Quote from: usagi on November 28, 2012, 05:19:34 PM

Quote from: kjj on November 28, 2012, 04:58:25 PM

You said what you were doing, namely acting in your capacity of trustee to sell an asset held in trust by you, for the purpose of paying one beneficiary preferentially. What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud. It is also an actionable civil matter commonly known as "breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee".

No, I did not say that. I've said over and over that I am paying out claims as I have verified the status of the shareholders. You must have a problem understanding simple English. You keep babbling on about paying people preferentially. There is no preference. This single was sold to pay off a (one) person because it was convenient to do so. I am not going to sell it and disperse the bitcoins evenly among everyone. There is no reason to do that. it is not logical. It's like, if I have 50 shareholders, what is morelogical, give everyone 6 shares of BTC mining and 20 shares of BITCOINRS? Or give some people 12 shares of BTC-MINING and others 40 shares of BITCOINRS? (to make it very simplistic) -- it's easier to give chunks to people that to give everyone a few crumbs from the five pies you have. I'd rather give oe person one reasonable pie slice than fifty crumbs which, when bunched together, equals one pie slice.

You also seem to be under the delusion that I have to pay everyone at exactly the same time. I don't have to do that because there are several lists of shareholders involved. Paying some people first is not giving preference you idiot.. there are no other verified shareholders right now. So sorry no, that is not a crime.

Can you point out ONE... just ONE verified shareholder of BMF or CPA who has not been paid? Bingo. No victim.

Can you show that I have taken more money than should be fairly allocated to me based on the number of shares I owned? No. I haven't even taken 10%. There is no crime here, just a handful of deluded individuals crying wolf.... again.

As soon as the other lists are received I will send off what I can to those other people. No one will get any more or less than what they are owed. See? No preference. Claims get paid out as they come in. Stop being a retard.

Do you get tired avoiding understanding what I'm saying?

A contract of this sort creates a legal pseudo-entity, and there are things that must be done to dissolve such entities. The proper procedure is not "make it up as I go". Your documents might not constitute a proper and valid contract, but you have been operating in a way that shows your acceptance for quite a while now, meaning that you won't have an easy time arguing against the validity of the agreements, should you ever end up in court (which is admittedly unlikely).

I never said that you have to pay everyone at the same time. I gave you a flow of operations that must be done, along with dependencies between the steps.

As far as I can tell:
1. You don't know who your creditors are.
2. You don't know who your shareholders are.
3. You don't know how much value you can get from liquidation.

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth. Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential. It is pretty much the definition, actually. In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Saying that you intend to pay everyone at some sort of face value is not a valid defense at this stage, because you don't know if you are capable of actually doing that or not. Good intentions, in the real world, might reduce your fine or jail time, but it won't prevent the conviction.

P.S. You keep talking about distributing shares owned by the venture to shareholders. That is not a valid liquidation strategy, and your difficulties in doing so should be sufficient for you to understand why it is not allowed. As trustee, you have the option of auctioning assets and allowing creditors and shareholders to "pay" for them using their cut of the liquidation, but it has to be open to the public.