chriswilmer
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
 |
November 02, 2013, 12:46:33 AM |
|
there's a really simple explanation that seems reasonable to me.
If I wanted to shift jurisdictions, I'd buy an established shelf company in the jurisdiction I want to move to, then have that shelf company "buy" the ownership shares from whatever entity owns it now.
It's very likely that's all they're doing - just moving the corporate entity to Panama for legal/tax reasons.
Yeah, i'm with you on that, but suggesting that this shell game makes the new entity "licensed" or on different legal footing when it comes to dealing with US customers is simply bull. If the servers were actually in Panama, that would be another story... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can see the statistics of your reports to moderators on the "Report to moderator" pages.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
stslimited
|
|
November 02, 2013, 12:53:48 AM |
|
Panama Funding Inc, S.A. is the only "Panama Fund" S.A. registered in Panama
fwiw, file number 227720
Lol, this? http://ohuiginn.net/panama/company/id/227720How is this silliness a "fully licensed exchange"? What gives it more authority in dealing unregistered securities to US persons than Bitfunder et al? well, there are a lot of assumptions though funds are generally able to set up shop in any jurisdiction for whatever purpose, through many layers of entities for acquiring different kinds of property, such as other entities. Subsequently, they may have all the licenses or regulatory concoction to not worry about one country's securities laws. I'm with crumbs on this... there has to be some more information on this Panama Fund thing. Google is failing me right now... funds don't need to cater to the information age.... hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide there are likely related entities in the fund that handle all the PR and marketing for other purposes, but is unrelated to acquiring other entities or the investing portion |
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:01:11 AM |
|
...funds don't need to cater to the information age....
hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide...
wat |
|
|
|
|
ninjaboon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1002
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:01:42 AM |
|
there's a really simple explanation that seems reasonable to me.
If I wanted to shift jurisdictions, I'd buy an established shelf company in the jurisdiction I want to move to, then have that shelf company "buy" the ownership shares from whatever entity owns it now.
It's very likely that's all they're doing - just moving the corporate entity to Panama for legal/tax reasons.
Yeah, i'm with you on that, but suggesting that this shell game makes the new entity "licensed" or on different legal footing when it comes to dealing with US customers is simply bull. If the servers were actually in Panama, that would be another story... And where are the servers located? |
|
|
|
drawingthesun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:05:56 AM |
|
Crumbs, if this turns out to be legit and ActiveMining becomes legit by going through whatever legal securities process HackLock have, what would you do? I know its unlikely those two things happen but if they did I wonder how you would respond...
|
|
|
|
|
|
jimmothy
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:09:07 AM |
|
there's a really simple explanation that seems reasonable to me.
If I wanted to shift jurisdictions, I'd buy an established shelf company in the jurisdiction I want to move to, then have that shelf company "buy" the ownership shares from whatever entity owns it now.
It's very likely that's all they're doing - just moving the corporate entity to Panama for legal/tax reasons.
Yeah, i'm with you on that, but suggesting that this shell game makes the new entity "licensed" or on different legal footing when it comes to dealing with US customers is simply bull. I think it definitely does create a different legal footing because it may be legal to sell unregistered securities in panama as a licensed exchange for all we know and for the US to go against that would never happen. The problem is unlicensed exchanges having literally no legal backing which is why they are so vulnerable. If this exchange can operate completely compliant of panamas security laws that would be huge for bitcoin/bitcoin securities. |
|
|
|
|
|
stslimited
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:26:00 AM |
|
...funds don't need to cater to the information age....
hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide...
wat SEC ban on general solicitation is being relaxed, funds could only talk to accredited investors ie. not poor people or the general middle class. |
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:31:22 AM |
|
there's a really simple explanation that seems reasonable to me.
If I wanted to shift jurisdictions, I'd buy an established shelf company in the jurisdiction I want to move to, then have that shelf company "buy" the ownership shares from whatever entity owns it now.
It's very likely that's all they're doing - just moving the corporate entity to Panama for legal/tax reasons.
Yeah, i'm with you on that, but suggesting that this shell game makes the new entity "licensed" or on different legal footing when it comes to dealing with US customers is simply bull. I think it definitely does create a different legal footing because it may be legal to sell unregistered securities in panama as a licensed exchange for all we know and for the US to go against that would never happen. The problem is unlicensed exchanges having literally no legal backing which is why they are so vulnerable. If this exchange can operate completely compliant of panamas security laws that would be huge for bitcoin/bitcoin securities. Panama security laws? Quick, what's the official national currency of Panama, no googling! Not another shot at registering a company in some god-forsaken backwater, and hoping that the law won't take you seriously enough to lift a finger. Unfortunately, with international trade agreements, lifting a finger is about all that's required. Finally, please pay attention. It is illegal to sell unregistered securities to US persons, no matter what the law of your banana republics say. OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive. |
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:43:17 AM |
|
...funds don't need to cater to the information age....
hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide...
wat SEC ban on general solicitation is being relaxed, funds could only talk to accredited investors ie. not poor people or the general middle class. Are you talking about title ll of the JOBS Act? You do know that public solicitation still means that all but accredited investors must be excluded from the funding round to comply? This stopped being lulzy awhile ago, now it's getting both sad & desperate. |
|
|
|
|
romerun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001
Bitcoin is new, makes sense to hodl.
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:46:15 AM |
|
Does this mean AML or blocking US users
|
|
|
|
|
|
jimmothy
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:49:10 AM |
|
Unfortunately, with international trade agreements, lifting a finger is about all that's required.
As far as I know SEC has yet to do anything about exchanges outside the US. Finally, please pay attention. It is illegal to sell unregistered securities to US persons, no matter what the law of your banana republics say.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
This may be true but if panama says its ok for the exchange to operate, it becomes SEC vs panama not SEC vs random guy. Also something I found: "Panama has taken several steps to modernise its economy and promote foreign investment. Most Panamanian and foreign investors choose to form Corporations. There are no exchange controls, currency restrictions or reporting requirements, and Panama imposes no limits on monetary transfers to and from the country." http://www.atrium-incorporators.com/panama-mutual-funds-and-investment-corporations/ |
|
|
|
|
murfshake
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:55:28 AM |
|
Are US players going to be able to participate freely, still?
|
|
|
|
|
|
stslimited
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:55:50 AM |
|
Unfortunately, with international trade agreements, lifting a finger is about all that's required.
As far as I know SEC has yet to do anything about exchanges outside the US. Finally, please pay attention. It is illegal to sell unregistered securities to US persons, no matter what the law of your banana republics say.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
This may be true but if panama says its ok for the exchange to operate, it becomes SEC vs panama not SEC vs random guy. no, they'll just seize the servers......... |
|
|
|
|
|
stslimited
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:57:34 AM |
|
...funds don't need to cater to the information age....
hedge funds are pretty notorious for not having a website or even as much as a phone number... it simply isn't required for the service they provide, and in the United States they were prohibited from talking to peons until like a month ago. these 80 year old prohibitions on free speech influenced the industry world wide...
wat SEC ban on general solicitation is being relaxed, funds could only talk to accredited investors ie. not poor people or the general middle class. Are you talking about title ll of the JOBS Act? You do know that public solicitation still means that all but accredited investors must be excluded from the funding round to comply? This stopped being lulzy awhile ago, now it's getting both sad & desperate. yeah, thats about how they can attract accredited investors. they couldn't use the press, just tightly nit closed circles this is about why a fund doesn't need to have a presence on internet search engines |
|
|
|
|
|
jimmothy
|
|
November 02, 2013, 01:59:13 AM |
|
no, they'll just seize the servers.........
And have a massive law suit on their hands? Doubt it. It is not worth their time to go after a company that is operating legally in another country. Are US players going to be able to participate freely, still?
to quote OP "US users are fine" |
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
November 02, 2013, 02:01:11 AM |
|
Unfortunately, with international trade agreements, lifting a finger is about all that's required.
As far as I know SEC has yet to do anything about exchanges outside the US. As far as i know, either the SEC asked them to fold up their circus tents like the exchanges claimed, or the exchanges are lying through their teeth. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Finally, please pay attention. It is illegal to sell unregistered securities to US persons, no matter what the law of your banana republics say.
OP explicitly stated otherwise, due to either ignorance or with intent to deceive.
This may be true but if panama says its ok for the exchange to operate, it becomes SEC vs panama not SEC vs random guy. No, it becomes panama vs some random guy. Please keep in mind that this is IRL & not Equestria, podunk countries try not to piss off the big players. The president of the Panama (republic?), whose name is right on the tip of my tongue, given a choice between pissing off some_random_guy & USA, is likely to pick teh prior. But we're drifting off topic & shitting up this nice fishing thread. |
|
|
|
|
drawingthesun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
|
|
November 02, 2013, 02:03:51 AM |
|
no, they'll just seize the servers.........
And have a massive law suit on their hands? Doubt it. It is not worth their time to go after a company that is operating legally in another country. Isn't that what they did with Mega? |
|
|
|
|
|
jimmothy
|
|
November 02, 2013, 02:12:58 AM |
|
As far as i know, either the SEC asked them to fold up their circus tents like they claimed they did, or the exchanges are lying through their teeth. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
None of the exchanges specifically said anything about SEC contacting them so we cant just assume they were given an ultimatum. It is more likely in my eyes they finally came to see the legal risks they were undertaking and didn't want to spend the time/resources to make their operations legal/safe from SEC. (its easier to just ignore them and keep collecting them bitcoins from the non-americans) No, it becomes panama vs some random guy. Please keep in mind that this is IRL & not Equestria, podunk countries try not to piss off the big players. The president of the Panama (republic?), whose name is right on the tip of my tongue, given a choice between pissing off some_random_guy & USA, is likely to pick teh prior.
You do realize that in the real world the US doesn't give two shits about exchanges that operate in other countries. And even if they did they cant just walk over to panama and tell them they have to abide by their rules. Can you imagine how the world would react if the US decided that another countries laws were incorrect and they have to comply? What would have to happen is the Panamanian government would have to comply willingly, which wont happen if they feel that a company in their country is operating legally. And it is not a contest of who you are pissing off more the US or some guy, it is a matter of being forced to change your countries existing laws to appease to the US. The most the US can do is try to block US users but that will never happen because again they don't give two shits about a legally operating exchange in another country. |
|
|
|
|
|
jimmothy
|
|
November 02, 2013, 02:15:15 AM |
|
Isn't that what they did with Mega?
I assume you mean megaupload which happens to still exist in the form of mega. And mega was taken down with compliance with NZ government. If Panamanian government chooses to not comply and stick to their own laws and legal system the US cant do anything. And I'm sure you're aware of the huge lawsuit that followed the illegal seizure of megauploads servers. |
|
|
|
|
|
pascal257
|
|
November 02, 2013, 02:15:57 AM |
|
no, they'll just seize the servers.........
And have a massive law suit on their hands? Doubt it. It is not worth their time to go after a company that is operating legally in another country. Isn't that what they did with Mega? With megaupload the domain names were seized. Thats why mega relaunced as mega.co.nz. |
|
|
|
|
|
