The blockchain evidence corroborates that the passthrough was shorted in the end.. Does it not?
I think the allegation is that some of what he got back from pirate (even if it was not the full amount) he didn't "pass through" to the investors.
That is a separate allegation.. I was responding to this allegation..
I accused Og of lying based on sworn testimony that is on public record and blockchain evidence that confirms/proves funds were returned to Og from pirate.
Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.
Og is the only person who can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC is true or not.
What I want to know is why pirate would say he reimbursed Og in full while Og said he didn't.
blockchain evidence that confirms/proves funds were returned to Og from pirate.
If anything, the blockchain evidence shows that he was not fully paid out by pirate.. The only "evidence" the passthrough was
paid in full, is pirate's testimony to the police, in the transcript..
ognasty was shorted around 1300 btc.
if you find the payments for that 1300,which i cant. you would have something.
As for the mysterious 144
BTC dead end.. Separate allegation... (144
BTC is all that's left unaccounted for after it was shown that the passthough was stiffed around 1300
BTC, not fully repaid by pirate)
You're making things more complicated than they need to be.
1. The testimony was delivered under sworn oath to the SEC, not the police.
2. I can't prove that all funds were returned to Og by pirate by looking at the blockchain -- I never said that I could. But certainly some of them were, which contradicts Og's statement.
I just want to know what would compel pirate to lie under oath about returning all of the funds to Og, if he indeed lied.