Quote from: o0o0 on December 28, 2016, 03:13:23 AM

Quote from: Horus_Cryptsy on December 28, 2016, 03:03:56 AM

Well, I feel if someone had wallet access, and saw funds weren't there, they should be liable, yes. If with nothing else, at least for failure to report.

That being said, Coinbase isn't being sued because they saw funds weren't there. They are being sued because they had faulty KYC/AML, knowing Vernon had scammed people, and still allowing him to liquidate. They turned a blind eye to it. That's what the suit claims.

To be fair, if Coinbase did their job properly, they would have locked accounts, or not allowed it, meaning a good chunk of funds would still be there, or at the least, reported earlier, giving feds an opportunity to seize computers or servers early, maybe saving information. Who knows though, it is a what if scenario. Maybe if it was reported, feds still wouldn't have done anything in time, maybe they would have.

I agree, it doesn't directly catch or even help catch Vernon, but it does help make investors whole.

It isn't ideal by any means, but at this point, I do not believe any prosecution will reach Vernon unless he comes back to states, but at least it helps some people get money back.

Maybe if we're lucky, china will look into bitebi9 and get him with something there.

agreed and likewise what about that other cryptsy employee mullick or jshock that alerted vern to the hack? if they had of reported and performed their dilligence at the time vernon wouldnt have leaked 2 years more of funds? i still believe there are cryptsy employees other than vern that need prosecution. there is no bloody way everything is vern.

so to be fair as well those cryptsy employees with tech and wallet access if they did their job they'd know on support ticket response that people couldnt withdraw be ause the funds available didnt match up agreed? so and im not stating you but mullick, other wallet people etc didnt do their job and are liable. i understand mullick helping but i feel to an extent its a guilty mind trying to limited liability. he could of checked earlier but once names are out and silverlaw on the scene hes overly helpful compared to trollbox days. he had access to check. i asked him for a wallets cold wallet address in the past for big holder checks and he gave it to me. fair to say mullick knew cold wallet addresses too. when people support ticket queried he could check. i dont buy i didnt know.

Yeah, to be honest, I was always told Mullick did not have access to main bitcoin wallets. I remember some days a tx would have to go out, and we would have to wait for Paul to send the tx, because Mullick didn't have access to the btc wallet.

Me saying anything though is just speculation. I didn't personally have enough access to know any of that, my work was never to do with wallets or things of that nature.

My thing was things like KYC/AML and investigations on IDs and stuff.

I wish I knew more in that area for sure, but at this point, I don't. Maybe as the suit progresses more information will come out and enlighten us.