Quote from: MoPac on December 08, 2012, 09:58:07 PM

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on December 08, 2012, 08:57:46 PM

Quote from: MoPac on December 08, 2012, 07:58:12 PM

(1) You don't think you should have to comply with the law as now explained by lawyers, and you are mad at Giga for bringing the law into this when you think everybody could have just gotten away with doing the payments as "gentlemen" without needing to involve the pesky notion of tax and sanction compliance steps. In your mind,

Are you faking to be stupid or for real?
Either Giga was not legal before -when he took our coins- AND SO HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL
or:
he was legal when he took our coins - AND SO HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL STEALING OUR COINS BECAUSE OF B/S LEGAL INVENTIONS
There is no alternative.

The other alternative, which is more relevant right now, is this. GLBSE was not legal before in terms of its dividend payment processing system because it did not collect all the information it should have and did not issue the proper tax documentation. Now, Giga is taking over this processing functionality, which used to be GLBSE's responsibility, and he is doing it differently than GLBSE did in order to be legal. You are mad at Giga because you are now having to provide more information than you did before.

Not sure this is at all relevant. My understanding is that Giga initially issued the bonds/contracts OFF of GLBSE - only moving to GLBSE some time later. He didn't require the information now requested initially - so GLBSE is, in that respect, totally a red herring.

Where you appear to be getting confused is in mixing up what was/is required of Giga to be legal where he is and what was/is required of investors to comply with whatever rules apply to them. IF the scenario is that the information required by Giga is absolutely essential for him to have (debatable - but that's really for him to decide) AND that the cost of providing such information is disproportionately burdensome on investors (which it clearly is for anyone whose investment is worth less than the cost of obtaining an Apostille) then the standard remedy is to null the contract - reversing all payments made by both parties as though the contract were never entered into.

That is also the standard procedure in the UK (where I am) if someone sends funds to a regulated company then is unable or unwilling to provide personal identity information. It's also standard in other countries - e.g. in India where Dishwara is from (Their Supreme Court or equivalent ruled that even banks can't freeze funds if someone won't provide ID - the banks either have to allow the account to continue to operate or close the account and refund everything in it).

If one party to a contract has onerous/costly requirements and expects that cost to be met by the other party then it's THEIR responsibility to disclose that at the start. It's not the other party's obligation to try to guess what they're likely to need in the future when even the country in which the service operates hasn't been disclosed. Your position (and that of Giga's) appears to be along the lines of:

"Sorry but I've now found out you have to incur a $100 cost to claim the $10 worth of benefit due to you from the contract we agreed. You either have to pay that $100 or let me dispose of the $10 in some undefined way which won't benefit you."

That's totally against commonsense, decency and established practice. And also specifically against the law/relevant regulations in at least some countries. A proper position would be:

"Sorry but I've now found out you have to incur a $100 cost to claim the $10 worth of benefit due to you from the contract we agreed. Either I'll refund the $100 costs you incur or we'll have to annull the contract as though it never happened and I'll refund the moneys paid to me less those returned to you already in the form of dividends."

Obviously cancelling the contract would mean investors would lose out on all the massive profit they would otherwise make from this investment - but I'm sure that's preferable to getting nothing.

It's HIS responsibility to ensure that he fulfilled whatever legal/statutory/regulatory demands are on him - not the responsibility of his investors. Had he initially disclosed that he was in the US and was supposed to obtain such information (but wasn't doing so) then the situation would be somewhat different. His mistake - he should pay for it one way or another basically.