Has anybody that sells securities been given the letter yet?

[bigasic]

IT looks like the SEC is sending out letters to a lot of individuals and corporations that could be selling unregistered securities. In the blog that I read, they stated that they were looking thru this forum for possible violations..

[CoinsForTech]

Will be interesting to see how this unfolds

[gogxmagog]

“A key element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. They may seek legal counsel but they may not reveal the fact they received a letter to those who are not directly involved with responding to the letter nor the public so the exact number of letters going out nor the companies receiving them will not be revealed by those affected without legal consequences."

Looks like no one can say, yet.

I get the feeling that there has been some collaboration between the SEC and the few members they have gone after so far. Meaning; they haul some operator in, scare him with threats of heavy fines and jail, then offer leniency if he cooperates by giving some names. Not very likely since the SEC only need to look on bitcointalk to get everything they need.

Still, I wouldnt put it past a guy like micrea popscu to get all snippy and start saying they have no right to pick on him when everybody's doing it and then start selling out every single operator out there.

This could spell the end of this little securities game here. Oh well, we're just going to have to find new ways to lose our btc

[runam0k]

This could spell the end of this little securities game here. Oh well, we're just going to have to find new ways to lose our btc

But, but, there are just so many great options here for losing BTC.  I doubt we'll ever find so many scams/criminally negligent operators all in one place.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

“A key element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. They may seek legal counsel but they may not reveal the fact they received a letter to those who are not directly involved with responding to the letter nor the public so the exact number of letters going out nor the companies receiving them will not be revealed by those affected without legal consequences."

This smells like it's made up, and a writer being inventive after reading about national security letters (which obviously bears no relevance here). This isn't part of the leaked ghash.io subpoena from the SEC.

[twentyseventy]

“A key element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. They may seek legal counsel but they may not reveal the fact they received a letter to those who are not directly involved with responding to the letter nor the public so the exact number of letters going out nor the companies receiving them will not be revealed by those affected without legal consequences."

This smells like it's made up, and a writer being inventive after reading about national security letters (which obviously bears no relevance here). This isn't part of the leaked ghash.io subpoena from the SEC.

The GHash letter that was a fake, per the words of the GHash CEO?

Anyone that has gotten a (legitimate) letter from the SEC could likely be bound by a provision like this and those that haven't probably don't want to bring any extra attention to themselves.

[runam0k]

“A key element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. They may seek legal counsel but they may not reveal the fact they received a letter to those who are not directly involved with responding to the letter nor the public so the exact number of letters going out nor the companies receiving them will not be revealed by those affected without legal consequences."

This smells like it's made up, and a writer being inventive after reading about national security letters (which obviously bears no relevance here). This isn't part of the leaked ghash.io subpoena from the SEC.

The GHash letter that was a fake, per the words of the GHash CEO?

Anyone that has gotten a (legitimate) letter from the SEC could likely be bound by a provision like this and those that haven't probably don't want to bring any extra attention to themselves.

Worse than that, the letters are all slightly different - all sent out by different people within the SEC, slightly different sentence constructions, etc.  This helps the SEC ID people who leak correspondence (or at least that is what they say, which is generally enough to make people talk in general terms without releasing copies of the letters themselves).

[ThunderSheep]

According to the scanned document found here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/244670525/Letter-LA-Office) the only mention of confidentiality is found in the statement, "This inquiry is confidential and non-public."

Does that make it legally binding simply because a three-letter agency said it?  I wouldn't think so but I'm not well versed in US law.

[SebastianJu]

It looks like its made up: http://www.coindesk.com/crypto-2-0-companies-rebuff-sec-crackdown-rumors/

[Phong Luu]

element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. we'll ever find so many scams negligent operators all in one place.

[ThunderSheep]

element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. we'll ever find so many scams negligent operators all in one place.

What element, exactly, requires the recipient to remain quiet?

To your second statement, I say you are absolutely correct.

[Surf Capital Management]

Feds Begin Their Crackdown on Bitcoin Stocks