Quote from: Deprived on November 11, 2012, 09:28:28 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 11, 2012, 07:10:01 PM

Quote from: augustocroppo on November 11, 2012, 03:20:13 PM

If Patrick made this blatant promise for his potential customers, and then later he provided evidence contradicting his initial promises, than a scammer tag should be issued. The investors should open a thread in this section and present the necessary evidence to prove the intention of fraud.

The Kraken fund may be a slam dunk case of fraud. The Kraken fund began operations after it was quite clear that Pirate was in massive default and very unlikely to ever pay back another penny. Yet the Kraken fund bought Pirate debt, and Patrick was clear about it being guaranteed by him personally. (All of this was known to the investors too, but the fault in this case is not equal. In this case, the investors mistake really was to rely on Patrick's promise. There was nothing Patrick didn't know at the time.)

You don't see how this totally undermines your argument in the MP/PH situation?

No, I don't.

Quote

One of the foundations of your argument is that neither PH/MP knew PH was exposed to pirate. Doesn't his behaviour with Kraken suggest that MAYBE he DID know he was exposed to pirate but chose to lie about it to raise more funds?

Kraken came much later. This loan was August 10. Kraken was September 30. In between those two dates, Pirate defaulted.

The rest of your post simply repeats the claims you've made elsewhere -- that Patrick's at fault for failing to do the impossible and somehow making a fundamentally unsound business model work.