knowingly paid Pirate to make them the recipients of fraudulent transfers, making them an accomplice to that fraud. (Also, I predict that before this is all over, PPT operators will start breaching their agreements. Already there are whispers of them conspiring with Pirate to absolve themselves of their obligation to pass through payments and force their depositors to obtain their own settlements.) |
|
|
|
Sorry about double posting this here but I need to have this done by Friday 8/31/12/. If you have a pending PPT account with me please take a screenshot of your account and send me an email at hashking1@gmail.com. I also need your forum name and withdrawal address you entered in order to verify its your account. This must come from the email that is registered on the website What happens if people do not do this? What are you going to do with the information? |
|
|
|
It will be far easier for Pirate to settle multiple 50BTC accounts for 25BTC offers, than a 10,000BTC account for a 5,000BTC offer.
What does he do if people refuse his offer? ' Take it OR leave it baby...' ....and the Pirate classic ' come get me....enjoy the ride' (my personal favorite that he used on me). The way I figure it is, if you take the time to NOW try and suppress your wife and family's online Social Media information, you may not be as 'secure' as you originally thought you once were. Then why make the offer? What does he gain? All he does is pay out a bunch of money and he still has a bunch of people coming after him. |
|
|
|
All the electric you use for mining = more carbon in air. Do you feel guilty you are profiting off earths destruction through greenhouse gases?
This is precisely counter-balanced by their increased demand for energy pushing up the prices of the fossil fuels that provide the energy causing an increased incentive to develop carbon-neutral sources of energy. All the energy that can profitably be produced by releasing carbon will be. It's just a matter of when. |
|
|
|
It will be far easier for Pirate to settle multiple 50BTC accounts for 25BTC offers, than a 10,000BTC account for a 5,000BTC offer.
What does he do if people refuse his offer? |
|
|
|
I did think of something though. If what he is saying is true, that they need the list to make sure payouts are evenly distributed(no piotr_n, not because he can't trust goat), then why would it not suffice for a PPT OP to simply show how much of a depsoit are his own and how much are PPT shares? How would that matter? If the even distribution is, say, 40%, then he could just pay 40% of both totals. It should make no difference to Pirate how his customers got the money he paid them or what they plan to do with the money he pays them. This is assuming a lender for instance used the same deposit address with BS&T for their personal funds as they did for PPT procedes, which of course may also include funds from shares the PPT OP purchased, but would still be considered seperate from personal deposit amounts. *shrug* I don't see how this could possibly matter. All Pirate needs to do is compute the total amount of money he owes to everyone and the total amount he has, then compute the payout percentage. Then he can take every debt and pay that percentage of that debt. He doesn't need to know anything about the source or destination of the payments. Even if he bases the payout on more than just the amount it wouldn't matter. Say he pays off only principle and no interest. All the information he needs is the pay in and pay out dates. Individual balances don't do anything for him. |
|
|
|
Hey Team Ponzi - serious question: what Ponzi operator has voluntarily declared default? Pirate doesn't count because he still hasn't admitted or been proven to run one.
What makes you think it's voluntary?! Every Ponzi scheme defaults sooner or later when they no longer have enough reserves plus deposits to pay withdrawals (unless there's an arrest first). |
|
|
|
He's obviously going to loose the bets - but then he's protecting all the small investors from scams, like the one Goat and Nefario have tried to run. For which I admire him. Though I should't say it, before getting my money back, but well - I trust the guy, even more today than I did 2 weeks ago. If he doesn't pay back - then you can laugh at me as much as you want, for being so naive.  You admire Pirate for defaulting on his obligations to Goat and Nefario because you think he might be trying to protect small investors from scams!?  Pirate has defaulted twice now. Do you have any evidence Goat and Nefario have ever failed to meet their obligations to depositors? I honestly cannot believe that you are being serious. Maybe I'm naive. |
|
|
|
That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.
That's the whole point, you stupid goat - Pirate wants the bond holders to "sue" him, so he can pay them directly, and the money does not go through your cheeky hands. I'm sure he might. But that would unequivocally be him defaulting on his agreement with Goat. Read again: Bitcoin Savings & Trust has hereby given notice of default to it's account holders. So all the goat's lawyers can do now, is going to Texas to lick Pirate's balls - but only if he'd generously allow them to. I thought you were arguing that this would be some scheme to get him out of default. |
|
|
|
That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.
That's the whole point, you stupid goat - Pirate wants the bond holders to "sue" him, so he can pay them directly, and the money does not go through your cheeky hands. I'm sure he might. But that would unequivocally be him defaulting on his agreement with Goat. |
|
|
|
That last part is interesting. That means anyone under the sun can sue Pirate as long as they buy one bond.
Well, in the trivial sense, anyone can sue anyone for anything. And, of course, it's not worth a lawsuit over one bond unless you're in it for the lulz or the principle of the thing. But basically, yes. Anyone who holds a PPT could perhaps successfully sue Pirate, as an intended third party beneficiary, for breaching his agreement with the PPT operator. The legal reasoning is that the PPT operator doesn't have any incentive to sue, since it not their money. And it wouldn't be fair if nobody who was harmed by the breach had the right to sue. That would let criminals get away with murder. This also applies if the PPT operators agree to settlement. But that would be a weaker argument that I'm not sure would work. The settlement harms the PPT holders compared to full compliance. And the same legal reasoning applies, it's not just to allow the PPT operators to be pressured into extinguishing the rights of their holders. |
|
|
|
What if pirate is asking for sub-accounts simply as a guarantee? What do you do if instead of paying the sub-accounts directly, you give the money to the PPT operator and the operator run away? That makes no sense. Pirate owes the PPT operators the balance on their accounts. He can't decide he doesn't like what they might do with the money. It's none of his business. I mean, everybody already knows the life of pirate, with his name and all. But we don't know so much about all the PPT operators. Pirate is already in a delicate situation, and in the event where pirate comes to a pay back agreement, having an operator running away with the funds is probably not going to be really helpful. Also, consider that if he's doing all this the "legal" way, filing bankruptcy and all, I don't think having strangers manipulating the assets is part of the legal processing. He has no choice. He owes the funds to the PPT operators. He can't decide he doesn't want to pay them back and would rather pay someone else instead. But I'm no lawyer, I only want to give another "possible" explanations. That's outright absurd. That would be like my boss deciding to pay my mortgage instead of paying me my salary, because maybe I won't pay the bank back the money they loaned me. I agree with Goat. Pirate's obligations are to *his* account holders. As for the authority to settle, I would think the legal argument could be sustained that PPT holders have the authority to enter into partial settlement agreements with Pirate. However, they cannot release Pirate from liability for the damages a partial payment will do to their bond holders because they are intended third party beneficiaries. This kind of sucks for Pirate. But as I understand it, it's the law. Intended third party beneficiaries can sue for damages of a breach, even if the parties of the contract release the damages. (It's not completely clear if PPT holders are intended third party beneficiaries though, but I think they are.) Here, Dad makes a contract with the Car Dealer to buy a new car for his daughter Lisa. Dad agrees to pay $10,000 for the car and the Car Dealer agrees to deliver the car to Lisa. Now, Lisa is not a party to the contract. Lisa did not sign anything! Lisa is simply a third party beneficiary of the contract.
The next question is whether Lisa is an "intended" third party beneficiary (where she would have rights to enforce the contract against the Car Dealer and/or Dad) or just an "incidental" third party beneficiary (where she would not have any rights to enforce the contract against the Car Dealer or Dad). In the real world, it’s often not so easy to determine whether someone is an intended or incidental third party beneficiary.
Well, let’s assume that Lisa heard about this deal and sold her current car to a friend. Lisa also spent money on new accessories for the car that she thought she was going to get. Lisa took a weekend off of work in anticipation of receiving the new car that weekend. Plus, the Car Dealer and Dad informed her that she would be getting the car. Then, the car never came and the Car Dealership failed to bring the new car to Lisa. Here, it’s pretty obvious that Lisa relied to her detriment upon the contract created by the Car Dealer and Dad to get the new car. It’s very likely that Lisa was an "intended" third party beneficiary. So, she could likely sue the Car Dealer for not sending her the car. http://www.legalflip.com/LegalWordOfTheDay.aspx?id=23Where things get really confusing though is this -- if all PPT operators settle for a partial payment, does that make Matthew lose his bet? Does a default to an intended third party beneficiary count if the direct party agrees to a partial payment? (Again, in addition to me not having money that I can afford to lose, these kind of vague terms in the bet are the main reason I didn't accept Matthew's bet.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
