Quote from: PatrickHarnett on March 23, 2012, 09:11:16 PM

Quote from: rjk on March 23, 2012, 01:58:39 PM

Quote from: Andre Jensen (World Bitcoin Exchange) on March 23, 2012, 01:51:37 PM

i just can't confirm anything until the investigation has completed for me it's now a legal matter that is out of my hands now and i am restricted in what i say here.

Because of sealed court orders, or because of your lawyer's recommendation?

There is a "thing" I recall was introduced about five years ago. Can't remember exactly the reference but it had name like a "section 19" order. The lay version is:
- you're under investigation, but not charged with a crime.
- you can't tell any one why you're being investigates, or even that you are subject to a S19 order.
- if you do, we can lock you up

As for the location thing - Australia is only 4 hours away and a couple of hundred dollars for a ticket. Running claims isn't a hurdle.

Andre's posts imply insolvency which would make you flying out here rather pointless. When a liquidator/trustee is appointed, claims will have to be made with through them and final distributions (if any) will be made by them at a time determined by them. If there are any applications in progress for involuntary winding up of the company subsequent to statutory demands or Director Penalty Notices, it is possible for other creditors to join those actions. It's worth remembering that those with Bitcoins and currency on deposit with the exchange are unlikely to be the only creditors and that any transactions during the "lookback" period prior to insolvency can be clawed back by the liquidator/trustee. If user funds deposited with the exchange were not quarantined from operating funds, there are other legal implications involved for the exchange owners. At this point, it would be extremely unwise for Andre to do anything other than maintain a holding pattern without solid legal advice.

I wish people had taken a bit more notice when I commented on the strike off action by ASIC last year and the fact that the company had failed to lodge a change of details with ASIC when they relocated from Victoria to Queensland. There were a lot of red flags regarding this venture, including them not having a financial services licence (something a supposed investment company - which is what they held themselves out as having been prior to their entry into Bitcoin services - most certainly requires) and not being registered for GST (what investment company for targeting high net worth individuals would have a turnover of less than $75,000). "Goldcoast, Queensland" is not an address, and their unwillingness to put their actual business address on their website should have been a huge warning sign. It's like putting your business location down as "West Coast, USA" and should be especially troubling when the official records for your business have your company as being located somewhere else entirely.

Patrick. As you are owed more than $2000, issuing a statutory demand is an option for you. The options for responding to a statutory demand are very limited and winding up proceedings can be started if the company does not respond in the required manner and prove its solvency within 21 days. A statutory demand must be served to the registered office last listed with ASIC. If the demand is not satisfied within the 21 days or the company does not apply to the Supreme Court to set the demand aside within that period (the period is set in stone by statute and cannot be extended) a legal presumption of insolvency then applies. Although the company no longer exists as a legal entity, winding up or other insolvency proceedings may not be in progress yet. If they are in progress, the identity of the liquidator/administrator/trustee must be disclosed to creditors.

People need to stop seeing what they want to see when it comes to Bitcoin ventures and they need to stop ignoring things which should raise huge red flags. Stop taking bullshit excuses for things sketchy shit at face value.

Quote

There is a "thing" I recall was introduced about five years ago. Can't remember exactly the reference but it had name like a "section 19" order. The lay version is:
- you're under investigation, but not charged with a crime.
- you can't tell any one why you're being investigates, or even that you are subject to a S19 order.
- if you do, we can lock you up

Are you thinking of the provision applying to financial service providers which stops them from being able to disclose that they are co-operating with an investigation into suspicious activity (and actually allows them to deduct an hourly rate equivalent to that charged by liquidators from the client's account for any staff time spent on co-operating with the investigation)? WBX doesn't have an AFSL, but I'm pretty sure that the provisions themselves come from AML/CTF legislation so they can probably be imposed in the absence of a licence.