Mirror (non)Trading International 3 - Freemasons,Russians,and no bitcoins

[Wary GOM]

I have to laugh at a lot of the cognitive dissonance on display.

"zomg bitcoin r future because it's anonymous and untraceable and unregulated and bad authorities and bad government and bad laws and and and"

"zomg they stoled my bitcoin authorities please step in and get mah bitconz back for me because they broke teh law"

Oh my, yes!
Like many other complaints that depend only on how whatever is being complained about affects the person at that time.

 

[reg4812]

You're not getting it. RIGHT NOW AS OF THIS MINUTE, Should the value of an investors claim be based on a scenario determined by lawful finding or a possible scenario which hasn't been tested?

So, the question is, for someone filling in his nomination/claim form today (ignoring arguments about what may or may not be actually recoverable)

a) should an investor claim the original R100 000 put in
b) claim the R100 000 + R10 000 000 profit (hypothetical balance on date of granting provisional liquidation)

Reason being:

a) to keep the investor safe from being considered part of the criminal ponzi should that be determined by a court at some stage?

b) in case most, or at least a very large portion, of the bitcoin is actually found and handed over. If you don't do option b the investor could lose out?

Realise this is not poll but I would say until a court finds MTI to be a criminal ponzi (as opposed to simply an unlicensed firm operated by a loon) an investor likely can claim the balance outstanding . Question is whether they should. Is this a question of correct legal procedure or ethics?

 

[quovadis]

You need to brush up on commercial law, boet. You don't need any of that. All you need to do is convince a judge that you are most likely telling the truth. You do not need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (although that will help!). A person can use the MTILeaks data and if MTI does not rock up in court to dispute that with a reasonable explanation then there is no reason for the Judge not to believe it.

That is right now but if the FSCA issues a finding that MTI's taking of deposits is illegal (which I assume it will do), then the current shenanigans are mute. In that case, but I would need to consult the brilliant legal mind of @Dr Ong 's friend, it all defaults to the state if recovered?

Ok which of your assertions are findings of law? That's the nuance of the argument. The liquidators have no LEGAL basis to consider this a ponzi so why are they insisting that the claims be based on such a basis? And please, I'm not for one moment saying that MTI is legit - its purely a matter of what is fact and what isn't.

 

[r00igev@@r]

The judge inspects the Lenovo laptop that created R9 billion in trading profits from using just Lindtbolletjie induced farts...
Ah... yes, on the balance of probabilities Jxhxnn was telling the truth!

 

[warrenpridgeon]

Eek... busy upgrading a demo/test VPS... I hope adding more RAM doesn't break the code deployed there and cause the system to crash and me to run away to Brazil in a weeks time

 

[r00igev@@r]

So, the question is, for someone filling in his nomination/claim form today (ignoring arguments about what may or may not be actually recoverable)

a) should an investor claim the original R100 000 put in
b) claim the R100 000 + R10 000 000 profit (hypothetical balance on date of granting provisional liquidation)

Reason being:

a) to keep the investor safe from being considered part of the criminal ponzi should that be determined by a court at some stage?

b) in case most, or at least a very large portion, of the bitcoin is actually found and handed over. If you don't do option b the investor could lose out?

Realise this is not poll but I would say until a court finds MTI to be a criminal ponzi (as opposed to simply an unlicensed firm operated by a loon) an investor likely can claim the balance outstanding . Question is whether they should. Is this a question of correct legal procedure or ethics?

The regulator makes the findings which are binding. MTI can then make representations to the regulator.

 

[Wary GOM]

@reg4812. I am not able to answer this, but in addition to legal procedure and ethics, would there not be tax implications to consider? SARS can't tax you on an imaginary balance in MTI back offices but I imagine if liquidators use that imaginary amount and pay you out based on that, then SARS would take that as income or profit. [A bit like the Cheshire cat; now it's there. Now it's gone!]

 

[quovadis]

The regulator makes the findings which are binding. MTI can then make representations to the regulator.

I see that you are incapable of understanding the nuance of the argument. Let's try an analogy:

If you give your regulated real broker $500 10 years ago and now you have a balance of $5,000 which you cannot get him to pay you then your legal recourse is to institute an involuntary liquidation application to try get your funds. In that application you state that he has disappeared and the company he owned said that they don't know if your money is in their possession or not. The judge then grants a provisional order which enables a liquidator to investigate the matter and present findings. Would you consider the liquidator saying to you that you must only submit a claim of $500 because this is a ponzi with no legal basis or tested evidence of such? Or would you submit a claim for $5,000 and revise it once it is legally determined as such?

 

[reg4812]

The regulator makes the findings which are binding. MTI can then make representations to the regulator.

But the regulator has not yet finalised findings? The most concrete finding (form the FSCA statements) so far is, that MTI is not licensed and that something else is fishy.

 

[Wary GOM]

The regulator makes the findings which are binding. MTI can then make representations to the regulator.

A simple-minded question: Who now IS MTI? If it is accepted as a Pty then presumably Nerina (?) and Clynton but if FSCA finds that it was a collective, then would it be the board of directors?

 

[r00igev@@r]

Ok which of your assertions are findings of law? That's the nuance of the argument. The liquidators have no LEGAL basis to consider this a ponzi so why are they insisting that the claims be based on such a basis? And please, I'm not for one moment saying that MTI is legit - its purely a matter of what is fact and what isn't.

If the Judge believes it then its a finding and if Jxhxnn is not in court to dispute it then the Judge isn't going to take it further. Its a civil matter.
Of course they have a legal basis to consider it a ponzi. It is as simple as submitting to the judge all the shilling videos. Case dismissed.

 

[r00igev@@r]

But the regulator has not yet finalised findings? The most concrete finding (form the FSCA statements) so far is, that MTI is not licensed and that something else is fishy.

That is a moerse big finding, they don't need to do anything else. Taking deposits without being licensed will result in lengthy time behind bars.

 

[r00igev@@r]

View attachment 984566
Eek... busy upgrading a demo/test VPS... I hope adding more RAM doesn't break the code deployed there and cause the system to crash and me to run away to Brazil in a weeks time

You might as well use a 2009 Lenovo laptop. That can handle 280 000 users.

 

[reg4812]

That is a moerse big finding, they don't need to do anything else. Taking deposits without being licensed will result in lengthy time behind bars.

agreed. But that is not yet a formal finding today of being a ponzi.

 

[r00igev@@r]

A simple-minded question: Who now IS MTI? If it is accepted as a Pty then presumably Nerina (?) and Clynton but if FSCA finds that it was a collective, then would it be the board of directors?

It is Jxhxnn and there are no other directors lodged. Anything else would need to be documented and authorized by Jxhann.

Do you really think Clxtxn is going to submit his shareholders agreement?

 

[expedite]

Good morning everyone. I found this post on a group and found it quite interesting. Her husband was the old director of MTI but left. Someone can notify authorities ?

Flipping well done!

 

[reg4812]

consider this a ponzi so why are they insisting that the claims be based on such a basis?

where are they doing this, court application?

 

[adslrouter]

my opinion only......

All the major scammers, aka founders, sat around a table and planned this as their last and final retirement scam. One last huge effort. Everybody worked it as best they could. Got every person ever involved in scams before, to bring their skills learned, i.e. if scenario a happens, how do we handle it. Thus, you get the biggest ponzi SA has ever seen.

Bitcoin and trading financial instruments (there is a hype about these, most people do not have enough knowledge about these), together with people's greed and ignorance, big companies' financial scandals, governments' mess-ups etc. suited them perfectly like a golden handshake for retirement

They all took their cut already
Nobody screwed nobody between themselves
All planned to the T

That's why everyone of them and everything said and done, was so brazen, "no-care, go-duck-yourself, we-push-forward". They pushed for the highest deposits in the shortest time-frame. The script evolved day to day with stuff to put their depositors at ease.
I also think it all exceeded even their own expectations, they never thought it will get so big, so quick, so many btc handed to them, so easy

They all know the procedures when a scam folds, they have been there before, they know processes take years, regulators got red tape to deal with, they probably got plans to ensure nobody gets found guilty or incarcerated, plans our honest, "do-not-enrich-yourself-at-the-cost-of-other" people do not comprehend, or will only understand with hindsight.

You will not see these founders starting scams again, they are done.

Their "students" will now take existing and new scams forward.

 

[expedite]

It is Jxhxnn and there are no other directors lodged. Anything else would need to be documented and authorized by Jxhann.

Do you really think Clxtxn is going to submit his shareholders agreement?

The shareholders agreement in any event may not conflict with the Act. If it does then the Act takes precedence.
Secondly, that company was incorporated with the standard short form MOI, so it is reasonably simple if you are familiar with the Act.

 

[reg4812]

@reg4812. I am not able to answer this, but in addition to legal procedure and ethics, would there not be tax implications to consider? SARS can't tax you on an imaginary balance in MTI back offices but I imagine if liquidators use that imaginary amount and pay you out based on that, then SARS would take that as income or profit. [A bit like the Cheshire cat; now it's there. Now it's gone!]

I reckon SARS will generally try to tax anything...imaginary or not