Quote from: ffssixtynine on February 07, 2014, 11:11:21 AM

Quote from: glendall on February 07, 2014, 01:22:29 AM

I admire your optimism. But how long you going to wait? What if continues to say nothing for another month? It's already been 2. What about another year? Are you okay with that? Because Ukyo has shown 0 progress on this matter. He seems to spend more time on the forums here defending himself than anytime resolving the issue. Why? Because there isn't anything to resolve, he stole the coins, is the most likely answer.

To be fair mate, I didn't say I was optimistic. I can only say that to my knowledge he didn't steal the coins and that he is (or was last we spoke) working on ways to repay us.

The 'only' explanation is not that he stole the coins though. There are a number of other explanations which lead to the coins being unavailable. This has gone on a long time though and I do wish the truth would come out.

Sigh - you are missing the relevant points in all this.
If ASIC (or whichever Govt organisation) has the coins and did some magical gag order on him then he may have grounds to not reveal that to us - however it's probably easy to call ASIC and ask them about that also.

If anything else has happened to them, then he has lied about them.
No, a company cannot request another company hide what happened to missing funds. Simply can't happen. It's illegal.

There are not many other explanations, and none of them seem to not include lying.

If he lost them by screwing up bitcoind then he is still legally liable for them all.
More so since it is impossible to prove he doesn't have access to them any more.
We would have to simply believe him - and since he has already lied about it, only a fool would believe him.
But again, it doesn't matter, he still is required to return the thousands of bitcoins.

If instead he lost them by using the coins, then that is jail time as well as being required to return them.
(and again he's also lied about not revealing what happened)

If he lost them by giving someone else access to them, then again he still is legally liable for them all.
There would probably be also the possibility of charges due to negligence.
(and again we'd have to assume he no longer has access to them, but that cannot be proven)

I'm running out of ideas that don't fall under those ...