Cryptsy's Legal Situation

[Fontas Returns]

I figured I would start a new thread on information on the Cryptsy Legal situation. Anyone who has up-to-date information on the legal situation can you please post it here. Apparently the company has gone into receivership.

[AcoinL.L.C]

Last news article:
http://www.coindesk.com/court-cryptsy-ceo-predicted-exchange-failure/

He's most likely hiding out in China, I wouldn't count on getting restitution anytime soon.

[Phildo]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

According to them they have been collecting personal information from their customers to follow government regulations, but somehow have no idea who they should have reported the theft to.

Does that make any sense?

Their legal situation is that vernon stole/lost your coins and ran away.

[aardvark15]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

According to them they have been collecting personal information from their customers to follow government regulations, but somehow have no idea who they should have reported the theft to.

Does that make any sense?

Their legal situation is that vernon stole/lost your coins and ran away.

Yes they mismanaged customer money by either insufficient security that allowed a theft, or they may have actually stolen it themselves.  If they were in fact hacked, they hid this from the customers and continued to accept deposits that they used to pay out withdrawals of other customers.  They definitely should face criminal charges either way.

[Phildo]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

According to them they have been collecting personal information from their customers to follow government regulations, but somehow have no idea who they should have reported the theft to.

Does that make any sense?

Their legal situation is that vernon stole/lost your coins and ran away.

Yes they mismanaged customer money by either insufficient security that allowed a theft, or they may have actually stolen it themselves.  If they were in fact hacked, they hid this from the customers and continued to accept deposits that they used to pay out withdrawals of other customers.  They definitely should face criminal charges either way.

Did you get robbed? what did the police say when you reported that you were robbed?

Why am I, a person with zero "invested" in this dumpster fire, asking relevant questions while all the people who got robbed (crypsty and customers) not asking the right questions?

[toodamntired]

Hmmmm, Bitcoin good because decentralized, not government regulated..... people should face criminal charges for this fiasco... seems like we are allowing a precedent to be set... I'm just sayin'

[aardvark15]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

According to them they have been collecting personal information from their customers to follow government regulations, but somehow have no idea who they should have reported the theft to.

Does that make any sense?

Their legal situation is that vernon stole/lost your coins and ran away.

Yes they mismanaged customer money by either insufficient security that allowed a theft, or they may have actually stolen it themselves.  If they were in fact hacked, they hid this from the customers and continued to accept deposits that they used to pay out withdrawals of other customers.  They definitely should face criminal charges either way.

Did you get robbed? what did the police say when you reported that you were robbed?

Why am I, a person with zero "invested" in this dumpster fire, asking relevant questions while all the people who got robbed (crypsty and customers) not asking the right questions?

That is a good idea to list all of the relevant questions that we need to be asking.  I would suggest that you compile those and possibly make a new topic concerning that.

[Phildo]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

According to them they have been collecting personal information from their customers to follow government regulations, but somehow have no idea who they should have reported the theft to.

Does that make any sense?

Their legal situation is that vernon stole/lost your coins and ran away.

Yes they mismanaged customer money by either insufficient security that allowed a theft, or they may have actually stolen it themselves.  If they were in fact hacked, they hid this from the customers and continued to accept deposits that they used to pay out withdrawals of other customers.  They definitely should face criminal charges either way.

Did you get robbed? what did the police say when you reported that you were robbed?

Why am I, a person with zero "invested" in this dumpster fire, asking relevant questions while all the people who got robbed (crypsty and customers) not asking the right questions?

That is a good idea to list all of the relevant questions that we need to be asking.  I would suggest that you compile those and possibly make a new topic concerning that.

Just what we need another topic on the situation.

this happens all the time, and i never lose money, so i just sit back and laugh. A website gets "hacked" and loses all of their customers funds, yet somehow no one on either side is doing what i would do if I was sitting in their shoes, and magically nothing gets resolved. Sorry, I'm just going to sit back and eat my popcorn, if you lost coins, you should be the one asking the basic questions to cryptsy, not me.

[alyssa85]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

That's not quite correct - they may have lost BTC and LTC but they have other coins and should have returned them. For example here is their doge cold wallet address:

https://bitinfocharts.com/dogecoin/address/DDTtqnuZ5kfRT5qh2c7sNtqrJmV3iXYdGG

There are coins there, which means they can return doge to customers if they choose - am not sure why this didn't happen.

[Phildo]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

That's not quite correct - they may have lost BTC and LTC but they have other coins and should have returned them. For example here is their doge cold wallet address:

https://bitinfocharts.com/dogecoin/address/DDTtqnuZ5kfRT5qh2c7sNtqrJmV3iXYdGG

There are coins there, which means they can return doge to customers if they choose - am not sure why this didn't happen.

this is where things get complicated, and why, again, you are fucked because you gave your coins to someone else who is an asshole.

if they really lost those bitcoins and are going to declare bankruptcy, they can't just give you back your doge.

using round numbers for example, if they owe people 1 million dollars, but only have 500k of assets, everyone needs to share the burden equally (unless there are some creditors who have priority for some reason.) You don't get all of your doge back just because they didn't lose your doge while someone who has 1 btc there gets nothing because they lost BTC, that's not how it works. Especially now that they've admitted that they are insolvent. Everyone has to share the fucking equally, not just the people who lost certain coins. Giving you are your doge back while they are insolvent moves them into a new version of law breaking.

[Gallagan]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

That's not quite correct - they may have lost BTC and LTC but they have other coins and should have returned them. For example here is their doge cold wallet address:

https://bitinfocharts.com/dogecoin/address/DDTtqnuZ5kfRT5qh2c7sNtqrJmV3iXYdGG

There are coins there, which means they can return doge to customers if they choose - am not sure why this didn't happen.

this is where things get complicated, and why, again, you are fucked because you gave your coins to someone else who is an asshole.

if they really lost those bitcoins and are going to declare bankruptcy, they can't just give you back your doge.

using round numbers for example, if they owe people 1 million dollars, but only have 500k of assets, everyone needs to share the burden equally (unless there are some creditors who have priority for some reason.) You don't get all of your doge back just because they didn't lose your doge while someone who has 1 btc there gets nothing because they lost BTC, that's not how it works. Especially now that they've admitted that they are insolvent. Everyone has to share the fucking equally, not just the people who lost certain coins. Giving you are your doge back while they are insolvent moves them into a new version of law breaking.

As far as I know they opened a few wallets so they have already crossed that bridge and are a new version of a$$holes

[Phildo]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

That's not quite correct - they may have lost BTC and LTC but they have other coins and should have returned them. For example here is their doge cold wallet address:

https://bitinfocharts.com/dogecoin/address/DDTtqnuZ5kfRT5qh2c7sNtqrJmV3iXYdGG

There are coins there, which means they can return doge to customers if they choose - am not sure why this didn't happen.

this is where things get complicated, and why, again, you are fucked because you gave your coins to someone else who is an asshole.

if they really lost those bitcoins and are going to declare bankruptcy, they can't just give you back your doge.

using round numbers for example, if they owe people 1 million dollars, but only have 500k of assets, everyone needs to share the burden equally (unless there are some creditors who have priority for some reason.) You don't get all of your doge back just because they didn't lose your doge while someone who has 1 btc there gets nothing because they lost BTC, that's not how it works. Especially now that they've admitted that they are insolvent. Everyone has to share the fucking equally, not just the people who lost certain coins. Giving you are your doge back while they are insolvent moves them into a new version of law breaking.

As far as I know they opened a few wallets so they have already crossed that bridge and are a new version of a$$holes

Doing it before doesn't mean than could or should do it again.

If they are working with authorities and declaring bankruptcy, doing it will just create more debt and get them in more trouble. If they are just running with the money they have, why would they give any more of it back when they can just keep it all?

[Ayle56]

They're legal situation is that they have not paid what they owed, and have done absolutely nothing to pay back what they owe.

That's not quite correct - they may have lost BTC and LTC but they have other coins and should have returned them. For example here is their doge cold wallet address:

https://bitinfocharts.com/dogecoin/address/DDTtqnuZ5kfRT5qh2c7sNtqrJmV3iXYdGG

There are coins there, which means they can return doge to customers if they choose - am not sure why this didn't happen.

this is where things get complicated, and why, again, you are fucked because you gave your coins to someone else who is an asshole.

if they really lost those bitcoins and are going to declare bankruptcy, they can't just give you back your doge.

using round numbers for example, if they owe people 1 million dollars, but only have 500k of assets, everyone needs to share the burden equally (unless there are some creditors who have priority for some reason.) You don't get all of your doge back just because they didn't lose your doge while someone who has 1 btc there gets nothing because they lost BTC, that's not how it works. Especially now that they've admitted that they are insolvent. Everyone has to share the fucking equally, not just the people who lost certain coins. Giving you are your doge back while they are insolvent moves them into a new version of law breaking.

As far as I know they opened a few wallets so they have already crossed that bridge and are a new version of a$$holes

Doing it before doesn't mean than could or should do it again.

If they are working with authorities and declaring bankruptcy, doing it will just create more debt and get them in more trouble. If they are just running with the money they have, why would they give any more of it back when they can just keep it all?

You can view a snapshot of which wallets were open for withdrawals on March 26, just before the website was put into maintenance mode here.


http://web.archive.org/web/20160326215542/https://www.cryptsy.com/pages/status

Less than half the coins were open for withdrawals, and the withdraw-able ones were mostly worthless. Almost all the high value coins had withdrawals frozen. If they are just running with the money they might have opened withdrawals for a few worthless coins to buy themselves some time.

[Ayle56]

There's now a court order stopping them running with the money, Cryptsy's been placed under receivership by a court. Big Vern say's he's still travelling in China and didn't go to the court, or respond to questions about the receivership. All customers will have to wait until the receiver decides who get what like with Gox.


http://www.coindesk.com/cryptsy-assets-frozen-as-florida-court-appoints-receiver/

The order grants the receiver power to take control of “all cryptocurrencies, monies, funds, property, and other assets” and to oversee any claims against the exchange. The order prohibits anyone with control of Cryptsy assets from selling or transferring them.

[outatime1]

There's now a court order stopping them running with the money, Cryptsy's been placed under receivership by a court. Big Vern say's he's still travelling in China and didn't go to the court, or respond to questions about the receivership. All customers will have to wait until the receiver decides who get what like with Gox.


http://www.coindesk.com/cryptsy-assets-frozen-as-florida-court-appoints-receiver/

The order grants the receiver power to take control of “all cryptocurrencies, monies, funds, property, and other assets” and to oversee any claims against the exchange. The order prohibits anyone with control of Cryptsy assets from selling or transferring them.

I wonder if Cryptsy had any assets.  I don't imagine that they had very much left unless they are including the Project investors company.

[X68N]

I think they dont lost only 15% like vern said in his Blog i think he lost all.
Because on some altoins he claimed to release them But when you try to withdraw more that 1-10 coins they just dont execute.

see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407887.0


Only way is a court case or a private bounty hunter in my opinion (my fundraising idea ).
now 4 Months have passed without any improvement.

[alyssa85]

There's now a court order stopping them running with the money, Cryptsy's been placed under receivership by a court. Big Vern say's he's still travelling in China and didn't go to the court, or respond to questions about the receivership. All customers will have to wait until the receiver decides who get what like with Gox.


http://www.coindesk.com/cryptsy-assets-frozen-as-florida-court-appoints-receiver/

The order grants the receiver power to take control of “all cryptocurrencies, monies, funds, property, and other assets” and to oversee any claims against the exchange. The order prohibits anyone with control of Cryptsy assets from selling or transferring them.

That's interesting. If they've lost 15% of the coins, they should then be able to repay 85% of people's holdings, which is better than getting nothing at all. However, receivers cost money and they deduct their costs from the assets too..

[outatime1]

There's now a court order stopping them running with the money, Cryptsy's been placed under receivership by a court. Big Vern say's he's still travelling in China and didn't go to the court, or respond to questions about the receivership. All customers will have to wait until the receiver decides who get what like with Gox.


http://www.coindesk.com/cryptsy-assets-frozen-as-florida-court-appoints-receiver/

The order grants the receiver power to take control of “all cryptocurrencies, monies, funds, property, and other assets” and to oversee any claims against the exchange. The order prohibits anyone with control of Cryptsy assets from selling or transferring them.

That's interesting. If they've lost 15% of the coins, they should then be able to repay 85% of people's holdings, which is better than getting nothing at all. However, receivers cost money and they deduct their costs from the assets too..

I got the impression that they had already paid out withdrawals over the last 1.5 years they were open and had to stop when that 85% ran out.  They weren't telling us that they lost money until they couldn't pay out any more withdrawals because they were trying to keep the ponzi scheme going.  That's what I assume happened.

[Aurophilicity]

New PDF's released on http://cryptsyreceivership.com .

This includes information on how to submit a claim if you hold crypto-currency at Cryptsy (page 37):

http://cryptsyreceivership.com/v1/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Oct-26-2106-Class-Action-and-Receivership-Settlement-Agreement.pdf