Yes you can.


It is under the AML regulations of most countries, but not all countries are fully compliant with all of the FATF recommendations (I don't think that there's any nation which is compliant with all of them).  Dominica's fully or largely compliant with only 7 out of the 49 FATF recommendations on which AML laws around the world are based.

Tipping off provisions do allow FSPs to ask customers about the source/destination of funds, which can sometimes clarify whether or not a suspicious activity/matter report needs to be made.

Zhou's not a very good student if that's the case.  Tom Williams was able to just disappear from the Bitcoin world.

Many people have voiced the suspicion that the Rackspace intrusion was an inside job from the moment it was announced.  Even if people accept at face value the extraordinary claims regarding the MtGox breach, it's not going to extinguish suspicion about the Rackspace compromise.

At this point in time, the only way that those involved with Bitcoinica are going to be freed from suspicion of having been involved in the Rackspace intrusion and/or MtGox compromise is if somebody else is identified as being responsible for those events by an independent investigation.  Attributing the crimes to a third party who can't be held accountable means fuck all in the absence of actual evidence of their involvement.


You said yourself that the Rackspace intruder got all the information necessary to breach the MtGox account.  The source code leak is not the only possible explanation for how it was compromised.  There is no verifiable evidence of who hacked the MtGox account, only of where the funds from the intrusion were sent.

I agree with Matthew that the information which AurumXchange gathered should not have been made public.

People have been suggesting that the processing of refunds be done by a third party since soon after the Rackspace hack.  Nobody wanted to pay for a lawyer or accountant to oversee the process.

You'd better hurry or no-one's going to care.  The first return of funds by the thief is supposed to take place within 24 hours.

If someone cleans out my online bank account they are transferring to themselves a set of numbers which they can then spend or redeem for cash.  Those numbers to not correlate to specific $20 or $50 dollar bills which are "mine" - it is the transfer of value belonging to me (same applies to cash - I don't "own the bank notes in my wallet but the value the represent) which is the offence.

I suspect that one of the things they want Bitcoinica to agree to is not to involve law enforcement - not that they've shown any inclination to do so to date.

While Bitcoinica's approval would be nice, I doubt it's actually needed strictly speaking - no-one's likely to get into any trouble for having the funds transferred into trust while their fate is decided.  Waiting for Patrick, Amir and Donald to agree on something merely delays the process of the funds being recovered and placed in safe-keeping.  If Patrick Murck is willing to accept the funds in trust without the explicit approval of Bitcoinica, then the transfer should happen as soon as possible.

There'd be no reason for me not to declare it - income from a hobby isn't taxable here.  

As I understand the story, Chen was responsible for the MtGox breach and for attempting to launder funds through AurumXchange and Liberty Reserve.  Those would the original jurisdictions for starting investigations, but the final jurisdiction would depend a great deal on what was discovered during the investigation and which nation was willing to accept jurisdiction.

"Where" a computer crime occurred can be a complex issue to decide.  There's a high Court precedent here in Australia which means that it's not restricted to the location of a server.

They mightn't care much about in game items, either, but people have been prosecuted for stealing virtual furniture from Habbo Hotel.

Crypto-anarchists can believe that there's a "right" way to do Bitcoin all they like, but the reality is that crypto-anarchists are not the only - or even the majority of -people using Bitcoin and those who wish to use it as either an alternative currency or a commodity see no reason why Bitcoin thefts shouldn't be treated like the theft of any other item.

Crypto-anarchists can't tell other people how they "should" regard Bitcoin or confine Bitcoin use to those who share their ideology.

The thing is that jurisdiction isn't determined by the nationality of the person who committed the crime but by where the crime took place.  Mr relic collector may have to worry about having broken Chinese law, but I'm not seeing what jurisdiction China would have over Zhou if he was found to be involved in the MtGox breach or the laundering of funds from that breach.

Also, Australia will not extradite in cases where the death penalty or other human rights abuses are on the table.

And yeah, if you wanted to start an investigation from the Australian end, you'd call Victoria Police.  

You don't "call Interpol".  Interpol facilitates co-operation between law enforcement agencies from different countries.  People are really over-complicating this.

It is the USD transactions people are talking about.  That's what there's a trail for.  The MtGox codes were converted to Liberty Reserve currency and attempts then made to withdraw those funds as "fiat money".  

Bitcoins are not illegal.  There's no reason not to have Bitcoin thefts investigated.

Given that your credentials were used without your permission in the money laundering attempt and you believe this same person has committed fraud using your credit card account, you can also start a police investigation.  Pointing out that Bitcoinica should be taking certain actions doesn't deflect from the fact that there are also actions which you could be taking.  By not taking those actions, you're coming perilously close to being an accessory after the fact.

You literally can't exonerate yourself without a law enforcement investigation of the connections between the MtGox breach and your accounts.

I think he's trying to say the opposite - that he was able to supply large amounts of coins before the Rackspace and MtGox incidents.

Even if someone had the proceeds of all three Bitcoinica-related thefts, they still wouldn't be able to supply "large amounts" "constantly" - the total was around BTC 100k, which means it would be exhausted after only 10 sales of BTC 10k.

Free market.  Those who want a heavily moderated community are free to go and create one.  It would benefit Bitcoin enormously to have more online spaces which cater to different demographics.

Insults on a messageboard aren't going to destroy Bitcoin.

Can you explain it to me like I'm five?  I'm having trouble understanding how using GoDaddy for web hosting connects them to any other business in a meaningful way, unless you've discovered a shared account number which you haven't posted or something similar.

Walk us through the whole affiliate thing from before Bitcoin and how it may relate to what's happening now.

Add some context Bruno.  People aren't going to take you seriously if you don't.  Which programme was it an affiliate code for before Bitcoin and what's it's current use that you believe connects dots?


As you've already chosen to start this thread, you need to dump the rest of the information here now - otherwise people just get pissed off.

Because the rest of us assume that there'll be some excuse as to why it wasn't recorded - even though logging it would have been a major priority for most of us under the same circumstances and we would have explicitly mentioned recording the call.