Only criminals like to turn simple issues into overthought processes.
Not "overthought", just carefully and precisely reasoned. The issue wasn't as simple as you're pretending it was, and precision is important when reasoning about crimes, particularly when it relates to the identity of the victim. Anyway, that's a rather serious charge to be throwing around so freely. What crime are you accusing me of, exactly? For that matter, you also accused participants in the derivatives market of criminal intent for no better reason than your own failure to understand it. Perhaps the problem isn't with me or with them, but rather with you.
For the patience-impaired, here's the short version: Yes, a crime was committed. The victim of the crime was the property owner--the bank--not the account holder who was impersonated. The crime was fraud, possibly compounded with theft, but there wasn't enough detail in the original story to be sure of the theft.
I only quoted your response as part of the discussion follow up, you had the last bit to add and I added on top of that.
I didnt accuse you of anything, the accused is MVitaliyB and my quote is related to this whole thread surrounding his refusal to return the coins.
re: derivative market spawned from banks greed to cross insure without any oversight or regulation at all on definite bets that would allways leave them as the winner and allways kill the small guy with false information, I understand the subject most definitely better it seems and I suggest you go read up and follow the recent developments surround this before spewing comments back in this thread that wasnt targetted at you which I find amusing that you thought it was.
Anyhow your response is clearly that of an asshat, well played sir.