My bank account's got robbed by European Commission. Over 700k is lost.

[UsernameBitcoin]

This sucks so bad for you. That $700k would now be worth well over $10,000,000. The EU commission should be ashamed of themselves. You did not deserve this. This is the reason why Bitcoin exists in the first place. It needs to take over the control banks and governments have over our assets. IT isn't right to lose $700,000 and no one cares (or at least no one who can do anything about it).

[1714927929]

1714927929

[1714927929]

1714927929

[1714927929]

1714927929

[1714927929]

1714927929

[keyzersoze]

Just get into crypto ASAP, and spread the word of what happened to you and other People’s hard earned money.
And hopefully we can move beyond this ridiculousness.

[Naoko]

it's horrible that this can be observed in the 21st century.. this is some kind of slavery...you earned money by working, and they were simply taken away... I am very glad that I live in another country where there is no such practice

[DoubleEdgeEX]

That´s a thread from 2013 but a few things need to be cleared and updated.

The Laiki bank was in governmental ownership since 2012 and the 100K guarantee was clear from the start. Yes, that they really enforce that option is crap but it was stated in the fine print.
Going to cyprus is by defintion a questionable move. The CySec is infamous for giving out licenses to the even most shabby fintech companies, most notoriously to the Get-rich-quick Binary Options brokers.
The EU has advantages if you know how to use them, like the passporting rule.

Anyway, in conclusion the story sounds to me of a mix of being careless, being greedy for tax reduction, and bad luck of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[cr1776]

That´s a thread from 2013 but a few things need to be cleared and updated.

The Laiki bank was in governmental ownership since 2012 and the 100K guarantee was clear from the start. Yes, that they really enforce that option is crap but it was stated in the fine print.
Going to cyprus is by defintion a questionable move. The CySec is infamous for giving out licenses to the even most shabby fintech companies, most notoriously to the Get-rich-quick Binary Options brokers.
The EU has advantages if you know how to use them, like the passporting rule.

Anyway, in conclusion the story sounds to me of a mix of being careless, being greedy for tax reduction, and bad luck of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is a difference between funds up to 100K being guaranteed and between funds being taken above a certain limit to pay a country's debts.  A huge one - it is the difference between a bank making bad decisions and politicians doing so.  And if I recall from the thread (it has been quite a while since I read it), he stated later they had the account for working capital - e.g. paying salaries for their employees etc.  Nothing shady, just money used for operations.

And the guy you replied to looks to be a link spammer anyway given the look of his 4 posts.

[600watt]

That´s a thread from 2013 but a few things need to be cleared and updated.

The Laiki bank was in governmental ownership since 2012 and the 100K guarantee was clear from the start. Yes, that they really enforce that option is crap but it was stated in the fine print.
Going to cyprus is by defintion a questionable move. The CySec is infamous for giving out licenses to the even most shabby fintech companies, most notoriously to the Get-rich-quick Binary Options brokers.
The EU has advantages if you know how to use them, like the passporting rule.

Anyway, in conclusion the story sounds to me of a mix of being careless, being greedy for tax reduction, and bad luck of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is a difference between funds up to 100K being guaranteed and between funds being taken above a certain limit to pay a country's debts.  A huge one - it is the difference between a bank making bad decisions and politicians doing so.  And if I recall from the thread (it has been quite a while since I read it), he stated later they had the account for working capital - e.g. paying salaries for their employees etc.  Nothing shady, just money used for operations.

And the guy you replied to looks to be a link spammer anyway given the look of his 4 posts.

in addition OP did not "go to cyprus" - he lived there.

[cr1776]

That´s a thread from 2013 but a few things need to be cleared and updated.

The Laiki bank was in governmental ownership since 2012 and the 100K guarantee was clear from the start. Yes, that they really enforce that option is crap but it was stated in the fine print.
Going to cyprus is by defintion a questionable move. The CySec is infamous for giving out licenses to the even most shabby fintech companies, most notoriously to the Get-rich-quick Binary Options brokers.
The EU has advantages if you know how to use them, like the passporting rule.

Anyway, in conclusion the story sounds to me of a mix of being careless, being greedy for tax reduction, and bad luck of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is a difference between funds up to 100K being guaranteed and between funds being taken above a certain limit to pay a country's debts.  A huge one - it is the difference between a bank making bad decisions and politicians doing so.  And if I recall from the thread (it has been quite a while since I read it), he stated later they had the account for working capital - e.g. paying salaries for their employees etc.  Nothing shady, just money used for operations.

And the guy you replied to looks to be a link spammer anyway given the look of his 4 posts.

in addition OP did not "go to cyprus" - he lived there.

Good point. He did live there...I think in the thread he said he moved to somewhere in the Caribbean after this.  I'd be interested in hearing an update.

[cr1776]

That´s a thread from 2013 but a few things need to be cleared and updated.

The Laiki bank was in governmental ownership since 2012 and the 100K guarantee was clear from the start. Yes, that they really enforce that option is crap but it was stated in the fine print.
Going to cyprus is by defintion a questionable move. The CySec is infamous for giving out licenses to the even most shabby fintech companies, most notoriously to the Get-rich-quick Binary Options brokers.
The EU has advantages if you know how to use them, like the passporting rule.

Anyway, in conclusion the story sounds to me of a mix of being careless, being greedy for tax reduction, and bad luck of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is a difference between funds up to 100K being guaranteed and between funds being taken above a certain limit to pay a country's debts.  A huge one - it is the difference between a bank making bad decisions and politicians doing so.  And if I recall from the thread (it has been quite a while since I read it), he stated later they had the account for working capital - e.g. paying salaries for their employees etc.  Nothing shady, just money used for operations.

And the guy you replied to looks to be a link spammer anyway given the look of his 4 posts.

in addition OP did not "go to cyprus" - he lived there.

Good point. He did live there...I think in the thread he said he moved to somewhere in the Caribbean after this.  I'd be interested in hearing an update.

I've just been reading the book "Bitcoin Billionaires" and it has something of a discussion about the events here.  Made me think of this topic.

[Vishnu.Reang]

in addition OP did not "go to cyprus" - he lived there.

A lot of people lost their money during the Cyprus bank deposit "haircut". I wanted to ask the OP about what happened to those funds after the haircut, but he has been inactive here for almost three years now (the last time he posted was in 2018, I believe). Ironically, a lot of foreign citizens (mostly Russians) lost their funds during this haircut. Many of them preferred the Cypriot banks, because the interest rates were higher when compared to the banks in their country.

[cr1776]

in addition OP did not "go to cyprus" - he lived there.

A lot of people lost their money during the Cyprus bank deposit "haircut". I wanted to ask the OP about what happened to those funds after the haircut, but he has been inactive here for almost three years now (the last time he posted was in 2018, I believe). Ironically, a lot of foreign citizens (mostly Russians) lost their funds during this haircut. Many of them preferred the Cypriot banks, because the interest rates were higher when compared to the banks in their country.

He did say something way up thread about moving to the Caribbean and doing his business from there.

[aesma]

in addition OP did not "go to cyprus" - he lived there.

A lot of people lost their money during the Cyprus bank deposit "haircut". I wanted to ask the OP about what happened to those funds after the haircut, but he has been inactive here for almost three years now (the last time he posted was in 2018, I believe). Ironically, a lot of foreign citizens (mostly Russians) lost their funds during this haircut. Many of them preferred the Cypriot banks, because the interest rates were higher when compared to the banks in their country.

Also Cyprus' banks were fine with laundering dirty Russian money : https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-takes-on-russias-favorite-money-haven-cyprus-1538316001 And Russian taxes were probably not paid on the money either.

It's a shame for the people affected that didn't do any of that...

[Twentyonepaylots]

How the hell isyour government even able to get a hold of your private assets? Like, this is eally brutal man. You working your ass off to reach a certain quota yet here they are taking everything like they are gsngsters in a dark alley. This not only would put a bad image in Cyprus's Name but in the whole EU and how they manage things. Most people hold them in high regard and then news like these pop out of nowhere.

[raidarksword]

That's a lot of money and end up loosing the hard earned money was heartbreaking. This is the essence of being a decentralized system will come just like bitcoin introduced to us that benefits of having full control of our money and assets without worrying being control by anyone like banks and government.

[DrBeer]

I reread the introduction - but I still don't understand what is the reason? Is the author not saying something or deliberately omitting some nuances? Perhaps the bank was problematic, but the author decided to ignore the warnings? Perhaps the counterparties were not clean on their hands or fell under financial monitoring, which they also always inform about? There must be real reasons and grounds for blocking funds. Just like that "because we wanted it" can only be in countries with totalitarian or criminal regimes. Can the author publish funds blocking protocols, official letters? It will be transparent, understandable and open ... And this looks one-sided

[cr1776]

I reread the introduction - but I still don't understand what is the reason? Is the author not saying something or deliberately omitting some nuances? Perhaps the bank was problematic, but the author decided to ignore the warnings? Perhaps the counterparties were not clean on their hands or fell under financial monitoring, which they also always inform about? There must be real reasons and grounds for blocking funds. Just like that "because we wanted it" can only be in countries with totalitarian or criminal regimes. Can the author publish funds blocking protocols, official letters? It will be transparent, understandable and open ... And this looks one-sided

You might read about the Cyprus financial crisis in 2013 if you want to understand more, to see what happened.  Regular people in Cyprus paid for the crimes of their corrupt political class.

Using bitcoin, the people of Cyprus wouldn't have had their money stolen.

e.g.
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/04/the-cyprus-banking-crisis-and-its-aftermath-bank-depositors-be-aware/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21814325
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–2013_Cypriot_financial_crisis

[aesma]

How the hell isyour government even able to get a hold of your private assets? Like, this is eally brutal man. You working your ass off to reach a certain quota yet here they are taking everything like they are gsngsters in a dark alley. This not only would put a bad image in Cyprus's Name but in the whole EU and how they manage things. Most people hold them in high regard and then news like these pop out of nowhere.

All governments can do this if it's deemed necessary. Pretty easy to make it legal if it isn't so already. Here it's not even really the government, banks were going to fail, the only way to save them was a haircut. In most EU banks there is an amount guaranteed by bank (for example in France 100000€), if you have more money in a bank, it isn't protected.

[cr1776]

How the hell isyour government even able to get a hold of your private assets? Like, this is eally brutal man. You working your ass off to reach a certain quota yet here they are taking everything like they are gsngsters in a dark alley. This not only would put a bad image in Cyprus's Name but in the whole EU and how they manage things. Most people hold them in high regard and then news like these pop out of nowhere.

All governments can do this if it's deemed necessary. Pretty easy to make it legal if it isn't so already. Here it's not even really the government, banks were going to fail, the only way to save them was a haircut. In most EU banks there is an amount guaranteed by bank (for example in France 100000€), if you have more money in a bank, it isn't protected.

Exactly.  There isn't a government in the world today that wouldn't seize (steal) everyone's assets if they decided it was necessary.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I reread the introduction - but I still don't understand what is the reason? Is the author not saying something or deliberately omitting some nuances? Perhaps the bank was problematic, but the author decided to ignore the warnings? Perhaps the counterparties were not clean on their hands or fell under financial monitoring, which they also always inform about? There must be real reasons and grounds for blocking funds. Just like that "because we wanted it" can only be in countries with totalitarian or criminal regimes. Can the author publish funds blocking protocols, official letters? It will be transparent, understandable and open ... And this looks one-sided

governments and banks can steal at will buddy, better get with the program.

In fact, after making a deposit at a bank it is no longer considered legally your money, it's an obligation on the bank to repay, i.e. it is a loan.

This is what all these "bail-in" laws have been put in place for, "The Great Reset" is coming. Some stupid people have too much money loaned to the banks ... and the stupid governments have too many debts to pay off after wasting it on all manner of hare-brained (socialist) schemes. Match made in heaven.

[DrBeer]

I reread the introduction - but I still don't understand what is the reason? Is the author not saying something or deliberately omitting some nuances? Perhaps the bank was problematic, but the author decided to ignore the warnings? Perhaps the counterparties were not clean on their hands or fell under financial monitoring, which they also always inform about? There must be real reasons and grounds for blocking funds. Just like that "because we wanted it" can only be in countries with totalitarian or criminal regimes. Can the author publish funds blocking protocols, official letters? It will be transparent, understandable and open ... And this looks one-sided

governments and banks can steal at will buddy, better get with the program.

In fact, after making a deposit at a bank it is no longer considered legally your money, it's an obligation on the bank to repay, i.e. it is a loan.

This is what all these "bail-in" laws have been put in place for, "The Great Reset" is coming. Some stupid people have too much money loaned to the banks ... and the stupid governments have too many debts to pay off after wasting it on all manner of hare-brained (socialist) schemes. Match made in heaven.

Somewhere I may agree with your thoughts, but not everything is so bad and a little wrong For example, in my country there is a so-called "deposit guarantee fund", which, albeit not fully, but insures such situations. The meaning of this fund is that the state fund accumulates funds at the expense of the same commercial banks, and guarantees that at the expense of this fund, if the bank cannot fulfill its obligations, an amount of up to $ 12k will be paid. This, of course, does not compensate for a $ 50k deposit, but most depositors do not keep such amounts on deposits.
And what happened in Cyprus is a reaction to the criminal acts of the government, the government that the people themselves chose and allowed to bring the economy to such a state. I will say this - I have been to Cyprus often (as a tourist), so the population there is quite lazy, although in their situation they would have to try harder and work better. But all the time they were waiting for handouts from the EU, aid, loans, i.e. waited for someone to solve their problems for them. The result is quite predictable, and private businesses suffered by inertia ...

[cr1776]

I reread the introduction - but I still don't understand what is the reason? Is the author not saying something or deliberately omitting some nuances? Perhaps the bank was problematic, but the author decided to ignore the warnings? Perhaps the counterparties were not clean on their hands or fell under financial monitoring, which they also always inform about? There must be real reasons and grounds for blocking funds. Just like that "because we wanted it" can only be in countries with totalitarian or criminal regimes. Can the author publish funds blocking protocols, official letters? It will be transparent, understandable and open ... And this looks one-sided

governments and banks can steal at will buddy, better get with the program.

In fact, after making a deposit at a bank it is no longer considered legally your money, it's an obligation on the bank to repay, i.e. it is a loan.

This is what all these "bail-in" laws have been put in place for, "The Great Reset" is coming. Some stupid people have too much money loaned to the banks ... and the stupid governments have too many debts to pay off after wasting it on all manner of hare-brained (socialist) schemes. Match made in heaven.

Somewhere I may agree with your thoughts, but not everything is so bad and a little wrong For example, in my country there is a so-called "deposit guarantee fund", which, albeit not fully, but insures such situations. The meaning of this fund is that the state fund accumulates funds at the expense of the same commercial banks, and guarantees that at the expense of this fund, if the bank cannot fulfill its obligations, an amount of up to $ 12k will be paid. This, of course, does not compensate for a $ 50k deposit, but most depositors do not keep such amounts on deposits.
And what happened in Cyprus is a reaction to the criminal acts of the government, the government that the people themselves chose and allowed to bring the economy to such a state. I will say this - I have been to Cyprus often (as a tourist), so the population there is quite lazy, although in their situation they would have to try harder and work better. But all the time they were waiting for handouts from the EU, aid, loans, i.e. waited for someone to solve their problems for them. The result is quite predictable, and private businesses suffered by inertia ...

I have to agree with this, although as you note, the guarantee fund wouldn't cover this since it was the government that imposed the seizure. 

I think most people here would agree (as does the OP in the thread) that if the OP had held his assets in bitcoin, the government couldn't have seized it.