Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.

[augustocroppo]

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth.  Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Please, provide evidence to prove that in 'the real world it is a crime as described above'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_preference

A single Wikipedia is not evidence to prove the assertion. I wish to review the evidence which proves that people have been accused, prosecuted and jailed for exactly what Usagi is supposedly doing.

Moreover:

An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference

Usagi did not declared bankruptcy, so your evidence is worthless to support kjj's assertion.

[augustocroppo]

Usagi doesnt even provide proper profit and loss statements which a company with actual shareholders must provide from time to time. For example how much does CPA or BMF owe in tax ?

He has been paying company tax....right? Usagi doesnt have any company records to produce just a bunch of hot air.

So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Usagi doesnt even provide proper profit and loss statements which a company with actual shareholders must provide from time to time. For example how much does CPA or BMF owe in tax ?

He has been paying company tax....right? Usagi doesnt have any company records to produce just a bunch of hot air.

So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?

Shill. How much is Usagi paying you to pick up the soap ?

[deeplink]

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth.  Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Please, provide evidence to prove that in 'the real world it is a crime as described above'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_preference

A single Wikipedia is not evidence to prove the assertion. I wish to review the evidence which proves that people have been accused, prosecuted and jailed for exactly what Usagi is supposedly doing.

I knew you were going to say that. Very predictable. I am not going into arguments with you about the validity of Wikipedia articles. The assertion that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime is true and you know it.

Moreover:

An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference

Usagi did not declared bankruptcy, so your evidence is worthless to support kjj's assertion.

If usagi is unable to provide proper accounting, it is reasonable to assume that he is bankrupt.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Usagi doesnt even provide proper profit and loss statements which a company with actual shareholders must provide from time to time. For example how much does CPA or BMF owe in tax ?

He has been paying company tax....right? Usagi doesnt have any company records to produce just a bunch of hot air.

So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?

Usagi can make it all go away by providing proper records. Is it really all that difficult to ask for ?

Since they are such a great business person they should have detailed profit and loss statements , right?

As a CPA shareholder I demand to see the books right now. Consider this a letter of demand and if you havent produced the books in 21 days you will be considered insolvent.

[augustocroppo]

Shill. How much is Usagi paying you to pick up the soap ?

That is not an answer for what I asked.

So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Shill. How much is Usagi paying you to pick up the soap ?

That is not an answer for what I asked.

So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?

The lack of proper accounting and a ledger of all company finances is the evidence.

Also where is Usagi's company registered so people can serve legal papers ? This is pretty much a requirement in most countries.

Since Usagi wants to act like the "big businessman" he must have a company address, right ?

[augustocroppo]

I knew you were going to say that. Very predictable. I am not going into arguments with you about the validity of Wikipedia articles. The assertion that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime is true and you know it.

No, I do not know completely. That is why I asking for evidence, to verify if kjj accusation is based on verifiable facts.

If usagi is unable to provide proper accounting, it is reasonable to assume that he is bankrupt.

Your assumption is certainly not based on reason.

How 'unable to provide proper accounting' proves that Usagi 'is bankrupt'?

[Deprived]

Saying that you intend to pay everyone at some sort of face value is not a valid defense at this stage, because you don't know if you are capable of actually doing that or not.  Good intentions, in the real world, might reduce your fine or jail time, but it won't prevent the conviction.

P.S.  You keep talking about distributing shares owned by the venture to shareholders.  That is not a valid liquidation strategy, and your difficulties in doing so should be sufficient for you to understand why it is not allowed.  As trustee, you have the option of auctioning assets and allowing creditors and shareholders to "pay" for them using their cut of the liquidation, but it has to be open to the public.

Now you're just being unreasonable!

It's perfectly fair for usagi to pay itself in BTC and pay everyone else in shares valued as it sees fit at a price that the others may or may not be able to sell at (if they can sell at all).  What could possibly be unfair about that?

[/sarcasm]

[augustocroppo]

The lack of proper accounting and a ledger of all company finances is the evidence.

Also where is Usagi's company registered so people can serve legal papers ? This is pretty much a requirement in most countries.

Since Usagi wants to act like the "big businessman" he must have a company address, right ?

Did you signed a contract with specific terms covering such requirements, like 'company address', 'serve legal paper', etc.? 

[deeplink]

I knew you were going to say that. Very predictable. I am not going into arguments with you about the validity of Wikipedia articles. The assertion that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime is true and you know it.

No, I do not know completely. That is why I asking for evidence, to verify if kjj accusation is based on verifiable facts.

The evidence is in the verifiable fact that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.

If usagi is unable to provide proper accounting, it is reasonable to assume that he is bankrupt.

Your assumption is certainly not based on reason.

How 'unable to provide proper accounting' proves that Usagi 'is bankrupt'?

Learn to read. I didn't say that it proves, but that it is reasonable to assume if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting.

[kjj]

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth.  Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Please, provide evidence to prove that in 'the real world it is a crime as described above'.

The evidence will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but try these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_preference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undervalue_transaction (tangential to this matter)
http://www.google.com/search?q=preferential+payments
http://www.google.com/search?q=liquidation
http://www.google.com/search?q=trustee+fraud

And to pick one state at random, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/BC/3

If someone says that they repeatedly stabbed someone else with a knife until they stopped moving and breathing, it isn't an accusation to point out that their own description of their actions is the description of a crime.  I have no knowledge of his real actions, I'm just going by what he has said he has done / is doing / will be doing.

An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference

Usagi did not declared bankruptcy, so your evidence is worthless to support kjj's assertion.

The exact same procedures are used for the dissolution of any legal entity.  A bankruptcy is just one form of the general closure process, other examples exist, including trusts and estates.  The same concepts apply in general, but there are a few exceptions in different branches.  Common to all is that someone is managing, liquidating, and distributing assets that do not belong to them * , and that they have a fiduciary duty to treat all claimants equitably.  The notion of equity shifts a bit in different types of cases too, for example, you can put somewhat arbitrary rules in your will, and the trustee is expected to follow them, and only genuine residue after the will is fully executed is requires an equitable distribution.

If he personally declared bankruptcy, he would not be the trustee of his own liquidation, one would be appointed by a judge/magistrate, and I bet if that happened, the poor guy would have to take up drinking after sorting out this mess.  I'm still going on the assumption that there is no official record of his ventures as registered legal entities, which strongly suggests that his "contracts" created an assumed trust, and that said trust is now under liquidation.

Since an assumed trust exists because of the contract that spawned it, such a contract can specify peculiar rules for liquidation, and those rules should be followed (unless someone files for an injunction, or unless the rules are contrary to some other law).  In all other cases, including, as far as I can tell, this case, the default rules should be followed, and if a court got involved (unlikely here, but still) they would appoint someone to do it pretty much like I described.


* The person managing the assets is generally known generally as a trustee, but they also called a receiver in certain types of bankruptcy, etc.  The assets themselves are still owned by the corporation, if properly incorporated, by the estate, or by "the trust" (which is the pseudo-entity that is assumed to exist whenever a contract requires such a thing) until liquidated/distributed.  Note that the trustee may, in some cases, also be a claimant.  For example, a child of the deceased in estate matters, or the managing partner in a partnership, or a shareholder/manager in a small company or corporation.  Such people need to be very careful, because the burden of proof is surprisingly low in civil matters.  For that reason, generally, no one will come after you with criminal charges unless you are a huge dick, but many breaches of fiduciary duty also meet the definitions of criminal fraud.

[BCB]

if the crux of this argument  is that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.

Then someone should be working on a scammer tag for bitfloor, correct?

[augustocroppo]

The evidence is in the verifiable fact that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.

A observation which is compatible with other plausible state of affair is not evidence for a proposition.

Observation: 'Usagi is unable to provide proper accounting.'

Plausible state of affair: 'Preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.'

Proposition: 'What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud. It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.'

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1236780#msg1236780

http://human-brain.org/evidence.html

What is "evidence"

An observation of compatible state of affair

When should an observation be regarded as evidence for a proposition?

(...)

Even though the logic is obvious, there is a strong tendency to ignore the second condition above. It is quite common for people to regard as evidence for some proposition an observation which is compatible with many other plausible states of affairs. In some cases, they justify it by considering only restricted set of the other plausible states of affairs (I call this the "Misanalyzing the 'Null Hypothesis'" error in Reasoning errors). In other cases, they don't bother to justify it at all, and seem to do it simply because they like the proposition, and hence accept automatically the observation as evidence (implicitly doing the "conclusion-validation" error, Reasoning errors).

Learn to read. I didn't say that it proves, but that it is reasonable to assume if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting.

[Deprived]

The evidence is in the verifiable fact that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.

A observation which is compatible with other plausible state of affair is not evidence for a proposition.

Observation: 'Usagi is unable to provide proper accounting.'

Plausible state of affair: 'Preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.'

Proposition: 'What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud. It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.'

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1236780#msg1236780

http://human-brain.org/evidence.html

What is "evidence"

An observation of compatible state of affair

When should an observation be regarded as evidence for a proposition?

(...)

Even though the logic is obvious, there is a strong tendency to ignore the second condition above. It is quite common for people to regard as evidence for some proposition an observation which is compatible with many other plausible states of affairs. In some cases, they justify it by considering only restricted set of the other plausible states of affairs (I call this the "Misanalyzing the 'Null Hypothesis'" error in Reasoning errors). In other cases, they don't bother to justify it at all, and seem to do it simply because they like the proposition, and hence accept automatically the observation as evidence (implicitly doing the "conclusion-validation" error, Reasoning errors).

Learn to read. I didn't say that it proves, but that it is reasonable to assume if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting.

The observation here isn't that usagi didn't provide proper accounting.  The observation is that usagi stated it was going to preferentially give itself BTC and other people shares.  Nice strawman you made there though.

[deeplink]

Observation: 'Usagi is unable to provide proper accounting.'

Again: learn to read. I didn't say usagi is unable to provide proper accounting. I said "... if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting".

Learn to read. I didn't say that it proves, but that it is reasonable to assume if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting.

The rest of your argument is unclear. Feel free to explain what your point is.

[deeplink]

Nice strawman you made there though.

Exactly, augustocroppo, you may also want to read some more about strawman and other logical fallacies while your at it.

[augustocroppo]

The observation here isn't that usagi didn't provide proper accounting.  The observation is that usagi stated it was going to preferentially give itself BTC and other people shares.  Nice strawman you made there though.

Wrong.

I am verifying if deeplink's observation is evidence to support kjj's original proposition. Therefore my argument remains.

By the way, nice strawman you made there though.

[deeplink]

The observation here isn't that usagi didn't provide proper accounting.  The observation is that usagi stated it was going to preferentially give itself BTC and other people shares.  Nice strawman you made there though.

Wrong.

I am verifying if deeplink's observation is evidence to support kjj's original proposition. Therefore my argument remains.

By the way, nice strawman you made there though.

The observation is that usagi stated it was going to preferentially pay out. Preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime. Where is the argument?

[Bitcoin Oz]

if the crux of this argument  is that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.

Then someone should be working on a scammer tag for bitfloor, correct?

Pretty much.