bitfloor issues?

[SpottedMarley]

From what I understand after reading AudenX's latest email update is that the issue is with the size of the check (based on everyone who has provided the amount they are owed it is at least half a million and perhaps much more) and the enormous amount of regulative red tape that any bank would be required by FinCen laws to go through in order to accept a check of that size from anyone. When the bank trying to deposit the check carries out their required due diligence they will contact the issuing bank (Chase, I believe) to learn as much about the check as possible. When that bank learns about Roman, Bitfloor and that the money is related to Bitcoin, most banks will want nothing to do with the funds.

They dont want to risk being tied to laundering .. at least not on the small-time level.

[Minor Miner]

- snip -
Of course this isn't a class action, but maybe that will help you understand an attorney's trust account that is already opened with a bank.
For crying out loud, a casino in Las Vegas will pretty much let you deposit it into an offshore account no questions asked.

So you have found someone specific who has committed to accepting this check in an account that BitFloor can use to disburse the funds?  Horray!  Please let us know where/who.  As soon as I talk to them and confirm that you are being honest, I'll personally fly to California grab Roman by the collar and drag him to the bank so I can get my money (and all of you can too).

Worst case he could cash (yes, cash) the check at the bank that issued it.   The "cash" could then be given to escrow opened by the attorney.   Any lawyer could open an escrow account to hold these funds with the check.  This is BS.    More likely, there are going to be HUGE problems because when you go bankrupt (officially since he was probably bankrupt BEFORE the 1st hack and just was not smart enough to know it) the receiver will go back and collect ALL the money that was paid out in the last 90 days and re-distribute it to all the people owed money.    I cannot even imagine what a clusterfuck this completely disorganized guy that looks for couches to crash on has left for an adult to clean up.
Anyone ever hear of a term call segregated accounts?    Hmmm.   You think there might be a problem because Roman has never heard of a seg account?

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
Worst case he could cash (yes, cash) the check at the bank that issued it.   The "cash" could then be given to escrow opened by the attorney.   Any lawyer could open an escrow account to hold these funds with the check. 
- snip -

Have you talked to the issuing bank and confirmed that they will allow him to withdraw the necesary amount of cash?  Have you found a specific attorney who has agreed to escrow the funds? Horray!  Please let us know where/who.  As soon as I talk to them and confirm that you are being honest, I'll personally fly to California grab Roman by the collar and drag him to the bank so I can get my money (and all of you can too).

[Minor Miner]

- snip -
Worst case he could cash (yes, cash) the check at the bank that issued it.   The "cash" could then be given to escrow opened by the attorney.   Any lawyer could open an escrow account to hold these funds with the check. 
- snip -

Have you talked to the issuing bank and confirmed that they will allow him to withdraw the necesary amount of cash?  Have you found a specific attorney who has agreed to escrow the funds? Horray!  Please let us know where/who.  As soon as I talk to them and confirm that you are being honest, I'll personally fly to California grab Roman by the collar and drag him to the bank so I can get my money (and all of you can too).

The issuing bank MUST redeem the check.   You understand that correct?  You have some comprehension of the law correct?   Stop trolling.   Get me the issuing bank's name and the name on the check and I will confirm it for you but BY LAW the bank must HONOR the check they have written.   You cannot write a check that cannot clear, understand?   Start using google to educate yourself and stop using cut and paste to post the same spam over and over again.   

[SpottedMarley]

The issuing bank MUST redeem the check.   You understand that correct?  You have some comprehension of the law correct?   Stop trolling.   Get me the issuing bank's name and the name on the check and I will confirm it for you but BY LAW the bank must HONOR the check they have written.   You cannot write a check that cannot clear, understand?   Start using google to educate yourself and stop using cut and paste to post the same spam over and over again.  

I'm glad somebody replied to that ... i'm too tired to. It often worries me that many people just naturally think banks can do whatever the hell they want to.. like issue a check and then refuse to cash it. And that's just normal and okay.

[ProfMac]

you were a professor, and you had no bank account?

LOL.  We are paid well enough to have bank accounts, but not by much.

I have an active bank account back home.  I did not have one where I was "working at a temporary remote location" out of state.  There are good reasons to have a local account, even if it means opening and closing an account each year.

[ProfMac]

I've talked to a couple of attorneys since we posted now, and they see no reason that accepting a check from a closed account, and creating a settlement agreement with all of the customers, that the bank would have any problems letting the check be deposited into their trust account.

After you identify these attorneys and are certain that they will actually accept the check and disburse the funds in a manner that keeps the FinCEN concerns clean, and you have a name and telephone number, the next step is for you to PM AudenX with that information. 

It is not good enough for them to say, yeah, in principle there is no problem.  They have to actually be willing to do it.

It is, of course, a part of any settlement agreement whether you get a facilitator's fee.  I can't find the part of my post where I claimed to be a member of a committee or have any specific authority.

[ProfMac]

The issuing bank MUST redeem the check.   You understand that correct?  You have some comprehension of the law correct?   Stop trolling.   Get me the issuing bank's name and the name on the check and I will confirm it for you but BY LAW the bank must HONOR the check they have written.   You cannot write a check that cannot clear, understand?   Start using google to educate yourself and stop using cut and paste to post the same spam over and over again.  

I'm glad somebody replied to that ... i'm too tired to. It often worries me that many people just naturally think banks can do whatever the hell they want to.. like issue a check and then refuse to cash it. And that's just normal and okay.

My head hurts.  Do I read that the people who don't trust Roman with a check want him to stroll down the street with a fist full of cash in his pocket?

I'm more comfortable with the check and a wait.

[yeti_alchemist]

My head hurts.  Do I read that the people who don't trust Roman with a check want him to stroll down the street with a fist full of cash in his pocket?

I'm more comfortable with the check and a wait.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

Seriously, hasn't ANYONE seen Dumb and Dumber?

[Minor Miner]

The issuing bank MUST redeem the check.   You understand that correct?  You have some comprehension of the law correct?   Stop trolling.   Get me the issuing bank's name and the name on the check and I will confirm it for you but BY LAW the bank must HONOR the check they have written.   You cannot write a check that cannot clear, understand?   Start using google to educate yourself and stop using cut and paste to post the same spam over and over again.  

I'm glad somebody replied to that ... i'm too tired to. It often worries me that many people just naturally think banks can do whatever the hell they want to.. like issue a check and then refuse to cash it. And that's just normal and okay.

My head hurts.  Do I read that the people who don't trust Roman with a check want him to stroll down the street with a fist full of cash in his pocket?
I'm more comfortable with the check and a wait.

No.  Let's say this is BofA.  The check Roman would have received in the mail would have been issued by BofA to Bitfloor or to Roman (that we do not know but it does not matter as long as Roman is the person that is authorize to sign for Bitfloor).   It is the LAW they must redeem the check that is written against their bank.  LAW.   He can demand cash (that is his RIGHT).  Let's assume this a $1Million, they would not give him cash, they would give him a bank draft which his lawyer could open escrow with.   But this whole conversation is STUPID because you can open escrow with the CHECK that BY LAW the bank MUST cash. 
From this escrow fund, the lawyer can start paying the people owed money 10 cents on the dollar (my best guess at what you have a chance of seeing).   And yes, this lawyer will get paid well.   But this will take FOREVER, because legally all the people who lost money because of Roman's first clusterfuck will also have a claim and it will take months to even confirm an accurate list of who is owed money.   
My bet is there is no check.   There is already an account opened by a lawyer with the money in it now.
For christ's sake, you all realize that Madoff's accounts were closed and Baker and Hostettler did not have a problem opening accounts to "cash" the check for his remaining balance and deposit all the funds they went and collected from the people that had been previously paid out right?   This is getting silly.
The people that should be concerned are the ones that cashed out in the last 90 days of operation.   You will be getting called and the money will go back into the "kitty".

[Rassah]

The issuing bank MUST redeem the check.   You understand that correct?  You have some comprehension of the law correct?   Stop trolling.   Get me the issuing bank's name and the name on the check and I will confirm it for you but BY LAW the bank must HONOR the check they have written.   You cannot write a check that cannot clear, understand?   Start using google to educate yourself and stop using cut and paste to post the same spam over and over again.  

I'm glad somebody replied to that ... i'm too tired to. It often worries me that many people just naturally think banks can do whatever the hell they want to.. like issue a check and then refuse to cash it. And that's just normal and okay.

My head hurts.  Do I read that the people who don't trust Roman with a check want him to stroll down the street with a fist full of cash in his pocket?
I'm more comfortable with the check and a wait.

No.  Let's say this is BofA.  The check Roman would have received in the mail would have been issued by BofA to Bitfloor or to Roman (that we do not know but it does not matter as long as Roman is the person that is authorize to sign for Bitfloor).   It is the LAW they must redeem the check that is written against their bank.  LAW.   He can demand cash (that is his RIGHT).  Let's assume this a $1Million, they would not give him cash, they would give him a bank draft which his lawyer could open escrow with.   But this whole conversation is STUPID because you can open escrow with the CHECK that BY LAW the bank MUST cash. 
From this escrow fund, the lawyer can start paying the people owed money 10 cents on the dollar (my best guess at what you have a chance of seeing).   And yes, this lawyer will get paid well.   But this will take FOREVER, because legally all the people who lost money because of Roman's first clusterfuck will also have a claim and it will take months to even confirm an accurate list of who is owed money.   
My bet is there is no check.   There is already an account opened by a lawyer with the money in it now.
For christ's sake, you all realize that Madoff's accounts were closed and Baker and Hostettler did not have a problem opening accounts to "cash" the check for his remaining balance and deposit all the funds they went and collected from the people that had been previously paid out right?   This is getting silly.
The people that should be concerned are the ones that cashed out in the last 90 days of operation.   You will be getting called and the money will go back into the "kitty".

*yawn* I hope no one takes this guy and his unsubstantiated FUD seriously.

[infested999]

So one thing we know is that his day-to-day expenses are being paid for out of the BitFloor accounts, he has no other source of income but is flying to New York once in a while with no problem. So even if everybody gets their money it will only be a % of what is was originally, with the percentage going down each day.

Now onto the check

1) He took the money and ran, he's already going bankrupt so it can't get any worse, he might as well. All of his customers are too dumb to get their money back anyway.

2) BoA really did write him a worthless check that he can't cash anywhere. In this case everyone who had an account learn a valuable lesson, and that will be to never do business in the USA because the FBI will fuck you up.

[joesmoe2012]

hmmm, this is starting to look worse and worse.

At first I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, now I just don't know.

[Rassah]

So one thing we know is that his day-to-day expenses are being paid for out of the BitFloor accounts...

We do? [citation needed]

[yeti_alchemist]

Sigh.

[joesmoe2012]

So one thing we know is that his day-to-day expenses are being paid for out of the BitFloor accounts...

We do? [citation needed]

From what he's posting on twitter, nobodies paying his personal accounts...

[Entropy-uc]

*yawn* I hope no one takes this guy and his unsubstantiated FUD seriously.

It must be exhausting for you trying to pretend that you haven't lost your money to Roman.  Keep trying to bury your head in the sand.  It's sure to work someday.

If Roman actually had the money to pay his debts it would be trivially easy to make the payments to the vast majority of his customers.  What is lacking is will on his part to actually pay. 

When the first 'hack' occurred, I suspected Bitfloor was a money losing operation and Roman had been dipping into client funds to maintain his operations.  The incredible story and delays associated with this latest display of incompetence on Roman's part make that scenario all the more plausible.

If I were communicating with his lawyer, I would be asking for documentation that demonstrates Roman had not used client funds for his own purposes.  I would also be looking for proof that no one has recieved preferential payment from the time that Roman was notified his account was being closed.  Proof of the actual closure and the justification for the decision would be good as well.  Much like the last hack, there has never been any evidence presented that supports Roman's tale.

[infested999]

Looks like we have a solution: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160292.msg2332048#msg2332048

Game theory in practice.  ;-)

Come on Matthew, it's your own money your taking. You're just preventing people from stealing your money. It is not your fault nor your responsibility that they are stealing from others.

In some cases that is true, but in the case of bitcoinica for example, lets say they only had 50% of the owed funds left. Would you ask for 100% or would you recommend a fair even settlement for everyone?

A nice sentiment but it only works if all actors are fair.

It only takes one person to think only of themselves first and then everyone will do it so with the likelihood of there being at least one person doing this, the best course of action is to get whatever you can because it's possible you might end up with nothing.

Speaking of practice, there is a legal procedure called interpleader, which basically legitimizes the pro rata distribution of the ramaining funds. However, you can put up a fight, and claim the whole amount, for example based on the prior judgement in your favor, or whatever reason that would compel the other parties' lawyers to accept your terms.

As long as Roman didn't spend more than 50% of the funds, we would sign off on this.

[ProfMac]

If I were communicating with his lawyer, I would be asking for documentation that demonstrates Roman had not used client funds for his own purposes.  I would also be looking for proof that no one has recieved preferential payment from the time that Roman was notified his account was being closed.  Proof of the actual closure and the justification for the decision would be good as well.  Much like the last hack, there has never been any evidence presented that supports Roman's tale.

Documentation is good.

I'm fairly open to the point that it causes me trouble, but for the life of me I can't understand any reason to avoid posting an image of the check.

[Rassah]

It must be exhausting for you trying to pretend that you haven't lost your money to Roman.  Keep trying to bury your head in the sand.  It's sure to work someday.

Oh no, I'm not pretending at all. I've pretty much written off the $25,000 I've lost in this whole fiasco. I'm just annoyed at all the paranoid people coming up with crazy, unsubstantiated opinions about what must be happening, and stating those opinions as fact, while drowning out actual real information, however rarely it comes.

I still have some faith that other people who are waiting on this USD check repayment will receive most, if not all, of their money back, but I'm painfully aware how difficult it can be to actually cash in a big check with a new account. A few years ago I had a painful personal experience of trying to open an account with a $6,000,000,000 check from the Rothchild's, but no bank in the world wanted to touch it, despite lawyers flying around the world to meet the bankers personally, and as a result an immensely important project fell through once the check expired after a year. I know Roman's problem isn't anywhere near as difficult as mine, though with Bitcoin's reputation it might be, and I do know just how much of douchebags bankers can be.