MtGox withdrawal delays [Gathering]

[DrApricot]

On the other hand, I was disappointed by the lack of any questions about the accounting method that will be used to define the claim of each client.  Is everybody still assuming that his claim is just his final MtGOX account balance?  There may be unwelcome surprises there.

Yep!  Put it also on my blog:
http://www.olivere.de/blog/archives/2014/11/30/open_letter_to_mtgox_trustee/
The task of the trustee is to disappoint as few people as possible. Otherwise he will drown in lawsuits and counter-measures.

Well, here is your first surprise.  It is NOT the creditors who decide the way claims are to be computed and how the spoils are returned.  There are laws and precedents;

[................]

And that is one of the reasons that may force the truestee to ignore the account balances, and use some other formula to compute the amount owed to each client.

To me, this case seems very different than your normal bankruptcy liquidation. Should you count the depositors' coins, which now appear to be property of the Mt. Gox estate, the company is neither illiquid nor insolvent. In reality, the trustee holds at least $75,000,000 in bitcoin given today's prices. Many small companies would love to be in such an enviable position as to have so much cash lying around. Of course, those funds are now in the trustee's hands, yet there was really no reason for Mt. Gox to ever even declare bankruptcy in the first place. The story about later finding the 200,000 BTC in an "old format" wallet is quite dubious, and more than likely is a complete fabrication. It essentially says,"the dog ate my homework." ("We didn't realize the company wasn't bankrupt, because we couldn't find our 200K coins" - LOL)

Then, under these circumstances, this legal proceeding can be viewed as more of a legal smoke screen puffed up in order to obfuscate any misdeeds. Kolin's report took note of the great amount of secrecy that is taking place around all this in Tokyo. The lack of transparency seems to imply there really is something serious to hide.

The popular media have been encouraging the public to believe this deplorable situation is all Mark Karpeles' fault, and nobody looks further. However, the explanation of who really is to blame could be hiding in plain sight, if only one were to look. (That's not to say, MK didn't do something uncool, but exactly what he did or didn't do has never been firmly established.)

[1714259945]

1714259945

[1714259945]

1714259945

[JorgeStolfi]

To me, this case seems very different than your normal bankruptcy liquidation.

Maybe, but there have been so many bankruptcies since WWII that surely there are cases that are similar enough to establish a precedent.  A lawyer would know whether there are precedents that can be used to support your preferred viewpoint, whatever it is.

It is totally useless to discuss what you or I think would be the "right" way to do it without knowing the laws and precedents.

Should you count the depositors' coins, which now appear to be property of the Mt. Gox estate, the company is neither illiquid nor insolvent. In reality, the trustee holds at least $75,000,000 in bitcoin given today's prices [...]  there was really no reason for Mt. Gox to ever even declare bankruptcy in the first place.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  By their own books, MtGOX owed their clients more than 800'000 BTC, worth more than 500 million USD then, more than 300 million USD today; not counting the USD balances.  Even after "finding" those 220'000 BTC, it still had only 1/4 of the bitcoins and money that it owed, and had no hope of earning enough fees in a reasonable time to cover the difference.  That is what "insolvent" means.  

When a company is insolvent, by definition it is unable to pay all its creditors.  If the concept of bankruptcy did not exist, when news get out that a company is insolvent, every creditor would sue it in order to get his money; the first ones may succeed, many would go empty-handed.  The purpose of the bankruptcy laws is, first, to prevent that flood of separate lawsuits; then, let an impartial judge evaluate whether there is any chance of the company becoming solvent again in a reasonable time; and, if not, guarantee that the remaining assets are distributed to the creditors as fairly as possible.

Kolin's report took note of the great amount of secrecy that is taking place around all this in Tokyo. The lack of transparency seems to imply there really is something serious to hide.

There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding.  The trustee is not the new manager of MtGOX, who is supposed to answer to the clients and try to make their wishes.  MtGOX is no more, there is only a messy pile of assets that the court must try to untangle and dispose according to the law.  The trustee works for the judge, not for the former clients, and is obliged to answer to him only.  

[DrApricot]

To me, this case seems very different than your normal bankruptcy liquidation.

Maybe, but there have been so many bankruptcies since WWII that surely there are cases that are similar enough to establish a precedent.  A lawyer would know whether there are precedents that can be used to support your preferred viewpoint, whatever it is.

I'm not sure at all that I have any preferred viewpoint, yet due to Mt. Gox's novelty as well as  its huge size, it is rather unique, and undoubtedly will be quite some challenge to the legal authorities in terms of its complexity.

Kolin's report took note of the great amount of secrecy that is taking place around all this in Tokyo. The lack of transparency seems to imply there really is something serious to hide.

There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding.  The trustee is not the new manager of MtGOX, who is supposed to answer to the clients and try to make their wishes.  MtGOX is no more, there is only a messy pile of assets that the court must try to untangle and dispose according to the law.  The trustee works for the judge, not for the former clients, and is obliged to answer to him only.  

Technically, it does seem correct that Kobayashi probably works only for the judge. I'm not a lawyer, but still I'm pretty sure the court's intent though is to at least try and be as fair as possible to the depositors under these very difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure I would ever call 220,000 BTC a "messy pile of assets." It would smell rather sweet to me.

It appears that the bankruptcy liquidation route was largely unnecessary, and could have been chosen primarily in order to evade having Mark Karpeles testify in a Texas hearing last April. See http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/mt.goxflap.pdf If that is truly the case, then the company may have been fraudulently pushed into liquidation. It seems now that Karpeles will never have to travel to the U.S. and testify.

[OhShei8e]

MtGOX is no more, there is only a messy pile of assets that the court must try to untangle and dispose according to the law.  The trustee works for the judge, not for the former clients, and is obliged to answer to him only.  

Do you think the trustee would be able to auction the Gox coins like it is done for the SR coins at the moment? Who would like to buy or exchange these Gox coins of the "former clients"? Coins with a big red flag on it.
The trustee can maybe sell at a ridiculous discount and the buyers should remain anonymous forever. In the end everyone would lose. What would be the point of it all? I think that the matter is handled much more down-to-earth. Our legal system is much more flexible and no religion.

[Udyr]

so this thread is about 1 year old, but did stuff get liquidated for mt gox customers?

220,000 btc is so mind blowing..

[JorgeStolfi]

due to Mt. Gox's novelty as well as  its huge size, it is rather unique, and undoubtedly will be quite some challenge to the legal authorities in terms of its complexity.

The Madoff ponzi was much bigger than MtGOX: 64 billion US$. WorldCom, Enron, Lehmann Bros, Washington Mutual, were many times bigger than MtGOX, and much more complicated, with dozens of subsidiaries, branches, etc.. Even the Brazilian oil company OGX and the Brazilian MLM scam TelexFree were much bigger.

In Japan there was, for example, memory manufacturer Elpida (5.5 billion $) and Japan Airlines (at least 10 billion $).  (JAL was one case when the bankruptcy did not end in liquidation: the government bailed it out in part, and put pressure on creditors to suspend their demands and give it a chance, so it was back in normal operation after 2 years.)

I'm still not sure I would ever call 220,000 BTC a "messy pile of assets." It would smell rather sweet to me.

You cannot consider only the pluses and ignore the minuses.  When it closed, MtGOX did not have 220'000 BTC, it had minus 660'000 BTC.

Sunlot wanted to do just that: convince the Japanese court to stop the liquidation and sell them all the MtGOX assets -- including the 220'000 BTC -- for 1 BTC, but without the 660'000 BTC debt to their clients.  That would have been very sweet idned -- for Sunlot, not at all for the clients.

Those 220'000 coins indeed are a relatively uncomplicated part of the assets (although they may have to be auctioned; if not, returning them as BTC may be a big legal and accounting headache).  The messy parts include the loans of 13 million dollars to mark and his other companies; the money in various bank accounts; the suspended Coinlab lawsuit; the assets of the US subsidiary (and others perhaps); and understanding what happened to the 660'000 missing coins.

It appears that the bankruptcy liquidation route was largely unnecessary,  [ ... ] and could have been chosen primarily in order to evade having Mark Karpeles testify in a Texas hearing last April. See http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/mt.goxflap.pdf If that is truly the case, then the company may have been fraudulently pushed into liquidation. It seems now that Karpeles will never have to travel to the U.S. and testify.

The decision to liquidate the company was totally inevitable given that its obligations were  ~500 M$ more than its assets.  Far from being "fraudulent", the decision to liquidate MtGOX may be the only part of this saga that was totally transparent and undeniably correct under the law...

The purpose of the bankruptcy law is precisely to suspend any creditors' lawsuits already underway, and block any new ones.  It will not prevent more specific lawsuits in the future, civil or criminal, against the people involved -- e.g. for fraudulent management (if Kobayashi does not start some himself).  But the civil lawsuits against the company MtGOX will be aborted, and there will be no more point in starting new ones  -- because even the corpse of MtGOX will have ceased to exist.

By the way, when people say "file for bankruptcy", that is a short for "ask the courts for protection from creditors' lawsuits as specified in the bankruptcy law."

My understanding of what happened in the US courts is limited.  I think (not sure) that several things happened, in some order:

* MtGOX USA filed for bankruptcy protection in the US too, after MtGOX KK did so in Japan.

* An US judge aborted that MtGOX USA bankruptcy process because he concluded that it was best for the Japanese court to handle it too.

* Greene and Lack sued MtGOX in the US.  They claimed to have evidence of wrongdoings by MtGOX managers.

* The court requested Mark to show up to testify in the Greene & Lack case.  Mark was very relctant to do so.

* The Sunlot guys convinced Greene & Lack to withdraw their lawsuit and support Sunlot's plan to stop the liquidation and take over MtGOX.

It must be noted that Sunlot had already promised immunity to Gay-Bouchery and McCaleb, even before starting any investigation.  And they never replied when asked about whether they would extend that coutesy to Mark too.  if we are talkng of cover-ups and evading justice, then...

Also Sunlot never replied when asked whether GB and McC and Mark would get their share of the 220'000 together with (or before) the other clients.  (IIRC, Japanese liquidation law, like the US one, says that management is always last in the queue of creditors, so they should get nothing in this case.)

[DrApricot]

due to Mt. Gox's novelty as well as  its huge size, it is rather unique, and undoubtedly will be quite some challenge to the legal authorities in terms of its complexity.

The Madoff ponzi was much bigger than MtGOX: 64 billion US$. WorldCom, Enron, Lehmann Bros, Washington Mutual, were many times bigger than MtGOX, and much more complicated, with dozens of subsidiaries, branches, etc.. Even the Brazilian oil company OGX and the Brazilian MLM scam TelexFree were much bigger.

In Japan there was, for example, memory manufacturer Elpida (5.5 billion $) and Japan Airlines (at least 10 billion $).  (JAL was one case when the bankruptcy did not end in liquidation: the government bailed it out in part, and put pressure on creditors to suspend their demands and give it a chance, so it was back in normal operation after 2 years.)

It would be really great to see this matter settled in the "Japanese way" like JAL without having endless amounts of litigation. The bottom 80% of depositors could immediately be refunded their bitcoins with quite a bit of change left over from the 220K bitcoins held by the trustee. Then, the government could simply guarantee the funds of the remaining depositors--a relatively small number compared to the 80%--after selectively purging any accounts involved in the heist, money laundering, or other crime. Perhaps Mt. Gox could even be resurrected under the watchful eye of JADA.

[freedombit]

Hi Jorge. I have Bitcoin tied in this MtGox, so a vested interest in what is happening, trying to get my Bitcoin back. Otherwise, I'd probably be ignoring this thread like most people out there. I am very open minded about where the Bitcoin is and just considering every possibility that I or someone else can think of until I can rule it out. I am sharing this so you understand my position and motivation. I am curious about yours.

It is totally useless to discuss what you or I think would be the "right" way to do it without knowing the laws and precedents.

I actually think it is very useful to discuss what we think would be the “right” way. While there may be laws and precedents, that doesn’t mean the laws and precedents designed to create a better life for all of us actually do. I see no problem with learning from the past and starting with a blank slate.

Well, here is your first surprise.  It is NOT the creditors who decide the way claims are to be computed and how the spoils are returned.  There are laws and precedents; the trustee will propose suitable formulas and methods to the judge, and then the judge will decide.  I repeat, in case I was not suffirciently clear: the judge decides how the liquidation will happen, within the limits of laws and precedents, not the creditors.
 

The trustee works for the judge, not for the former clients, and is obliged to answer to him only. 

You may be right here, but I am pretty sure the judge works for the people of Japan. They recognize and accept his authority, and are entrusting him and the trustee to return as much as possible back to the DEPOSITORS and CREDITORS.

There are quite a few intelligent people, not only in Japan but across the world, watching this. Many of them are young and will eventually be running this world. Today they are forming an opinion on who they can trust when it is most important.

The Madoff ponzi was much bigger than MtGOX: 64 billion US$. WorldCom, Enron, Lehmann Bros, Washington Mutual, were many times bigger than MtGOX...

This assumes that Bitcoin will never become the currency of the world. While it is very possible Bitcoin may not reach these heights, what if it does? The Madoff ponzi would be but a grain on the monetary sand dunes of Bitcoin, much of which started  with this little company called MtGox.

If any central banker sees the potential and did not like what it could do to undermine their influence, they would try to stop it or hoard as much of it as they could before the tipping point... kind of like a pre-emptive strike.

Per Wiki:

The scholar Abraham D. Sofaer identified four key elements for justification of preemption:

    The nature and magnitude of the threat involved;
    The likelihood that the threat will be realized unless preemptive action is taken;
    The availability and exhaustion of alternatives to using force; and

By their own books, MtGOX owed their clients more than 800'000 BTC

How much faith do you put into MtGox's books? Even the current administrator claims the books are incomplete.

Far from being "fraudulent", the decision to liquidate MtGOX may be the only part of this saga that was totally transparent and undeniably correct under the law...

How is the decision to liquidate transparent and provably free of fraud? See my question on the books above. There has been absolutely no disclosure regarding the level of loss, if any actually exists.


Sorry, but there are just too many unknowns, and this whole thing sticks of politics.

[DrApricot]

Sorry, but there are just too many unknowns, and this whole thing sticks of politics.

A genuine sticky wicket, if ever there was one. ;-)

[JorgeStolfi]

I actually think it is very useful to discuss what we think would be the “right” way. While there may be laws and precedents, that doesn’t mean the laws and precedents designed to create a better life for all of us actually do. I see no problem with learning from the past and starting with a blank slate.

[ ... ] I am pretty sure the judge works for the people of Japan. They recognize and accept his authority, and are entrusting him and the trustee to return as much as possible back to the DEPOSITORS and CREDITORS.

There are quite a few intelligent people, not only in Japan but across the world, watching this. Many of them are young and will eventually be running this world. Today they are forming an opinion on who they can trust when it is most important.

OK, discussing what you would like to happen may be useful as a philosophical exercise, or if you intend to lobby Congress to change the laws at some time in the future.

However, that is pretty useless for the goal of recovering some of your loss at MtGOX.  Surely you agree that the judge cannot change the laws, nor ignore the precedents, right?

So, for example, if there is a law that says that any payout must be in yen, then the payout will be in yen, no matter how much the creditors dislike it. 

If the law says that the claims are to be computed as deposits minus withdrawals, that is what the judge will order, no matter what the creditors think of it.

If the trustee points out to the judge a case from 1957 that looks sufficiently similar to this one, in which the Mongolian Naval Treasury bonds that the company still had were auctioned rather than distributed as such, the judge will want to take the same decision his colleague took in 1957 -- even if the creditors find it absurd to compare bitcoins to those bonds.  It would take a good lawyer -- not a letter from the self-help group, not a blogpost by Antonopoulos, not a video Roger Ver, not an apparition of ghost of Satoshi in the courtroom -- to convince the judge that the 1957 precedent is not germane; preferably, by pointing out another case from 1962 that was decided the opposite way, and arguing -- withe the proper legal language and reasoning -- that MtGOX resembles said case more than the 1957 one.

This assumes that Bitcoin will never become the currency of the world. While it is very possible Bitcoin may not reach these heights, what if it does? The Madoff ponzi would be but a grain on the monetary sand dunes of Bitcoin, much of which started  with this little company called MtGox.

The future of bitcoin is totally irrelevant for the liquidation.  As in any process, the judge is bound to think only about the matter of the case, which is to fairly distribute the present value of the assets to the creditors.  I have pointed out before some practical reasons (apart from any explicit laws that may exist) that may convince the judge to order the auction of the coins, rather than their distribution as bitcoins.

Madoff's personal property, that was seized as part of the liquidation, included art pieces and luxury cars.  The courts in that case couldn't care less about the value that those items could have umpteen years in the future. It auctioned them, implicitly trusting that the auction bidders would consider such speculations when submitting their bids.

In the case of MtGOX's bitcoins, the question of future value is even less relevant -- because bitcoins are not unique works of art, but fungible commodities with a large market.  220'000 BTC is a lot bitcoins for one person to own or buy, but is still less than 2% of all bitcoins issued so far, and less than the volume traded in the exchanges in one day.   If those coins are auctioned for 37'000 ¥ apiece, the judge will not understand why giving 37'000 ¥ to a former client is less fair than giving him 1 BTC.  And, frankly, neither do I.

By their own books, MtGOX owed their clients more than 800'000 BTC

How much faith do you put into MtGox's books? Even the current administrator claims the books are incomplete.

I understand that you are questioning whether the company really owed >800'000 BTC, and/or whether it had really lost any BTC that it owed to the clients.  Is that so?

The decision to liquidate had to be taken according to the only data that the court had at the time, namely their books -- that showed the impossibility of MtGOX honoring its obligations to its clients.  The numbers that Mark submitted to the court are a matter of public record.

If the judge had considered the possibility that those numbers were false, that the insolvency was a big lie, and that the actual assets might in fact be sufficient to meet the actual obligations, that would be even more reason to liquidate the company.  How could the judge let the company keep working, if the company's insolvency was faked?  He would be approving the theft of real bitcoins from the real clients.

The suspicion of embezzlement and doctored books is in fact automatic in bankruptcy proceedings; that is why the court appoints a trustee with no connection to the company and no vested interest in it, and orders the company to turn all assets and internal records to him.  It is part of the trustee's job to check whether the books are consistent (and we already know that, in this case, they aren't, although the extent of the discrepancies is not known yet) and request criminal investigations by the police if it sees evidence of fraud (which Kobayashi apparently did)

That implied suspicion is also why the clients will have to explicitly submit their claims to the trustee, and he will have to validate them, before any payoff.  He cannot trust that the obligations in the company's books are legitimate.

[DrApricot]

I actually think it is very useful to discuss what we think would be the “right” way. While there may be laws and precedents, that doesn’t mean the laws and precedents designed to create a better life for all of us actually do. I see no problem with learning from the past and starting with a blank slate.

If the judge had considered the possibility that those numbers were false, that the insolvency was a big lie, and that the actual assets might in fact be sufficient to meet the actual obligations, that would be even more reason to liquidate the company.  How could the judge let the company keep working, if the company's insolvency was faked?  He would be approving the theft of real bitcoins from the real clients.

No, if the insolvency were faked, in order to sabotage a vital part of the bitcoin ecosystem, for the nefarious purpose of preemption, as freedombit has clearly stated, then the judge would have been making himself an accessory after the fact to fraud by permitting this bankruptcy hoax to proceed.

[OhShei8e]

In the case of MtGOX's bitcoins, the question of future value is even less relevant -- because bitcoins are not unique works of art, but fungible commodities with a large market.  220'000 BTC is a lot bitcoins for one person to own or buy, but is still less than 2% of all bitcoins issued so far, and less than the volume traded in the exchanges in one day.   If those coins are auctioned for 37'000 ¥ apiece, the judge will not understand
why giving 37'000 ¥ to a former client is less fair than giving him 1 BTC.  And, frankly, neither do I.

Two percent is pretty huge for a currency with a fixed amount of money.

if I do not get my fair share, I never will touch one of these gox coins until they are not mixed in homoeopathic doses with normal Bitcoins.
This is my money, whatever anyone else believes. Otherwise, I would not consider Bitcoin as free money any longer but as a new form of fiat,
where the state controls everything essential.

A little fiat field trip: Even if it were possible, as a trader it's prohibited by law to me to reject certain monetary units of the legal currency of my country.
In my case (I'm located in Germany) this is the Euro. But for example, I don't have to accept Dollars, I could but it's not a liability for a trader.
In Germany I could say: I don't accept Dollar notes which have serial numbers which end with the letter "A" but I will accept any other Dollar note.
That's because the Dollar is no legal tender in Germany. In the US is inverted. No one have to accept Euro in the US.
In Japan it's the Yen which have to be accepted by everyone. But no Dollars and no Euros.

And in all countries, no one, and I mean absolutely no one, can dictate to anyone to accept special units of Bitcoins.
Bitcoin is not a legal tender of any county.
 
Fungibility is one of the main reasons why state currencies exist. For me fungibility is a source of the evil.
The money of honest people is worth more than the money from slave traders, drug traffickers and fraudsters, because they have earned it honestly.
Fungibility is destroying our society. And that's one of the reasons why I love Bitcoin, because there is no such state-imposed fungibility.
Also it's technically very easy to red list specific parts of the block chain. That's pretty cool. So I have nothing more to do with all those bad things.
And I don't have to accept money which was stolen from me previously. This protects me from bad feelings that I would otherwise have for the people
who have taken my money away. I love the people, but not their money or what they are doing. Many of us handle it well the other way around. Right?
I condemn no one who handles it differently, but I do it my way.

Whatever will happen, I can live with each outcome. To blacklist those coins satisfied me as much as I would get my money back.
You can call me a stubborn idiot if you like but that is my last word on it. And that's the last thing I say on the subject for the time being.

[JorgeStolfi]

You can call me a stubborn idiot if you like but that is my last word on it. And that's the last thing I say on the subject for the time being.

I did not intend to call you anything; apologies if it sounded that way.  However, I got this impression that you are not very familiar with how the judicial system works.

I am not a lawyer either, but at work I have had to follow legal proceedings in various occasions, served as juror a few times, and even sued someone once (a lawyer, in fact -- and, amazingly, I won).  Sure, most of those experiences were here in Brazil, where the laws and legal standards are different from those of Japan; but the general principles that underlie the legal system seem to be the same (not surprisingly, since Brazil and japan both copied a lot of their government structures from the US).  In particular, everywhere it is the case that one must retain a lawyer to interact with the courts.  A court of law is totally unlike a private company, and you cannot demand or argue with a judge (or his appointed trustee) like you would with the manager of a bitcoin exchange.

Based on my limited experience, I would say that, if you wish to have any influence in the liquidation, you must absolutely hire a lawyer that understands the Japanese bankruptcy laws and precedents, ask him what can and cannot be done, and let him interact wth the trustee.   If you don't have the means or patience to do that, you should just wait for the trustee to figure out a plan that the judge approves, file your claims according to his instructions, and accept whatever you get from him.

[DrApricot]

You can call me a stubborn idiot if you like but that is my last word on it. And that's the last thing I say on the subject for the time being.

If you don't have the means or patience to do that, you should just wait for the trustee to figure out a plan that the judge approves, file your claims according to his instructions, and accept whatever you get from him.

This seems like rather pedestrian advice you are giving, and possibly even appropriate for the small business down the street which goes bankrupt, but does not take into consideration the uniqueness of this particular situation, which you apparently completely dismiss.

The issues of fraud in the Mt. Gox case have been swept under the carpet, and that's apparent for all to see by the awkward degree of secrecy surrounding the proceedings, as noted in Kolin's report. A wiser course of action is for depositors to remain ever-vigilant, and to register their concerns, rather than sit passively by and wait for their inevitable fleecing. semper vigilans!

[leopard2]

I cannot understand that it is not possible to put more pressure onto M.K. and other Gox employees to cooperate with the investigators - in the U.S. they could be heard as witnesses under obligation to tell the truth; also they could be jailed for contempt of court for not cooperating

Chances are that a lot of details would come to light once these people spend some time behind bars 

Is the Japanese legal system a toothless tiger, or is Mr. Kobayashi too friendly? Even if an outsider was stealing the coins, all the other information would then be credibly and without any gaps, show where in the process the coins were stolen.

Instead, the Gox bankruptcy looks like a foggy cloud where coins and money went in and out, mysteriously, and that stinks!

Pretty sure, in the U.S. the fog would have been cleared by now, M.K. would not be playing games with the FBI 

[JorgeStolfi]

I cannot understand that it is not possible to put more pressure onto M.K. and other Gox employees to cooperate with the investigators - in the U.S. they could be heard as witnesses under obligation to tell the truth; also they could be jailed for contempt of court for not cooperating

Pretty sure, in the U.S. the fog would have been cleared by now, M.K. would not be playing games with the FBI 

In the US you have the right refuse to say anything that could be used as proof against you.  (That constitutional amendment was intended to discourage the police from using torture to extract confessions from suspects, since such confessions are often bogus, and the police may end up torturing innocent people.  However, thanks to the CIA and TV, torture is now again fashionable in the US, so maybe they will amend the amendment soon...)

On the other hand, the Japanese police must already have interrogated Mark and other MtGOX managers and staff, for the investigation that Kobayashi requested.  But the police cannot be transparent while it is investigating a crime.  The findings will be published only after the investigation is closed, IF criminal charges are filed.  Then the relevant evidence and depositions will be attached to the case documents.

[DrApricot]

I cannot understand that it is not possible to put more pressure onto M.K. and other Gox employees to cooperate with the investigators - in the U.S. they could be heard as witnesses under obligation to tell the truth; also they could be jailed for contempt of court for not cooperating

Pretty sure, in the U.S. the fog would have been cleared by now, M.K. would not be playing games with the FBI 

On the other hand, the Japanese police must already have interrogated Mark and other MtGOX managers and staff, for the investigation that Kobayashi requested.  But the police cannot be transparent while it is investigating a crime.  The findings will be published only after the investigation is closed, IF criminal charges are filed.  Then the relevant evidence and depositions will be attached to the case documents.

Interviewing Mark could provide some very interesting information, but probably won't yield what happened to the missing $26 million in fiat bank deposits.

It's notable how Kraken will never be allowed to directly interview MK as part of their investigation, but rather is only allowed to pass their questions through Kobayashi to him. Similarly, Karpeles was not allowed to testify in Dallas last April. That's when Mt. Gox was pushed into liquidation so a trustee could be the only possible witness (never called). Mark himself has stated that he is subject to an NDA. Are they protecting the knowledge of what happened which he can reveal, or possibly that he doesn't even know what happened, and was set up? If the latter were the case, then the police should obviously cast a much wider net than merely the proprietor and employees of Mt. Gox.

[JorgeStolfi]

Similarly, Karpeles was not allowed to testify in Dallas last April. That's when Mt. Gox was pushed into liquidation so a trustee could be the only possible witness (never called). Mark himself has stated that he is subject to an NDA.

I don't recall that.  My recollection is that Mark refused to appear, with some weak excuses
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27032221
and eventually the lawsuit was called off by the plaintiffs (Greene and Lack) after they made a deal with Sunlot. 

"I am under a gag order from the FBI" is a good excuse to evade questions.  How do we know that such an order exists?  (Once you catch someone telling a straight-faced lie, you should not base any reasoning on anything he says or writes.)

[DrApricot]

Similarly, Karpeles was not allowed to testify in Dallas last April. That's when Mt. Gox was pushed into liquidation so a trustee could be the only possible witness (never called). Mark himself has stated that he is subject to an NDA.

I don't recall that.  My recollection is that Mark refused to appear, with some weak excuses
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27032221
and eventually the lawsuit was called off by the plaintiffs (Greene and Lack) after they made a deal with Sunlot.  

"I am under a gag order from the FBI" is a good excuse to evade questions.  How do we know that such an order exists?  (Once you catch someone telling a straight-faced lie, you should not base any reasoning on anything he says or writes.)

You are correct that MK didn't want to appear, and may have given some lame excuses, but the Dallas judge ordered him to appear. That's the point at which his attorneys, who had been advising him all along, went into overdrive and a liquidation ensued. How specifically, the liquidation phase was triggered, whether it was the judge's idea or Kobayashi's is unclear. Regardless, since Karpeles was no longer head of the company, but rather Kobayashi as trustee was, the latter was primed to become the new "foreign representative" in the Dallas proceedings, or else he could nominate someone for that role. See:

The related Chapter 15 case status conference that had been scheduled for April 24 in Dallas has been postponed to April 30 and it is a virtual certainty that a new foreign representative will be named in place of Mark Karpeles (whose deposition the American bankruptcy court previously had ordered). The new foreign representative could be Kobayashi or his designee to serve in that role. http://www.virtualcurrencyreport.com/2014/04/mt-gox-to-be-liquidated/

This is not an obscure point, but rather has been widely publicized. It was pretty clear that in no way was Mark to be allowed to testify in Dallas, whether he wanted to or not. There was even rumour that he could be arrested should he show up for the deposition.

[cafminer1]

Latest from MtGox

https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20141217_answers.pdf