Reform

DanH said:
Maybe you should start using your own brain again.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now you don't want a source or evidence? You want just what I remember.

We notice things Dan, that you just choose the opposite of whatever is written. It's not an argument, it's just you being the clueless pigeon kicking over the chess pieces again.
 
Joseph Paxton said:
That's a very interesting reading hahaha. A DARVO response.

It is patently clear that episode as described, is wholly about people like YOU, ya chump.
Click to expand...

Why would it be about me?

You are the one who wrote "Sky is falling" crap about a Reform government, not me.
 
steeleye20 said:

'Campaigners warn of 'dark day for democracy' after billionaires hand Reform £72 million donations'.​


Are the voters stupid enough?

Definitely.

😎
Click to expand...


"Campaigners" = "Steeley"

WE DON'T CARE
 
DanH said:
Can tell com-pu-ter has done all your thinking since the divorce.
Click to expand...

Computers don't think Dan, they follow instruction. Sterling called you out like I did.

Post evidence = "Use your brain!"
Don't post evidence = "Where's your evidence?"

Coo-coo Dan, s*** on the chessboard again and strut about like a winner
 
DanH said:
“From at least September 2015, and continuing at least through the time of the Indictment in September 2020, HAYES and DELO willfully caused BitMEX to fail to establish and maintain an AML program, including a program for verifying the identify of BitMEX’s customers (or a “know your customer” or “KYC” program). As a result of its willful failure to implement AML and KYC programs, BitMEX was in effect a money laundering platform. For example, in May 2018, HAYES was notified of allegations that BitMEX was being used to launder the proceeds of a cryptocurrency hack. Neither HAYES, DELO, nor their company filed a suspicious activity report thereafter (indeed, BitMEX filed no suspicious activity reports at all between 2014 and September 2020), nor did they implement an AML or KYC program in response. Unsurprisingly, BitMEX was also a vehicle for sanctions violations: HAYES and DELO both communicated directly with BitMEX customers who self-identified as being based in Iran, an OFAC-sanctioned jurisdiction, but did nothing to implement an AML or KYC program after doing so.

HAYES and DELO failed to institute AML or KYC programs at BitMEX despite closely following U.S. regulatory developments that made clear their legal obligation to do so if BitMEX operated in the United States, which it did. Despite repeatedly stating that BitMEX did not serve U.S. customers, including to members of the press and others outside of BitMEX, HAYES and DELO both knew that BitMEX’s purported withdrawal from the U.S. market in or about September 2015 was a sham, and that purported “controls” BitMEX put in place to prevent U.S. trading were an ineffective facade that did not, in fact, prevent users from accessing or trading on BitMEX from the United States. HAYES and DELO not only understood that U.S. customers continued to trade on BitMEX, but derived substantial profits from BitMEX as a result of U.S.-based trading. HAYES and DELO actively sought out U.S. customers by using U.S.-based cryptocurrency “influencers” to market to new customers through BitMEX’s so-called “Affiliate Program.” HAYES also conducted U.S. television appearances and marketing stunts that promoted BitMEX’s products in the United States. DELO allowed a customer to continue to access a BitMEX trading account despite this customer explicitly being “US based,” merely because that customer was “famous in Bitcoin.” DELO falsely changed internal tracking information to reflect that customer’s country of residence as being other than the United States, despite knowing that to be false.”

This would also be a criminal offence in the UK.
Click to expand...

Soooo...BitMEX was a Seychelles company operating offshore. UK courts need a clear UK nexus (e.g. significant UK customers, UK-based operations, or effects in the UK).

The US case rested on BitMEX serving thousands of US customers and acting as an unregistered US futures commission merchant facts specific to US rules.

So no he would not be convicted under UK law.

Source:

 
eaglesdare said:
Soooo...BitMEX was a Seychelles company operating offshore. UK courts need a clear UK nexus (e.g. significant UK customers, UK-based operations, or effects in the UK).

The US case rested on BitMEX serving thousands of US customers and acting as an unregistered US futures commission merchant facts specific to US rules.

So no he would not be convicted under UK law.

Source:

Click to expand...

And you’re confident about this are you?
 
eaglesdare said:
Soooo...BitMEX was a Seychelles company operating offshore. UK courts need a clear UK nexus (e.g. significant UK customers, UK-based operations, or effects in the UK).

The US case rested on BitMEX serving thousands of US customers and acting as an unregistered US futures commission merchant facts specific to US rules.

So no he would not be convicted under UK law.

Source:

Click to expand...

Which AI bot did you chuck this into btw?
 
eaglesdare said:
Soooo...BitMEX was a Seychelles company operating offshore. UK courts need a clear UK nexus (e.g. significant UK customers, UK-based operations, or effects in the UK).

The US case rested on BitMEX serving thousands of US customers and acting as an unregistered US futures commission merchant facts specific to US rules.

So no he would not be convicted under UK law.

Source:

Click to expand...

Have you checked your source? BitMEX’s own website you absolute f*cking mince head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top