BTC-e hacked ??

[deisik]

I asked you about licenses specifically, and how being licensed can help you unless you obtained that license directly from Uncle Sam's hands. So how would the license issued to Bitstamp by Luxembourg authorities help that "licensed" exchange in case the FBI thinks the exchange launders money and is involved in other criminal operations and activities (as they could come to think)? In short, is there any real difference between a "licensed" and "unlicensed" exchange (unless this license is confirmed by Washington, of course)?

The FBI, US government or similar can do _nothing_ about foreign companies. US laws applies in the US, not in other countries. What they can do it ask the country to block / shut down the exchange in case of suspicious activities, but it's 100% the target countries choice to do so (if they, say, want to keep a good relation with the US). If you are licenced, you have external auditors checking your exchange on a regular basis, all the government permissions, follow all available laws and anti-money-laundry precautions and so on. It is _definitely_ harder to motivate shutting down a legitimate business because the US wants you to, instead of an illegal money transfer operation breaking local laws and regulations and being suspected for laundry (something auditors would probably catch long before the US if that was the case). So yes, I'd say you are a lot safer on sites like Bitstamp.

You must be kidding, dude

The Swiss banks were as legitimate as legitimacy itself can be defined. These banks had been bragging about the bank secrecy they were granting for decades if not for ages (heck, they still seem to keep the Jewish gold that Nazis had taken for the Jews in Germany under Hitler). And now you may want to think again whether "the FBI, US government or similar" had nothing to do with these banks all of a sudden choosing to fully disclose the bank account details of their clients which have the US citizenship, and, ironically, exactly to the parties you just mentioned. Is it a coincidence, and if it is not, then what is it?

[TheKoziTwo]

Guys... why would they pay the fine? They are running an illegal money laundering enterprise (which btw is NOT an immoral act, just illegal, it is important not to confuse the two). There is no reason for them to pay that fine. If they were to pay the fine they would need to "go legal" which means revealing their real identifies, implement KYC/AML and get all the required licenses. And spend up to 55 years in jail for the rules they have currently broken FIRST.

They will continue rogue or shut down.

The last update they gave on their twitter doesn't look promising, I have some doubts, I believe they are trying to buy some time to vanish once for all, 5-10 days is enough to make them use multiple exchanges and hide their tracks, and since their identity is not known, this make things much easier.

This makes zero sense. Why on earth would btc-e need to use any exchanges to "hide their tracks" ? They can just let the funds sit for months or years and do nothing. It's pretty clear this was not an intended scam as it was brought down by LE. Why does everyone seem to think criminals HAS to send btc to exchange and withdraw for fiat. Criminals are FAR better off holding crypto.

[coinking17]

My gut feeling is this is not the last of BTC-e. I'd imagine there are some pretty heavy hitters involved with this exchange given the mysterious, long running history and the amount of money involved. I think we are in for a few twists and turns in this tale and I would not be surprised to see it up and running again especially given there is still no seizure message on the site and the potential big time connections made over the years. Like the old saying goes money talks and we don't know how far reaching or how deep this rabbit hole goes yet.

[TheKoziTwo]

Yes, I am about to lose around $200k btc-e. Yes, this is basically all the money I made the last 15 years. Great. I was standing in front of the window already. And all because I liked to trade from time to time and stayed most of the time in fiat.

So, the guy arrested was either the CEO or just an admin. An interesting part is, the news reports say that the guy was arrested at Monday morning and at Tuesday, either an automated script kicked off, writing the twitter statements or another CEO or another admin noticed that something happened (more likely) and cut everything.

Monday night, every thing was working at btc-e.com - so the USA couldn't have had access to the server. No wallets have been touched (the 66k rumor was coinbase wallet). Are bank accounts freezed? They didn't even touch Mayzus Financial Services Ltd (the real launderer with that bank account in Mongolia) - or why didn't we hear anything from them?

This is indeed very interesting.  Mayzus Financial Services Ltd is where fiat for btc-e and OKPAY is deposited (IIRC btc-e just had an OKPAY account, not their own bank account). OKPAY so far seems to be untouched. Interestingly enough, OKPAY was aquired by Mayzus last month: https://www.okpay.com/en/company/news/okpay-has-been-acquired-by-mayzus/

I feel like Mayzus and OKPAY is at a huge risk to be brought down by similar charges as btc-e and liberty reserve. It's a game of cat and mouse, and I'm rooting for the mouse.

[stingray454]

You must be kidding, dude

The Swiss banks were as legitimate as legitimacy itself can be defined. These banks had been bragging about the bank secrecy they were granting for decades if not for ages (heck, they still seem to keep the Jewish gold that Nazis had taken for the Jews in Germany under Hitler). And now you may want to think again whether "the FBI, US government or similar" had nothing to do with these banks all of a sudden choosing to fully disclose the bank account details of their clients which have the US citizenship, and, ironically, exactly to the parties you just mentioned. Is it a coincidence, and if it is not, then what is it?

Getting a little sidetracked here, but yes - the banks were legal, but they had no audit at all of the funds coming in or out, making it a paradise for tax evasion, money laundry and such. Who hasn't heard of a Swiss bank account in movies and such? The pressure came from Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that the swiss banks needed to update their regulation as a high percentage of accounts was used for illegal activities, which they also did. FATF is not US based, but a cooperation between countries (think UN or NATO for banks ). Sure the US might have pushed it too, but it was a unanimous vote and the Swiss banks agreed.

In this case the exchange is not classified as a bank, it has no overseeing agency that can threaten them with sanctions and so on. It's a normal business. Also a business that has already taken big precautions to avoid any such illegal activities and open to auditing, making it even harder for anyone to motivate a sieze.

At this point I'd say asking for Bitstamp to be shut down would be similar to "Please close all McDonalds restaurants (or some local similar chain) in the country, we have suspicion of the CEO being involved in crimes in the US". Would never happen.

[BitcoinTraveler]

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Russian National And Bitcoin Exchange Charged In 21-Count Indictment For Operating Alleged International Money Laundering Scheme And Allegedly Laundering Funds From Hack Of Mt. Gox
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/russian-national-and-bitcoin-exchange-charged-21-count-indictment-operating-alleged

I can't see Putin or the Russians not doing anything in retaliation for this arrest.

[deisik]

You must be kidding, dude

The Swiss banks were as legitimate as legitimacy itself can be defined. These banks had been bragging about the bank secrecy they were granting for decades if not for ages (heck, they still seem to keep the Jewish gold that Nazis had taken for the Jews in Germany under Hitler). And now you may want to think again whether "the FBI, US government or similar" had nothing to do with these banks all of a sudden choosing to fully disclose the bank account details of their clients which have the US citizenship, and, ironically, exactly to the parties you just mentioned. Is it a coincidence, and if it is not, then what is it?

Getting a little sidetracked here, but yes - the banks were legal, but they had no audit at all of the funds coming in or out, making it a paradise for tax evasion, money laundry and such. Who hasn't heard of a Swiss bank account in movies and such? The pressure came from Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that the swiss banks needed to update their regulation as a high percentage of accounts was used for illegal activities, which they also did. FATF is not US based, but a cooperation between countries (think UN or NATO for banks ). Sure the US might have pushed it too, but it was a unanimous vote and the Swiss banks agreed

US might have pushed it?

I thought I wrote it openly (no reading between lines required) that the Swiss banks were demanded to provide details of the accounts opened by the US citizens. Not Russian, Canadian, or whatever, but American citizens specifically:

Now, from its position of dominance, the Justice Department has made it clear what it wants from the hundred Swiss banks that hurriedly grabbed the DOJ’s settlement deal before January 1, 2014. The U.S. seeks 'total cooperation', and that truly means total. Any American names, details, and more. The Justice Department intends to get it all

Now try to convince anyone here that it hadn't been the US behind this "push". Further, your references to an exchange not being a bank are really lame since they are all financial operations which use the same currencies and for mostly the same purposes (if we talk about illegal activities). In fact, they are accused of doing exactly the same things that banks are typically accused of (money laundering, tax evasion, etc). I guess the latter makes it somewhat different from McDonald's

In this case the exchange is not classified as a bank, it has no overseeing agency that can threaten them with sanctions and so on. It's a normal business. Also a business that has already taken big precautions to avoid any such illegal activities and open to auditing, making it even harder for anyone to motivate a sieze

Wasn't that you who claimed that the US government can do nothing about foreign companies? As it turns out, the  Department of Justice (part of the US government) can do pretty much. In fact, they can do pretty much all with anything which involves international finances. I guess you now wanna tell that exchanges have nothing to do with that, right?

[stingray454]

US might have pushed it?

I thought I wrote it openly (no reading between lines required) that the Swiss banks were demanded to provide details of the accounts opened by the US citizens. Not Russian, Canadian, or whatever, but American citizens specifically:

Now, from its position of dominance, the Justice Department has made it clear what it wants from the hundred Swiss banks that hurriedly grabbed the DOJ’s settlement deal before January 1, 2014. The U.S. seeks 'total cooperation', and that truly means total. Any American names, details, and more. The Justice Department intends to get it all

Now try to convince anyone here that it hadn't been the US behind this "push". Further, your references to an exchange not being a bank are really lame since they are all financial operations which use the same currencies and for mostly the same purposes (if we talk about illegal activities). In fact, they are accused of doing exactly the same things that banks are typically accused of (money laundering, tax evasion, etc). I guess the latter makes it somewhat different from McDonald's

In this case the exchange is not classified as a bank, it has no overseeing agency that can threaten them with sanctions and so on. It's a normal business. Also a business that has already taken big precautions to avoid any such illegal activities and open to auditing, making it even harder for anyone to motivate a sieze

Wasn't that you who claimed that the US government can do nothing about foreign companies? As it turns out, the  Department of Justice (part of the US government) can do pretty much. In fact, they can do pretty much all with anything which involves international finances. I guess you now wanna tell that exchanges have nothing to do with that, right?

The DOJ sued swiss banks established in the US, therefore required to follow US law. The DOJ can't litigate a company abroad. And no, being an official registered bank comes with a ton of regulation you need to adhere to, including taking orders from FATF . Crypto exchanges are not banks just because they deal with money.

What the US can do is put pressure on local governments and force them to act by other sanctions, but they can't directly sue the company itself if it's not established on US soil. Anyway, going way off-topic.

[bj9k]

In short, is there any real difference between a "licensed" and "unlicensed" exchange (unless this license is confirmed by Washington, of course)?

Licensed exchange = prosecutor must say which accounts have been used for illegal business, exchange will most likely continue to operate depending on the scope of illegal activities and operators involvement into presumed illegal activity, and in case like current BTC-e situation, country of person's origin could become a party in extradition proceedings proving that their citizen has not broken any laws and depending of their treaties they could demand that their citizen be extradited back to his country of origin.

Unlicensed exchange = entire exchange business will be presumed illegal unless proven otherwise AFTER investigation is fully completed (remember E-gold case) and country of person's origin can not have significant role into extradition proceedings because they are not formally aware of any activities that their citizen was conducting.

Because of uncertainty of extradition of 3rd party citizens, US prosecutors might not conduct the same method to other exchange owners unless they can prove additional illegal activities.

The FBI, US government or similar can do _nothing_ about foreign companies. US laws applies in the US, not in other countries.

That's false presumption. Many countries are having treaty with US to hand them over financial information about US citizens actives and if some company or a person is constantly receiving money from US persons or accounts and which is not complying with those treaties, that's enough for US to start an investigation. Why do you think that online gambling sites do not accept US accounts?! Also case against established company is different then the case again a person.

[dermaink]

This sucks

[Dav7]

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Russian National And Bitcoin Exchange Charged In 21-Count Indictment For Operating Alleged International Money Laundering Scheme And Allegedly Laundering Funds From Hack Of Mt. Gox
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/russian-national-and-bitcoin-exchange-charged-21-count-indictment-operating-alleged

I can't see Putin or the Russians not doing anything in retaliation for this arrest.

I don't see this as a big deal for Russia authorities

[dermaink]

Told you the gates of hell would open did Eye not>>>>>last song >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rS6mZUo3fg

[bj9k]

I feel like Mayzus and OKPAY is at a huge risk to be brought down by similar charges as btc-e and liberty reserve. It's a game of cat and mouse, and I'm rooting for the mouse.

Depends on the level of Mayzus and OKPAY managers involvement into illegal activity but most likely is that only btc-e accounts will be blocked. Mayzus and OKPAY are established companies.

BTC-e status is unknow. How BTC-e owners paid their yearly income taxes and all expenses, there must be some company or person filling yearly income taxes or have they been cashing out their profits through other exchanges.

[ahmedjadoon]

Translated from Russian

BTC-e's chief moderator:

In fact, knowing not by hearsay (by a walk through the old "not local" and possible new comments), in order to restore at least an approximate existing infrastructure on the new site, it is necessary to take about a week (3 days at least to rest and get drunk), everything here will depend on the reliability and packing Backup data and communication channel with the new DC ...

plus do not forget that there are also "political" moments in the placement of such services ...

PySy that, when, how and where they hosted and hosted it is not for me to say ...
There is a good chance that the btc-e exchange will resume its work.

I advise you, dear readers, not to make hasty conclusions, conclusions and not to read jaundice. It is worthwhile to understand that the media are now rejoicing against the background of this event, tearing away large traffic and causing panic.

I would like to remind you about 2 hacking of the BTZ-E exchange a couple of years ago. The exchange paid all to a penny in the currency in which it was stolen.

Please post source of this message from btc-e mod.

[deisik]

US might have pushed it?

I thought I wrote it openly (no reading between lines required) that the Swiss banks were demanded to provide details of the accounts opened by the US citizens. Not Russian, Canadian, or whatever, but American citizens specifically:

Now, from its position of dominance, the Justice Department has made it clear what it wants from the hundred Swiss banks that hurriedly grabbed the DOJ’s settlement deal before January 1, 2014. The U.S. seeks 'total cooperation', and that truly means total. Any American names, details, and more. The Justice Department intends to get it all

Now try to convince anyone here that it hadn't been the US behind this "push". Further, your references to an exchange not being a bank are really lame since they are all financial operations which use the same currencies and for mostly the same purposes (if we talk about illegal activities). In fact, they are accused of doing exactly the same things that banks are typically accused of (money laundering, tax evasion, etc). I guess the latter makes it somewhat different from McDonald's

In this case the exchange is not classified as a bank, it has no overseeing agency that can threaten them with sanctions and so on. It's a normal business. Also a business that has already taken big precautions to avoid any such illegal activities and open to auditing, making it even harder for anyone to motivate a sieze

Wasn't that you who claimed that the US government can do nothing about foreign companies? As it turns out, the  Department of Justice (part of the US government) can do pretty much. In fact, they can do pretty much all with anything which involves international finances. I guess you now wanna tell that exchanges have nothing to do with that, right?

The DOJ sued swiss banks established in the US, therefore required to follow US law. The DOJ can't litigate a company abroad. And no, being an official registered bank comes with a ton of regulation you need to adhere to, including taking orders from FATF . Crypto exchanges are not banks just because they deal with money.

What the US can do is put pressure on local governments and force them to act by other sanctions, but they can't directly sue the company itself if it's not established on US soil. Anyway, going way off-topic.

Oh, really? Then what about the North Korean financial system being cut off from SWIFT?

Which happened right after the US military failed miserably to scare Kim Jong-un into obedience. You can say that this decision was part of the UN imposed sanctions, right? But what about the US pushing the same agenda in respect to Russia, which itself is a permanent member of the UN Security Council with a veto power? Further, what Swiss banks are established in the US? Swiss banks are obviously established in Switzerland, not in the US, otherwise they wouldn't be Swiss banks in the first place. Okay, let's leave banks alone, but what about then Hong Kong-based Bitfinex, a Bitcoin exchange (just in case), which has no connection with the US whatsoever, and which, nevertheless, had been attacked by the CFTC ordering the exchange to pay something like 75,000 dollars in penalties?

[YesLOST]

Translated from Russian

BTC-e's chief moderator:

In fact, knowing not by hearsay (by a walk through the old "not local" and possible new comments), in order to restore at least an approximate existing infrastructure on the new site, it is necessary to take about a week (3 days at least to rest and get drunk), everything here will depend on the reliability and packing Backup data and communication channel with the new DC ...

plus do not forget that there are also "political" moments in the placement of such services ...

PySy that, when, how and where they hosted and hosted it is not for me to say ...
There is a good chance that the btc-e exchange will resume its work.

I advise you, dear readers, not to make hasty conclusions, conclusions and not to read jaundice. It is worthwhile to understand that the media are now rejoicing against the background of this event, tearing away large traffic and causing panic.

I would like to remind you about 2 hacking of the BTZ-E exchange a couple of years ago. The exchange paid all to a penny in the currency in which it was stolen.

Not from hearsay? Hmm, so he was in direct contact with one of the operators?

Well, might be a game changer. And to all who write that the last twitter statement is to give them time to run or hide something. Really, are you stupid? Either its done or not, an official statement wont change a thing.

[jojo69]

The FBI, US government or similar can do _nothing_ about foreign companies. US laws applies in the US, not in other countries.

I beg to differ

[bonker]

This sucks

^^^ btc-e trollbox refugee

I can't wait until btc-e opens up again and things get back to normal

[bj9k]

This sucks

^^^ btc-e trollbox refugee

I can't wait until btc-e opens up again and things get back to normal

What happened to your statement that BTC-e closed exchanges because as you said "staff to believe that an attack similar to the ETC syphon attack after the ETH fork was being prepared for August 1st"?

[bonker]

This sucks

^^^ btc-e trollbox refugee

I can't wait until btc-e opens up again and things get back to normal

What happened to your statement that BTC-e closed exchanges because as you said "staff to believe that an attack similar to the ETC syphon attack after the ETH fork was being prepared for August 1st"?

I was stringing nonsense pulled out of my ass to fill the vacuum of information. cathartic really