To Bitstamp: Gox's coins are being sold on your exchange

[franky1]

Any smart thief would not do this. Bitstamp requires KYC/AML verification for any deposits or withdrawls, BTC or fiat, meaning a scanned copy of their ID must be submitted.

It's also likely they may not cash these coins out for some time in order to wait for the investigation to blow over, and also knowing they'll probably be worth more in the future anyway. There is not a lot of incentive for them to sell now.

a smart man will know that bitstamp would not reveal personal details to the general public. so if i had 700k coins. id deposit them in any exchange. yes you know i deposited them due to blockchain. but when i withdrew the btc (due to mixer effect) you would not see the same taint. which is stage one of hiding coins. bitstamp would to reveal which withdrawal address the funds ended up, for the community to be able to continue the trail.

by that time the funds have swung between several exchanges and maybe even swapped over to alt coins to double the mixing.

anyone ever think that the splitting up of the coins was another exchange/mixer inbetween gox and bitstamp, and you have all just ben following the transactions of the mixers counterparts and not gox

[1713558043]

1713558043

[1713558043]

1713558043

[1713558043]

1713558043

[Radar]

Very interesting and I have to concur with franky1 about "mixing" of the coins. 

[alfabitcoin]

8 hours now and no reply from Bitstamp. What on earth are they up to?

I think we need an answer immediately. Either the account is locked or you - bitstamp - do not feel you are in a position to do so. We need to know either way so that we can consider our other legal options available.

And why woud they respond? " hello Nejc" sound rude and near proof or assumption is far from the real proof.
If and when some coins get court ruling as stolen then responible account holder at any entaty with proven link to those coins can be held responsible.
Suspicious solely on some pastebin can not warrant fund freeze and why would any company risk a sue doing that - on what grounds?
If somebody has some knowledge they need to send it to court assagnee - surpevisor of mtgox so they can take appropriate actions.

[Bit_Happy]

Hello Nejc,
Exchanges have a sworn duty to treat all customer deposits the same way.
Exchanges are not in the business of playing detective or judging the clean nature of the coins.


Dear OP and others,
If you want to see justice, call the Japanese police and ask why Mark is not in jail, yet.
If you want your coins back, figure out a respectable plan of action.
Asking an exchange to violate their sworn duty is not respectable.

[amspir]

8 hours now and no reply from Bitstamp. What on earth are they up to?

I think we need an answer immediately. Either the account is locked or you - bitstamp - do not feel you are in a position to do so. We need to know either way so that we can consider our other legal options available.

As far as I know,  MK has not been accused of fraud in a court over mtGox.  It's probably a good idea to get a lawyer to make the accusation and ask a court to freeze the funds.   I really don't think your email sufficiently demonstrates that bitstamp is in possession of your personal funds from mtGox.

[Aquent]

I am not sure why everybody likes to talk about "proof". The law deals with evidence, not proofs. Law is not maths.

Bitstamp needs to respond because any delay in responding may open them to legal liability. If they are investigating the matter then sure, but say so, if the account is to be locked or not locked affects the decision/s that a creditor may make.

Any delay therefore by a creditor in applying for an injunction can lead to legal liability. If they wish to take that risk, together with the PR risk, then that's their legal and business decision.

[alfabitcoin]

I am not sure why everybody likes to talk about "proof". The law deals with evidence, not proofs. Law is not maths.

Bitstamp needs to respond because any delay in responding may open them to legal liability. If they are investigating the matter then sure, but say so, if the account is to be locked or not locked affects the decision/s that a creditor may make.

Any delay therefore by a creditor in applying for an injunction can lead to legal liability. If they wish to take that risk, together with the PR risk, then that's their legal and business decision.

Your op talk about so called ''near proof'' so there is a answer to your first comment.
Respond to whom? Not responding to you or online pastebin will make them liable? Liable of what? What evidence? Only authority reqest are legit request of which bitstamp is legaly obligated to comply.
Bitstamp does not have anything with mtgox creditors and why would bitstamp or any other party affect eventual legal actions of mtgox creditors?
And since when any investigation are run and discussed in online public forum?

If you want to fill oficiall complain do it with appropiate legal chanell, not on public forum.

[Bit_Happy]

I am not sure why everybody likes to talk about "proof". The law deals with evidence, not proofs. Law is not maths.

Bitstamp needs to respond because any delay in responding may open them to legal liability. If they are investigating the matter then sure, but say so, if the account is to be locked or not locked affects the decision/s that a creditor may make.

Any delay therefore by a creditor in applying for an injunction can lead to legal liability. If they wish to take that risk, together with the PR risk, then that's their legal and business decision.

Bitstamp needs to run an honest exchange.
It is not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police."
To avoid "legal liability", they treat all customer deposits the same.  <period>

[pungopete468]

I am not sure why everybody likes to talk about "proof". The law deals with evidence, not proofs. Law is not maths.

Bitstamp needs to respond because any delay in responding may open them to legal liability. If they are investigating the matter then sure, but say so, if the account is to be locked or not locked affects the decision/s that a creditor may make.

Any delay therefore by a creditor in applying for an injunction can lead to legal liability. If they wish to take that risk, together with the PR risk, then that's their legal and business decision.

Bitstamp needs to run an honest exchange.
It is not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police."
To avoid "legal liability", they treat all customer deposits the same.  <period>

It's not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police" but an allegation of money laundering involving funds from a high profile heist/lawsuit demands a response. Bitstamp is in control of those coins now; Bitstamp has an obligation to operate within the law.

The entire USD balance owned by Bitstamp is at risk based on their actions and how they treat money laundering allegations. Gox should be a lesson; their bank accounts were seized because they ignored AML laws dealing with the Silk Road.

Bitstamp has an obligation to its users. They need to ensure that the proper steps are being taken to avert the legal risk.

Once the allegation is made the water gets muddy. Bitstamp can't just ignore the allegation if it wishes to remain compliant with AML laws...

[Lauda]

Stolen coins are still coins.

[Bit_Happy]

I am not sure why everybody likes to talk about "proof". The law deals with evidence, not proofs. Law is not maths.

Bitstamp needs to respond because any delay in responding may open them to legal liability. If they are investigating the matter then sure, but say so, if the account is to be locked or not locked affects the decision/s that a creditor may make.

Any delay therefore by a creditor in applying for an injunction can lead to legal liability. If they wish to take that risk, together with the PR risk, then that's their legal and business decision.

Bitstamp needs to run an honest exchange.
It is not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police."
To avoid "legal liability", they treat all customer deposits the same.  <period>

It's not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police" but an allegation of money laundering involving funds from a high profile heist/lawsuit demands a response. Bitstamp is in control of those coins now; Bitstamp has an obligation to operate within the law.

The entire USD balance owned by Bitstamp is at risk based on their actions and how they treat money laundering allegations. Gox should be a lesson; their bank accounts were seized because they ignored AML laws dealing with the Silk Road.

Bitstamp has an obligation to its users. They need to ensure that the proper steps are being taken to avert the legal risk.

Once the allegation is made the water gets muddy. Bitstamp can't just ignore the allegation if it wishes to remain compliant with AML laws...

1) What if the real crooks used a mixer and you are looking at the wrong coins? (I haven't read the whole thread, has this been answered?)
2) Much of what passes for "AML laws" is complete BS and those laws need to be changed.

3a) "Self-regulation" of our community is not the same as running to the Gov, just because some people got badly burned.
3b) In a free market Bitstamp can run their business the way they see fit (people who are satisfied will tend to remain customers)
3c) You have no right to tell Bitstamp what to do.  

[lorix]

tl;dr version: Did Gox allow preferred clients to keep shared private keys to BTC on the exchange, which allowed them to independently move their funds out?

I do not know.  However, if Gox did make that accommodation, then it would be smart for any such clients to expeditiously move their funds to wallets that Gox holds no control over,  as soon as they learned of any financial troubles or probable failure of Gox.

If such 'whales' were not willing to trust Gox sufficiently to deposit their BTC with Gox in a manner that they would lose all direct control over them,  then for sure they should not trust Gox now   not to yank the coins out of the shared wallet into a Gox trustee-controlled wallet,  in order to pay other creditors and fund Gox's rehabiliation.

Then there is the question of "ownership" of said coins and whether they can be considered part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

If both Gox and the Whales had access to the same key, isn't that more akin to having your bank account linked up to a trading account - until Gox actually draws on those particular funds they might not be considered under their exclusive control.

Still, if true the idea that a select few had privileged access to private keys and were free to move their funds out while everyone else got suspended is reprehensible.

[joninoakland]

I don't think there is much that can be done. Those coins are lost. It's best to move on and learn that keeping large sums of BTC in online wallets, exchanges, etc is a bad idea.

This. Cryptocurrency is not for fools. Personally I'm glad most of the fools and weak hands have been shaken out by scammers and thieves - it was bound to happen anyway. Better it happen in one big, early crime than happen over many smaller crimes over a long, painful period of time. That scenario would be far more damaging to Bitcoin in the long run.

I never understand what you people mean.  "Weak hands" ?  It doesn't make sense.   It was a huge crime and there is little reason to think it won't happen again.  Trustless currency works by giving the wallet owner absolute power.  Whenever people have their coins somewhere else, the same shit will happen.  This stuff will be constant but cryptocurrencies are not going anywhere.

[pungopete468]

I am not sure why everybody likes to talk about "proof". The law deals with evidence, not proofs. Law is not maths.

Bitstamp needs to respond because any delay in responding may open them to legal liability. If they are investigating the matter then sure, but say so, if the account is to be locked or not locked affects the decision/s that a creditor may make.

Any delay therefore by a creditor in applying for an injunction can lead to legal liability. If they wish to take that risk, together with the PR risk, then that's their legal and business decision.

Bitstamp needs to run an honest exchange.
It is not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police."
To avoid "legal liability", they treat all customer deposits the same.  <period>

It's not their job to be the "Bitcoin Police" but an allegation of money laundering involving funds from a high profile heist/lawsuit demands a response. Bitstamp is in control of those coins now; Bitstamp has an obligation to operate within the law.

The entire USD balance owned by Bitstamp is at risk based on their actions and how they treat money laundering allegations. Gox should be a lesson; their bank accounts were seized because they ignored AML laws dealing with the Silk Road.

Bitstamp has an obligation to its users. They need to ensure that the proper steps are being taken to avert the legal risk.

Once the allegation is made the water gets muddy. Bitstamp can't just ignore the allegation if it wishes to remain compliant with AML laws...

1) What if the real crooks used a mixer and you are looking at the wrong coins? (I haven't read the whole thread, has this been answered?)
2) Much of what passes for "AML laws" is complete BS and those laws need to be changed.

3a) "Self-regulation" of our community is not the same as running to the Gov, just because some people got badly burned.
3b) In a free market Bitstamp can run their business the way they see fit (people who are satisfied will tend to remain customers)
3c) You have no right to tell Bitstamp what to do.  

Ideologically I agree with you.

1) Bitstamp needs to verify the source of the coins; they need to place a hold on the account and audit the account. If the account doesn't belong to a party implicated in the legal proceedings then they can release the hold. Really, they need to focus on the account holder more than the coins... (This isn't about the stolen coins, this is about protecting the USD bank accounts containing Bitstamp exchange users' funds). Gox lost the USD bank accounts because of AML violations; Bitstamp needs to protect its users.

2) I agree, the AML law should be ripped out of the book, crumbled into a ball, then dropped into a crucible of molten iron... But it's the law right now and Bitstamp has an obligation to follow the law. If Bitstamp doesn't follow the law, the account holders will stand at risk of  losing their money along with the money belonging to Bitstamp...

3a) The government is already involved, I agree about not running to the government in most cases. This time, the government is already a party of an investigation. Withholding information would be unwise.

3b) This isn't a free market. If it was you would be correct...

3c) I didn't write the law. Every Bitstamp user is exposed to counter party risk, Bitstamp has an obligation to its users to mitigate that risk by following the law and acting reasonably. Every user has a right to insist...

[5flags]

I would agree that the coins are more likely to be being mixed, rather than sold.

Secondly, the coins are gone. Appealing to centralised authority to fix our problems is, quite frankly, embarrassing. Too many Bitcoin users are trying to use a decentralised currency (although I'm not sure Bitcoin would be classed as this) with a centralised mindset. This is the wild west. Innovate accordingly.

[BitOnyx]

"near-proof" ?!

So... you don't have proof ?

[gibbtek]

... This is the wild west. Innovate accordingly.

exactly

[rebuilder]

I am not sure why everybody likes to talk about "proof". The law deals with evidence, not proofs. Law is not maths.

Bitstamp needs to respond because any delay in responding may open them to legal liability. If they are investigating the matter then sure, but say so, if the account is to be locked or not locked affects the decision/s that a creditor may make.

Any delay therefore by a creditor in applying for an injunction can lead to legal liability. If they wish to take that risk, together with the PR risk, then that's their legal and business decision.

Are you a creditor? You didn't say so anywhere, and certainly didn't offer any proof of that in your letter. If you want an exchange to release customer data, you'll do better to go through legal channels. Please do post here if Bitstamp do pony up the info you want, I'll add them to my list of mickey mouse exchanges not to be trusted.

[Brangdon]

    Hello Nejc
     
    I'm writing to you because i have near-proof that the stolen MtGox coins
    are being transfered to your exchange.

I hope you sent that a copy of that directly to them, ideally by registered post to their registered business address as well as by email. They have a Money Laundering Reporting Officer so it should probably go to him or her.

I could be wrong, and that's why I wanted to ask... what laws would compel them to do anything?

Whether or not they are legally required, they say they intend to conform to UK AML legislation voluntarily. As far as I can tell, their main extra duty in this case would be to report the transactions as "suspicious" to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, if they agree that it is suspicious. SOCA would then be responsible for investigating it.

[ex-trader]

Whether it is 'suspicious' or not will depend on the nature of the existing relationship.

It is entirely likely that MTGox held accounts at Bitstamp and vice versa, most exchanges will deal with other exchanges as a way of boosting overall market liquidity. It could therefore be a normal transaction for MTGox to send coins to Bitstamp and vice versa. Obviously only Bitstamp will know the full history and details of all these transaction and can therefore make decisions about who they report this to, if anyone.

I would imagine that Bitstamp would already have frozen any accounts that they knew related to MTGox when they became aware of the MTGox formal Japanese suspension/liquidation/re-structuring (whichever it is legally).