Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor: Source

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor: Source

#101

Post by pmorici »

mbreese wrote: post #80
pmorici wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the same as the Dwolla seizure. They had a Wells Fargo Business bank account linked to their Dwolla account. That is the 5 Million that was seized purportedly in connection to the investigation into Silk Road.

After looking it up, the seizure wasn't related to the Silk Road case. It was because MtGox wasn't properly registered as a money transmitter and was operating their accounts in the US under false pretenses [1]. I don't think it's necessarily possible to link the Dowalla event to Silk Road directly (which was the FBI, not DHS). [1] http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/16/mt-gox-dwolla-account-money...

At the time of the seizures that was the stated reason but later when officials were testifying before congress they implied that the enforcement against MtGox was related to the SR investigation. They hadn't moved on SR at the time so they were keeping quite about the scope of their full intentions.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/23/feds-seize-another-2-1-mill...

Re: Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor: Source

#102

Post by captainchaos »

captainchaos wrote: post #48

Ok, at the risk of sounding completely naive... I've been following this story for a while, and it seems that no one can say for sure if this is embezzlement or gross incompetence. Based on leaked memos it seems to be most people are learning towards the latter, but I'm curious if there's any evidence either way. Based on the claimed transparency of Bitcoin, I would have expected embezzlement on this scale to have be…

Thanks for the insight, I still thought the Bitcoin protocol would have had enough transparency to make the case clear as to whether or not this is a situation of dishonesty or incompetence. I guess the protocol does not provide the level of transparency I assumed.

Re: Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor: Source

#103

Post by downandout »

downandout wrote: post #64
tzs wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you find dubious about the insider trading conviction and sentence?

I find his accomplishments dubious because a) I believe that there are substantially more effective ways to deter crime and punish offenders than the lengthy prison sentences that his office pushes for in most cases, and b) he uses every major case he brings elected office, and is unnecessarily destroying many lives in that pursuit. In my opinion, that negates any positive things he may have done and renders all of h…

Wow I must have been tired when I wrote this. That was meant to say "he uses every major case he brings to better position himself for elected office...".

Re: Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor: Source

#104

Post by sliverstorm »

jnbiche wrote: post #79
sliverstorm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they dumb and/or unscrupulous? I would hazard that the bright, somewhat-more-scrupulous minds are busy making it big elsewhere. Perhaps traditional finance.

>I would hazard that the bright, somewhat-more-scrupulous minds are busy making it big elsewhere. Perhaps traditional finance. Yes, because we all know how scrupulous traditional finance is.

I don't mean to say traditional finance is totally scrupulous. But I consider schemes to make money within the law to be generally more scrupulous than cut-and-dried theft.

Re: Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor: Source

#105

Post by thirsteh »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #91
thirsteh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all well and good, but Mt. Gox likely won't conduct any more business in NY. It gets even more problematic if they don't actually operate any legal entity in the U.S. The U.S. may enforce its laws upon U.S. entities, but it has no authority to do so on e.g. a Japanese one, unless a treaty/agreement exists that facilitates it. This is why China-only companies that engage in IP theft (or vice versa) aren't being…

>The U.S. may enforce its laws upon U.S. entities, but it has no authority to do so on e.g. a Japanese one, unless a treaty/agreement exists that facilitates it. The US has a history of extending its jurisdiction to practically anywhere if the Internet is involved. effective enforcement is another matter entirely, though. >This is why China-only companies that engage in IP theft (or vice versa) aren't being hauled in…

> "IP theft" is pretty much impossible to achieve. You're thinking of infringement.

Nope, I'm really thinking of theft. And it's quite possible to achieve. In fact, it happens quite often; it's just hard to prove conclusively that it has happened.

Re: Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor: Source

#106

Post by bsder »

rodgerd wrote: post #82
appleflaxen wrote: post #43

Where were these zealous prosecutors during the global financial meltdown in 2008? It would be nice if people went to jail for fraudelently representing mortgages. I'm fine with Gox getting investigated, too, but justice shouldn't depend on who you are.

They were cheerfully going after targets, until it turned out that the public are easy to convince that effective prosecuters should lose their jobs if they visit sex workers. The fact the current top comment in this thread is someone slagging off a prosecuter for going after insder traders demonstrates that HN's as dumb an audience as the average tabloid reader when it comes to convincing people that enforcing the l…

> until it turned out that the public are easy to convince that effective prosecuters should lose their jobs if they visit sex workers.

Well,at the time, I wondered how they nailed Spitzer. In retrospect, I suspect this was one of the first parallel construction scenarios.

However, I don't really care if people visit sex workers. Nevertheless, Spitzer was an anti-prostitution crusader. He deserved to lose his job for the hypocrisy.

Re: Mt. Gox Receives Subpoena From Federal Prosecutor: Source

#107

Post by mbreese »

pmorici wrote: post #101
mbreese wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After looking it up, the seizure wasn't related to the Silk Road case. It was because MtGox wasn't properly registered as a money transmitter and was operating their accounts in the US under false pretenses [1]. I don't think it's necessarily possible to link the Dowalla event to Silk Road directly (which was the FBI, not DHS). [1] http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/16/mt-gox-dwolla-account-money...

At the time of the seizures that was the stated reason but later when officials were testifying before congress they implied that the enforcement against MtGox was related to the SR investigation. They hadn't moved on SR at the time so they were keeping quite about the scope of their full intentions. http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/23/feds-seize-another-2-1-mill...

What you linked to has nothing to do with SR or even congressional testimony. It's filling out the rest of their money-transmitter issues. First, they seized funds from Dowalla, and then from Wells Fargo. This was the WF seizure.

Seizing MtGox's USD funds may have had an effect on SR, but that wasn't the reason why they were seized. It was a money laundering issue, plain and simple. Remember, the funds were seized by DHS and the FBI was in charge of the SR case (which wasn't even against SR as an entity, but the owner/operator as a private citizen). I'm sure the FBI and DHS probably share data, but that would have required a lot of interagency cooperation for what is a pretty small matter. DHS was more concerned with blocking the money laundering possibilities than they were with blocking SR. Granted, DHS may have learned about MtGox from the DEA/FBI while they were investigating SR.

I wouldn't assume the gov't really cares that much about Bitcoin. They just want the players in Bitcoin to play by the existing rules.

Post reply on HN