I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. Are you saying that there's a law in my jurisdiction that says my local police force won't regard fraud as fraud unless I pay scrypt.cc anything they may have paid me? I'm sure that can't be right, so could you clarify? Ideally, could you point to the relevant legislation/code (doesn't have to be in my jurisdiction, if you point me in the right direction I can probably find locally appropriate legislation).
There are ponzi clawback precedents:
https://bernsteinlaw.com/publications-list/investor-beware-what-everyone-should-know-about-clawback-litigation/It's not as simple as Stroto claims though.
That's awesome, thank you!
I've got to admit - that actually seems fairly reasonable (with regards to Madoff, and possibly here too). If scrypt.cc is found to be a ponzi, any profits would be "false profits" and surrendered to the bankruptcy trustee. This would be used by the trustee to pay depositors who had been defrauded out of their deposits - the initial principle. Sucks for anyone who made money out of it, but at least they end up with everything they started with, which sucks less than losing money - even if some of that money is paid back by the bankruptcy trustee.
I've not yet found the equivalent in my jurisdiction (UK) but I have to admit I think it would make sense here too.
If you don't report this to the police then any money you've lost is lost for good (and any withdrawals in the future will result in further losses), and the scheme keeps running to the detriment of the wider community. If you do report then you may get some of your money back, and the operation may be shut down and the perpetrator fined or jailed.