Nefario

[psilan]

Did he just get 3 black eyes?

[repentance]

We havent broken ANY laws. Show me one fucking law that mentions bitcoin specifically.

Laws are open to interpretation. They don't have to specifically label bitcoin.

Not to mention that the issuers themselves were describing their products as securities - if they were representing as securities things which are not securities then they were obtaining a financial advantage by deception.

Given that this forum was the main place where products listed on GBLSE and GBLSE itself were promoted, anyone who doesn't think that what was written here - including any unsupported statements that GBLSE wasn't operating illegally - isn't potential evidence is hopelessly naive.

[tucenaber]

I'm curious about the shareholders of GLBSE who are supporting Nefario in this. Who are they and shoildn't they be considered for scammer tags as well?

[k3t3r]

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

Because breaking even more laws in relation to an organisation which is already under scrutiny is a great idea.

Right now, everyone has to work on the assumption that everything sketchy to do with GBLSE is going to come out in the wash, including any illegal proposals put forward on this forum. 

We havent broken ANY laws. Show me one fucking law that mentions bitcoin specifically.

"A security is "any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a 'security'; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or bankers' acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited." - Section 3a item 10 of the 1934 Act."

this could include just about anything that is a reciept of value such eg amazon, iTunes gift cards.


does anybody know how the new legislation for crowd funding would apply in this situation ?

[Atlas]

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

Because breaking even more laws in relation to an organisation which is already under scrutiny is a great idea.

Right now, everyone has to work on the assumption that everything sketchy to do with GBLSE is going to come out in the wash, including any illegal proposals put forward on this forum.  

We havent broken ANY laws. Show me one fucking law that mentions bitcoin specifically.

"A security is "any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a 'security'; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or bankers' acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited." - Section 3a item 10 of the 1934 Act."

this could include just about anything that is a reciept of value such eg amazon, iTunes gift cards.

...and that's the thing. Laws are applied when they are relevant to the powers that be. The key is to know the states intent in this regulation. Even then, they will use laws and spread their jurisdiction widely when convenient for their desires.

We usually have a Constitution to limit this type of thing.

The US founding father's would establish this type of financial activity as a first amendment, unbridgeable right.

[stochastic]

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

Because breaking even more laws in relation to an organisation which is already under scrutiny is a great idea.

Right now, everyone has to work on the assumption that everything sketchy to do with GBLSE is going to come out in the wash, including any illegal proposals put forward on this forum. 

We havent broken ANY laws. Show me one fucking law that mentions bitcoin specifically.

"A security is "any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a 'security'; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or bankers' acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited." - Section 3a item 10 of the 1934 Act."

this could include just about anything that is a reciept of value such eg amazon, iTunes gift cards.


does anybody know how the new legislation for crowd funding would apply in this situation ?

It does not apply yet as it does not go into effect until Jan 1, 2013.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Private investment pools may have some features of securities, but they may not be registered or regulated as such if they meet various restrictions.

[Hunterbunter]

I never thought I would say this but I'm starting to think Bitcoin is a scam

Bitcoins are not a scam. They're a wide open stretch of ocean where people poke holes in their limbs and dangle them in the water.

Does anything good ever happen to bitcoin?

The price sometimes goes up?

[Bitcoin Oz]

I thought this might be useful for this thread: http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf

If they push it we will just build securities into bitcoin and then point and laugh at their silly regulations.

[Bitcoin Oz]

http://www.otcmarkets.com/otc-pink/home  ooh look unregistered securities 

[repentance]

This too shall pass.

Of course it will.  It will dominate the forum for a week or two and then be replaced by another drama du jour.

[Puppet]

In Nefario's defense: you cant expect him to comply with bylaws if that means he has to violate the law. That would make the bylaws null and void.

As for him stealing funds to pay for his lawyer; getting legal advice certainly sounds like a legitimate business expense to me, one you should have invested in a LONG time ago. Its completely reasonable Nefario would pay that with company funds rather than his own personal funds.

As for returning bitcoins; I personally think its fucked up anonymous asset issuers will now be rewarded for their scams and asset holders will be completely screwed. Asset holders would have to reveal their identity and get nothing in return, since they wouldnt know who to file a claim against. The asset issuers can safely remain anonymous and get to keep the coins that really belong to the asset owners. Well played :S.

[stochastic]

As for him stealing funds to pay for his lawyer; getting legal advice certainly sounds like a legitimate business expense to me, one you should have invested in a LONG time ago. Its completely reasonable Nefario would pay that with company funds rather than his own personal funds.

I thought he was using users funds to pay for the lawyer?

[Bitcoin Oz]

http://www.otcmarkets.com/otc-pink/home  ooh look unregistered securities 

"OTC Markets Group is not a securities exchange or a broker-dealer. OTC Markets provides an electronic quotation and information service to registered broker-dealers to facilitate efficient transactions in OTC securities. Investors must contact an SEC registered broker-dealer that is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to invest in an OTC security"

It just means we need a broker to accept btc.

[Bitcoin Oz]

As for him stealing funds to pay for his lawyer; getting legal advice certainly sounds like a legitimate business expense to me, one you should have invested in a LONG time ago. Its completely reasonable Nefario would pay that with company funds rather than his own personal funds.

I thought he was using users funds to pay for the lawyer?

Where did you get that idea ?

[OneEyed]

Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.

- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.

One thing I constantly warn people about is self-censorship. If you think it is a good thing to remove Nefario as CEO, then put up a motion, and let him ignore it and take responsibility for this. By not putting up a motion because "he would ignore it", you are simply letting him go on as CEO.

Please do not censor yourself, and do what you think is right for GLBSE regardless of what you think Nefario might do then. That could protect you in the future.

(disclaimer: I don't have any coin or share on GLBSE)

[Bogart]

He didn't inform me. He illegally spent GLBSE user deposits with the expectation that he would replace this money from the BitcoinGlobal treasury later. Which he's unfortunately correct about -- I can't withhold the money from him when this means that there won't be enough money for GLBSE users.

But GLBSE doesn't have a lot of money (only about 600 BTC IIRC). If he continues paying for stuff, this money will run out.

Could you clarify this a bit please theymos.  How did he have access to the user deposits?  If he was "borrowing" them without authorisation, that's straight up embezzlement regardless of whether he intended to return them at a later time.  When did the shareholders become aware that he was spending user deposits and how did you become aware of his intention to replace them with money from BitcoinGlobal?  I'm confused about whether the shareholders effectively authorised him taking a "loan" from the business post hoc by agreeing that he would pay back the misappropriated funds from BG money.

I hate to say it, but if you send Nefario user funds knowing full well that he has already misappropriated funds, you're laying yourself wide open to liability. His access to funds needs to be blocked and a way of returning user deposits worked out which doesn't involve Nefario.

Theymos, as treasurer, shouldn't you be the one to disperse the funds to their rightful owners?  Why would you be sending the funds to Nefario in the first place, even if you had no knowledge of his treachery?

[Transisto]

Financial regulation + Bitcoin = You lose.

Fiat based economies can afford to lose time and and resources again and again from due to their incoherent rules. They just print more get away with it.

Bitcoin is different in that supply is very limited and it cannot afford to lose BTCs and lawyer fee to outdated, obsolete oligarchic restrictions. (whatever that mean)

I refuse to limit myself to documents such as SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
Haven't read but I think it's safe to say ~30% of what's written in there is ridiculous and make no sense when applied to a world of bitcoins and global online transactions.

[kuzetsa]

((...snip...))

As I had proposed in another thread, the claim codes should...

((...snip...))

Any better ideas?

((...snip...))

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

WHAT!??! SRSLY?!?!       

...

For comic relief, I'm just pointing this out:

((person 1)) ... blah blah ... secure process ... prove you own shares ... continue doing business ... Any better ideas?

((person 2)) Get one person to (( submit Anti Money Laundering documentation)) for lots of different accounts for a cut.

...


Now that's what I call a (( REALLY BAD )) plan:

This plan should be called the "let's pile a bunch of money together, launder it and then... oh crap the feds are here we're all screwed" plan:

• Places in the world where AML is taken serriouisly
  
• The "RICO" act ... a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering...

...


@bitcoin.me

Thanks, I needed that laugh. The GLBSE shutdown was making me sad.

[Puppet]

As for him stealing funds to pay for his lawyer; getting legal advice certainly sounds like a legitimate business expense to me, one you should have invested in a LONG time ago. Its completely reasonable Nefario would pay that with company funds rather than his own personal funds.

I thought he was using users funds to pay for the lawyer?

As I understand it, he may or may not have been using funds from the hot wallet to be replaced by funds that Theymos holds that belong to the holding company. IF thats the case, its questionable, but as long as he doesnt spend more than what GLBSE has in reserves,  in the grand scheme of things, not a major issue IMO.

On a side note, when I watched Nefario's speech at the conference, I was shocked to hear him say how bitcoin OTC saved his ass when he urgently needed (IIRC) 400 pounds to pay for something.  I was expecting him to say the opposite, that bitcoin OTC saved him when he needed bitcoins. But he needed fiat. Its not a crime to be broke, but one has to wonder if its a good idea to put someone in charge of 100s of 1000s of bitcoin when that person has  trouble coming up with 400 pound to pay his bills.