Nefario

[oldschool]

They MAY decide to investigate GLBSE after the BCTST investigation, but these investigators are already busy with another investigation. They typically do not multitask on whitecollar crimes.

They do, however, information share with other, equivalent agencies, both domestically and overseas.  If they discover something which may be of relevance to another agency, they typically turn that information over to that agency for further investigation.  Most Western nations have formal information sharing agreements with each other regarding financial crimes.

Fair enough, but I doubt an active investigation into glbse is far enough to have a search warrant issued for servers controlled by someone in the UK...  point is, he's had plenty of warning and notice and could have simply shut things down in a matter of days instead of suddenly... I know if it were me I'd find a way to get rid of funds not belonging to me and then go from there.... at the very least stop incoming transactions....

Written on my phone, excuse any errors or wrong words from auto correct

[theymos]

Are those timestamps "may 10th" or "october 5th" ... around these parts, it looks like "may 10th" (and you didn't specify elsewhere in the post)

October. My IRC client does use a strange date format. Slashes usually indicate American format.

[repentance]

Fair enough, but I doubt an active investigation into glbse is far enough to have a search warrant issued for servers controlled by someone in the UK...  point is, he's had plenty of warning and notice and could have simply shut things down in a matter of days instead of suddenly... I know if it were me I'd find a way to get rid of funds not belonging to me and then go from there.... at the very least stop incoming transactions....

As far as anyone knows, there is no active investigation into GLBSE and the shut-down is purely pre-emptive because Nefario and some of the share-holders feel that continuing the business in its current form is too risky from an AML viewpoint.  They may be right or they may be wrong about the level of that risk, but they're the only ones who can decide the level of risk they're willing to assume.  

It could have been handled differently, but we weren't the ones making the decision so it gets handled the way those making the decision decide to handle it.  Hell, I would have suspended trading in everything with known exposure to pirate the minute pirate defaulted, but the GLBSE operators clearly didn't think that was necessary.

Honestly, they should have had an orderly disaster plan in place to implement in the event of them shutting down due to legal concerns.  That they don't yet have a claims process in place suggests that they didn't have such a plan and that is pretty inexcusable when you're dealing with such a large amount of other people's funds.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Fair enough, but I doubt an active investigation into glbse is far enough to have a search warrant issued for servers controlled by someone in the UK...  point is, he's had plenty of warning and notice and could have simply shut things down in a matter of days instead of suddenly... I know if it were me I'd find a way to get rid of funds not belonging to me and then go from there.... at the very least stop incoming transactions....

As far as anyone knows, there is no active investigation into GLBSE and the shut-down is purely pre-emptive because Nefario and some of the share-holders feel that continuing the business in its current form is too risky from an AML viewpoint.  They may be right or they may be wrong about the level of that risk, but they're the only ones who can decide the level of risk they're willing to assume.  

It could have been handled differently, but we weren't the ones making the decision so it gets handled the way those making the decision decide to handle it.  Hell, I would have suspended trading in everything with known exposure to pirate the minute pirate defaulted, but the GLBSE operators clearly didn't think that was necessary.

Honestly, they should have had an orderly disaster plan in place to implement in the event of them shutting down due to legal concerns.  That they don't yet have a claims process in place suggests that they didn't have such a plan and that is pretty inexcusable when you're dealing with such a large amount of other people's funds.

GLBSE didnt hold much coin at least for the asset issuers. Since they buy equipment etc. Lots of user may not even be over the amount where AML kicks in.

[repentance]

GLBSE didnt hold much coin at least for the asset issuers. Since they buy equipment etc. Lots of user may not even be over the amount where AML kicks in.

There's a lot more to AML compliance than just transaction thresholds.  It's a pain in the ass because you can't just "set and forget" - you have to evaluate everything on an ongoing basis and have systems in place to flag anything which might be reportable and then you have to carry out enhanced measures in respect of anything flagged.

[senor_coconut]

Hi all,

This might be useful... so you're aware of the next "official" move.

RSS feed tracking changes (from now on) on GLBSE.com website:

http://www.changedetection.com/accountfeed.xml?feedid=472464928346072

[finkleshnorts]

I stopped taking Nefario seriously when I read this joke of a thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6279.0



I think we all knew GLBSE wasn't going to end well... But this worse than I imagined.

[the_thing]

Haven't been here for a few days. Please could anyone sum up the situation for me?
I'm getting my popcorn ready 

[jasinlee]

I achieved the legendary mpex ignore list, nefario has not commented on anything once. Lots of guesses and hopes of getting coins back. And lots of "I talked to nefario, I know what he is thinking, but I swear I am not a Puppet."

[BadBear]

I've decided Nefario will get a scammer tag for this. Speculating on intents and motivations behind his actions is fun and all, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he broke his contract or not. Like I said in Goat's thread, my role is to decide if he deserves a scammer tag based on his actions. If Nefario can't or won't elaborate on why he took the actions he did, that's his problem and he should take it up with the appropriate people.

Even if he doesn't have control over his current actions (which I doubt), he did have control when he decided to start the business, and he did have control when he made the agreement and sold pieces of the company to the shareholders.

This was a pretty good analogy that made me look at it a different way.

You cant sue people for obeying the law. Which is basically what Nefario is doing,

That is absolutely not true. Otherwise, an unlicensed contractor could make a contract to do some work for you, take your money, and then say, "Sorry, I'm unlicensed. I can't legally do the work."

and you cant force the shareholders to do something illegal.

Of course, but it's always legal to pay damages. You're certainly right that you couldn't force the contractor in my example to do the work. But you can certainly get your money back alone with any other damages, including punitive damages.

If it goes well people will get their coins back, it sucks that AMl is involved but you gotta do what you gotta do.

That's pure speculation at this point, at least so far as I know. If the contractor in my example says, "Sorry, the contracting board says I'm not licensed to do the work. Bye.", do you just take his word for it and let him off the hook for any damages you suffered? Asset owners have suffered damages because they relied on GLBSE.

[AndrewBUD]

I am curious why scammer tags don't include a ban? Or at least a posting ban

[theymos]

I've decided Nefario will get a scammer tag for this.

Thank you.

[jasinlee]

I've decided Nefario will get a scammer tag for this. Speculating on intents and motivations behind his actions is fun and all, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he broke his contract or not. Like I said in Goat's thread, my role is to decide if he deserves a scammer tag based on his actions. If Nefario can't or won't elaborate on why he took the actions he did, that's his problem and he should take it up with the appropriate people.

Even if he doesn't have control over his current actions (which I doubt), he did have control when he decided to start the business, and he did have control when he made the agreement and sold pieces of the company to the shareholders.

This was a pretty good analogy that made me look at it a different way.

You cant sue people for obeying the law. Which is basically what Nefario is doing,

That is absolutely not true. Otherwise, an unlicensed contractor could make a contract to do some work for you, take your money, and then say, "Sorry, I'm unlicensed. I can't legally do the work."

and you cant force the shareholders to do something illegal.

Of course, but it's always legal to pay damages. You're certainly right that you couldn't force the contractor in my example to do the work. But you can certainly get your money back alone with any other damages, including punitive damages.

If it goes well people will get their coins back, it sucks that AMl is involved but you gotta do what you gotta do.

That's pure speculation at this point, at least so far as I know. If the contractor in my example says, "Sorry, the contracting board says I'm not licensed to do the work. Bye.", do you just take his word for it and let him off the hook for any damages you suffered? Asset owners have suffered damages because they relied on GLBSE.

*golf clap*

[k3t3r]

who did he scam?

[MPOE-PR]

I've decided Nefario will get a scammer tag for this.

Thank you.

Lmao did you ask your forum's moderator to give you a scammer tag too, for that little "selling on undisclosed insider knowledge" affair? Or is it the case that since nobody was sucker enough to buy your worthless interest in that worthless scamenterprise of yours, bitcoin.me's and others', it's all candy and rosewater?

[dishwara]

I am curious why scammer tags don't include a ban? Or at least a posting ban

Everyone has freedom to express his/her views.
Besides, we need accused to express his/her views.
If we don't allow to post, then we cant hear what they say or trying to say.

Some calling Nefario scammer & some not.
Around 50 BTC is in my GLBSE account.
I don't know what to do, except just read other replies.

4 persons I trusted in this forum very much.
Theymos, Gavin, Sathoshi & Nefario.
Now only has 3 to trust.

[AndrewBUD]

I am curious why scammer tags don't include a ban? Or at least a posting ban

Everyone has freedom to express his/her views.
Besides, we need accused to express his/her views.
If we don't allow to post, then we cant hear what they say or trying to say.

Some calling Nefario scammer & some not.
Around 50 BTC is in my GLBSE account.
I don't know what to do, except just read other replies.

4 persons I trusted in this forum very much.
Theymos, Gavin, Sathoshi & Nefario.
Now only has 3 to trust.

I understand... but IRL if you defraud someone you go to jail. Maybe have a forum jail where scammer tagged people can speak only? Seems like a minor punishment for being a douche bag.

[dishwara]

The funny/worst part is on 3rd October 2012, I sent my personal details to GLBSE to reset 2 factor authentication on my account.




Just 5 minutes before chatted to Nefario on his gmail account.

[Mushoz]

I've decided Nefario will get a scammer tag for this. Speculating on intents and motivations behind his actions is fun and all, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he broke his contract or not. Like I said in Goat's thread, my role is to decide if he deserves a scammer tag based on his actions. If Nefario can't or won't elaborate on why he took the actions he did, that's his problem and he should take it up with the appropriate people.

Even if he doesn't have control over his current actions (which I doubt), he did have control when he decided to start the business, and he did have control when he made the agreement and sold pieces of the company to the shareholders.

This was a pretty good analogy that made me look at it a different way.

You cant sue people for obeying the law. Which is basically what Nefario is doing,

That is absolutely not true. Otherwise, an unlicensed contractor could make a contract to do some work for you, take your money, and then say, "Sorry, I'm unlicensed. I can't legally do the work."

and you cant force the shareholders to do something illegal.

Of course, but it's always legal to pay damages. You're certainly right that you couldn't force the contractor in my example to do the work. But you can certainly get your money back alone with any other damages, including punitive damages.

If it goes well people will get their coins back, it sucks that AMl is involved but you gotta do what you gotta do.

That's pure speculation at this point, at least so far as I know. If the contractor in my example says, "Sorry, the contracting board says I'm not licensed to do the work. Bye.", do you just take his word for it and let him off the hook for any damages you suffered? Asset owners have suffered damages because they relied on GLBSE.

Thanks!

[Rygon]

Wow. This is crazy. Although I don't follow the forums daily, it seems like this came out of the blue. I actually thought GLBSE was one of the more reputable BTC sites. I was in the process of liquidating some things on there and pulling my money out, mostly because I didn't see any investments that was worth the risk. Now I'm out about 40 BTC. Sigh.

There's no reason at this point to believe that users won't get their funds returned.  There might be open conflict between the shareholders, but no-one's suggested that GLBSE has insufficient funds at this point to pay its users.  While any involvement by regulators would slow down the repayment process (it took a very long time for people who had funds caught up in the online poker bust to have their funds returned), there is no credible evidence of any regulatory agency being involved at this point - this decision seems to be an attempt to pre-empt such a possibility.

Don't get me wrong, I believe this has been handled appallingly and that the attempt at revisionism by those associated with GLBSE is nauseating, but assumptions that users won't be repaid are somewhat premature.  If Nefario is already melting down over the possibility of GLBSE coming under legal scrutiny, it seems incredibly unlikely that he'd intentionally do something like not paying users which would actively invite legal scrutiny.

Just read enough of this thread to realize that everything is just wild speculation at this point. At least from the perspective of the casual user. I suppose there is still a chance to get back funds, but it gets less likely with every day that goes by, IMO.