I could be wrong (IANAL) but my issue has become I have no intention of dragging a lawyer into this, so I feel that GigaVPS is pretending it's against the law when it's really not.
I could be wrong
On this point, you are 100% correct.
lol did nobody notice that gigavps just admitted that he is pretending it's against the law when it's really not?
In the UK if a customer refuses to provide KYC information then the seller has to either provide a total refund OR (if they believe there's an AML-related reason for the refusal) make an SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) to the relevant authorities (who that is depends on the company's supervisory body). In this instance it's plain that in many cases the refusal to provide the required information is purely an economic one - that doing so costs more than the benefits of doing so - so IF this were in the UK Giga would need to cancel the contract in its entirety where there was refusal to provide the information.
This is the only logical and reasonable way to do it. Nullify contracts of customers that do not want to proceed with the new rules, i.e. refund their investments (minus already paid dividends).
Any other way means we have another scammer onboard. (What is actually funny is that scammers are now scamming other scammers on this forum.)
Yeah - I had a look around online earlier at various sources relating to KYC in the US. Seems the general principle is identical to in the UK and other countries:
1. If you require KYC you MUST make that plain BEFORE entering into a contract.
2. If you use a third=party to handle sales you CAN delegate KYC requirements to them BUT if you do so you MUST make sure they comply with the KTC policy that applies to you.
3. If a potential client refuses to provide KYC your options are either a) Refund them any funds paid to you or b) Raise an SAR with relevant authorities. There's no option c) of threaten to hold their funds but don't raise an SAR.
4. If you require KYC information then you MUST have a written policy in respect of it and a named compliance officer. If KYC requirements are delegated to a third-party then THEY must have a written policy and compliance officer.
It's also not clear on what basis giga is claiming he needs KYC information. From what I can see, similar to in the UK, businesses that must obtain KYC information need to be registered wuth a supervisory/regulatory authority. I see no statement from giga or his lawyer as to where they're registered as business meeting the conditions such that they need to obtain KYC information. Are they, for example, registered as a Financial Services provider? Any such registration should be disclosed to customers.
The above is important as - if he's claiming legal necessity for his actions then rather obviously:
1. He needs to meet the relevant legal requirements on his end,
2. If his failure to proper understand HIS position has led to the problem then any burden of cost in rectifying HIS mistake (in not making plain at the start the need for KYC information - a requirement where such information is needed) should fall on him.
There also appears to be a bait and switch on two specific factors:
1. Giga is now claiming all deals were with an LLC. But no disclosure was made that commitments on his end were restricted by limited liability when entering the deal. Any limited liability needs to be disclosed in advance - it can't later be claimed.
2. The contracts/bonds were transferrable/tradable. Now, apparently, they aren't. That's a very clear reduction in their value - with, as far as I can see, no agreement to such a change ever made by investors. You can't start changing a contract unilaterally just because it's inconvenient for you to honour it as agreed. If he's saying he can't honour the original agreement for legal reasons then it would be reasonable to allow him to cancel the deal - refunding amounts paid less dividends paid to date.
Poll
