Quote from: deluxeCITY on December 12, 2014, 03:23:00 AM

Quote from: MrTeal on December 12, 2014, 03:10:22 AM

Quote from: deluxeCITY on December 12, 2014, 02:33:40 AM

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating?

Thanks much.

15 U.S. Code § 78i (a)(5)

Quote

(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.

and 15 U.S. Code § 78i (a)(5)

Quote

(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.

These were found after a quick google search. A more through search and/or the use of a securities attorney would potentially reveal other/additional laws.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i

Not sure how any of those apply, as I don't have any stake in AMHASH, an account on Havelock or any shares of any cloud mining operation. Moreover, I haven't made any false statements.

Besides all that,

Quote from: TheSEC

Swaps are financial contracts in which two counterparties agree to exchange or "swap" payments with each other as a result of such things as changes in a stock price, interest rate or commodity price.

Even if I did have AMHASH shares (which I don't) on Havelock (where I'm not) and I was slandering PBmining not because it was a ponzi but because it was a legitimate threat the AMHASH (which it's not, as it's now an imploded ponzi), that still wouldn't be a swap as there is no agreement to swap payments based on a change in price.