Scam Report Against CryptoXchange $100k USD

[Sethenes]

i think there is something fishy on both sides.

I think there is something fishy with all of Bitcoin.  I won't be indulging anymore.  Thought it was a cool idea and novel, but I have no reason to trust any exchange or anyone anymore, it's too easy to scam people and I can't afford to lose money just to use a novelty currency.

Edit :  No offense to everyone involved, just the bad ones.  I know there are good people that partake in BTC as well.

[1713925010]

1713925010

[heatstroke]

i think there is something fishy on both sides.

I think there is something fishy with all of Bitcoin.  I won't be indulging anymore.  Thought it was a cool idea and novel, but I have no reason to trust any exchange or anyone anymore, it's too easy to scam people and I can't afford to lose money just to use a novelty currency.

Edit :  No offense to everyone involved, just the bad ones.  I know there are good people that partake in BTC as well.

Finally, a Bitcoin Success Story!

[WME]

I have complet of docs which crypto ask me.
Crypto running from my lawyers who want to transfer documents.

[augustocroppo]

I have complet of docs which crypto ask me.
Crypto running from my lawyers who want to transfer documents.

Provide the necessary evidence to substantiate your claim.

With appropriate evidence you can request a scammer tag for the users representing the CryptoExchange in this forum.

[repentance]

I have complet of docs which crypto ask me.
Crypto running from my lawyers who want to transfer documents.

 

Here we are all these months after you claim to have involved lawyers in this and you're still trying to transfer documents?  Why haven't your lawyers taken legal action to recover your funds yet?  You claim to have plenty of evidence as well as the money to take legal action, why hasn't this been taken to court already?

Your lawyers aren't very good if they don't know that all legal documents can (and most should) be sent to the registered office of a company and that a simple search of ASIC records provides the address of the registered office.

You're asking us to believe that your lawyers can't locate someone in a town of 40,000 people.  Someone who is very well known in that community.  Why the hell are you still paying these apparently inept lawyers?

[WME]

At registration address of Kenseycol PTY LTD nobody, that fake, where i must to send docs? (I want to hear that from crypto, but no anwer)
At address of owner nobody
By phone Ken afraid talk...

[Coinoisseur]

WME if you aren't spinning a web of lies you should probably dismiss your legal counsel for incompetence:

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/bn/SearchBnRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=8bpxea805_4

Address for service of documents:   67 Hewitt Cl Orange NSW 2800

Holder(s) details:   
Holder Name:   KENSEYCOL PTY LTD
Holder Type:   Body Corporate
ABN:   12 140 244 828


Took 5 minutes of internetting. Send your own certified letter there and if it gets bounced back report them to ASIC.

[repentance]

At registration address of Kenseycol PTY LTD nobody, that fake, where i must to send docs? (I want to hear that from crypto, but no anwer)
At address of owner nobody
By phone Ken afraid talk...

By law the official address for the service of legal documents for a company is the address registered with ASIC.  A statutory demand sent to that address will be deemed to have been served and if the defendant does not respond within 21 days in the manner required by the Corporations Act (Section 459E) a legal presumption of insolvency applies.  In fact in order to serve a statutory demand you must provide proof of having conducted an ASIC search to establish the creditor's registered office.  All of this is laid down by statute - it's not negotiable.  You lawyers can absolutely go to court and get a default judgement if there is no response to a statutory demand within the period required by statute.  They can even apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency on the basis of non-compliance with a statutory demand if you're willing to spend the money to go that route.

I simply don't believe that your lawyers are too incompetent to know this - it's business law 101 stuff.

[WME]

Thank you for information, i know all public addresses
But crypto gone from that address:(
And no way to contact with Ken and other staff
He afraid

[augustocroppo]

Thank you for information, i know all public addresses
But crypto gone from that address:(
And no way to contact with Ken and other staff
He afraid

Do you have the letter which you solicitor sent to the address? Could you scan the letter and post here?

Could you also disclose receipts of the funds transferred to Cryptoxchange?

You must gather much proof as possible to prove that Cryptoxchange is holding your funds.

But please, post the originals, redacted if you wish.

[repentance]

Thank you for information, i know all public addresses
But crypto gone from that address:(
And no way to contact with Ken and other staff
He afraid

I know that English isn't your first language but can you not read?  It doesn't matter whether they are still at that address or not.  It's the responsibility of the company officers to advise ASIC of any change in the address of their registered office.  Legal notices sent to the address on file are deemed to have been served.  If they don't actually receive the documents because they didn't update their address with ASIC, that's their problem - you win by default because they don't respond.  

There is no way that your lawyers don't know this.  There is also no way that your lawyers cannot locate Ken.  Orange has a population of 40,000 people and he's well known in the town.  What attempts have they made to locate Colin?

Either you're lying or you have totally incompetent lawyers.  If your lawyers thought you could prevail in court they'd have issued a statutory demand months ago.  

BTW, Mr Bitcoin is operated by KenseyCol and they have a different registered address than CryptoXchange.  A lawyer would have found this as their ABN and ACN records are both linked to the KenseyCol record.

[WME]

All copy of my docs which crypto ask send already at summer not one time to all legall address's of crypto
No answer from crypto by mail by phone
They don't pick up phone
They run from law

[repentance]

All copy of my docs which crypto ask send already at summer not one time to all legall address's of crypto
No answer from crypto by mail by phone
They don't pick up phone
They run from law

I hope you've refused to pay your lawyers.  They sound beyond incompetent.

[AndrewBUD]

^ ? Why do they sound incompetent?


What else are they supposed to do for him other than send letters and call?  Did you see the copy of the letter they sent?


Lawyers are not supposed to go beat people down.

[repentance]

^ ? Why do they sound incompetent?

What else are they supposed to do for him other than send letters and call?  Did you see the copy of the letter they sent?

Lawyers are not supposed to go beat people down.

They're supposed to take the next step in the process and issue a statutory demand.  A company literally has to respond to a statutory demand within 21 days or it is legally presumed to be insolvent and can be forced into liquidation on the basis of not responding to the demand (they must respond in one of a few very specific ways which are restricted by statute).  For the amount WME claims to be owed, there's simply no way that a competent lawyer would not have issued a statutory demand by now if they believed they could prove that WME's debt is legitimate.  I've even given this information to WME so that he can discuss with why no statutory demand has been issued but I suspect that he already knows the answer.

[AndrewBUD]

How do we not know this hasn't been done? Crypto did shut down... He may have been waiting to see if he had anything returned.. Most people would prefer keeping matters out of court.

 

[repentance]

How do we not know this hasn't been done? Crypto did shut down... He may have been waiting to see if he had anything returned.. Most people would prefer keeping matters out of court.

Because the manner in which a statutory demand must be responded to is defined by law.  The statute requires it to be responded to in very specific ways within 21 days.  You can pay the debt or make an agreement to pay the debt.  You can put the company into voluntary administration/liquidation (this has not happened - notice of all liquidations/administrations is published on the ASIC website within a couple of days at most and often on the same day).  You can apply to the court to have the statutory demand set aside.  You can ignore the statutory demand and a legal presumption of insolvency will arise allowing a creditor to seek appointment of a liquidator.  

Those are literally the only options available to a company which has been served with a statutory demand and no lawyer would advise their client to "wait and see" for many months when the amount involved is over $100,000.  Nor would any lawyer advise a company to ignore a statutory demand (even solvent companies have been forcibly wound up in the past for ignoring statutory demands).

If WME's lawyers had issued a statutory demand which had not been complied with and were seeking to have the company wound up, they would make him aware of that.  Instead, he just keeps complaining about them not acknowledging receipt of his ID documents.  Statutory demands are used all the time here and for much smaller amounts than WME claims to be owed.  It should have been one of the first strategies his lawyers proposed - unless they knew damned well that the validity of the debt is questionable and that the statutory demand would be set aside by a court.  Also note that the purported letter of demand talks about the release of USD not BTC, so the usual "courts won't acknowledge BTC as a debt" bullshit can't be claimed in this case as a reason for not taking the further legal action they were threatening back in July.

[AndrewBUD]

From what I read Crypto never denied owing him this sort of money.


Seems crazy...

[LordGreynick]

To get adequate service for a statutory demand, postal delivery isn't sufficient.

For this, you need a process server to deliver the documents to a company director.

If you can't find them, it becomes very difficult to serve them.

It is possible to obtain a judgement in absentia/claiming you have had service, forcing the part(y/ies) to come forward to dispute this (and they will win) but that will present an opportunity to serve again as documents can then be served on their lawyers/them personally.

Caveats on any properties held in sole (or joint) titles is usually a prudent measure ...

[repentance]

To get adequate service for a statutory demand, postal delivery isn't sufficient.

This is not true.  The ATO - for instance - serves all of their statutory demands by mail to the address on record with ASIC, as do many businesses which issue statutory demands on a regular basis.  This is one reason why not keeping your details current on the ASIC registers is potentially catastrophic.  It's also why it's a good idea to list your lawyer or accountant's office for service of notices because statutory demands are not issued through courts and many people ignore them assuming that they're just a letter of demand because they don't realise their significance.

Where issuing a statutory demand through a lawyer can be tricky is the requirement that the affidavit be sworn by someone who has personal knowledge of the circumstances of the debt -this is obviously somewhat more difficult if the lawyer cannot get the client into their office to swear the affidavit as any deficiency in the affidavit will make render the statutory demand invalid.

Caveats are messy and easily set aside unless you have a true "interest in land".  The onus is on the caveator to prove that such an interest exists and that the caveat is being used for a proper purpose.  Trying to obtain a caveat in relation to the personal property of a company director in regard to a company debt which has not been proven (as opposed to an interest held by a mortgagor, a spouse, a joint property owner, a property purchaser, etc) is asking for the caveat to be set aside with an award of costs against the person who sought it.