5 ms·

> Once the children discovered the estate’s money was being used to pay the bank’s lawyers in the legal fight, they asked for the bank to stop using the account

by lobe 9y ago

> Once the children discovered the estate’s money was being used to pay the bank’s lawyers in the legal fight, they asked for the bank to stop using the account. JPMorgan did not comply. Eventually, the account was drained of all but $100, just enough to keep the account open. Then JPMorgan made its own novel legal move. The estate, as administered by the bank, took out a loan, from JPMorgan, for more than $900,000. The bank, in other words, loaned itself money, indebting the estate in the process. Wow, just wow. Usually when I read articles about an investment bank doing something dodgy, I can play devil's advocate and talk it through from their point of view. But this time I am struggling to do that. So many things were done that were not just morally wrong, but legally too. I struggle to believe there was no one at JP who didn't point this out.

option_greek 9y ago
No wonder Dimon hates CryptoCurrencies and Bitcoin in particular. Sadly, people now fall in the same pitfall by keeping their coins on an exchange.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  The estate was intestate. How would Bitcoin have helped?
  - imron 9y ago
    Take the keys from the cold storage in the safe in the deceased's office, and the bitcoin are now yours. /s
    - tankenmate 9y ago
      Then a probate judge will issue a bench warrant for your arrest.
      - imron 9y ago
        I have no idea what you're talking about your honor. What's a bitcoin? I never saw any bits of any coins and the safe has a combination lock, not a key, how could I take the key? My original post wasn't being serious (hence the /s), but if there's no proof of you taking them and no activity on the blockchain for the wallet, there's not much that can be done.
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > if there's no proof of you taking them and no activity on the blockchain for the wallet, there's not much that can be done This attitude is the principal reason Bitcoin, specifically, is probably fucked.
        loooooooooooool 9y ago
        Unlike cash, right?...
        mindslight 9y ago
        One of the key points of Bitcoin (and hard money philosophy in general) is that the idea of a separately-existing title is a bug, not a feature. When you start with the assertion that privkey is equivalent to ownership, you can build abstractions on top using computer code rather that legal code. Without this assertion, software abstractions cannot be built as the software's reasoning can always be invalidated by an external court complaint. In terms of abstractions, the analogous scenarios for the estate planning case: 1. Private keys secret-split between individual heirs and dead-man's switch - beneficiary. 2. Private key mutually secret-split between heirs - work it out, possibly escalating to probate. 3. Private key sitting around on paper waiting to be picked up by whomever discovers it - same as cash sitting around. 4. Private key known only to decedent - value escheats to the void (or the currency itself, depending on your interpretation). The question whether Bitcoin specifically is fucked is whether it is strong enough to survive the inevitable clash with the traditional [0] legal system that will insist on destroying one of its core properties. Morons that brazenly advocate stealing cryptocurrency don't help, but a lack of them wouldn't mean the state would remain uninvolved, either. [0] Yes, "the" legal system is one of many possible legal systems. The philosophy of common law asserts that it's inevitable and manifest. But it's anything but.
jjeaff 9y ago
I would guess the thinking of the bank was that they were paying legal fees due to infighting of the family members. Something that, if true, would make sense to pay out of the estate funds. But, assuming it is proven that a lot of the problems were due to incompetence on the part of chase, that is a different story and seems like theft. So to me, the use of the funds for legal fees is not in and of itself an issue.

by lobe 9y ago

option_greek 9y ago

No wonder Dimon hates CryptoCurrencies and Bitcoin in particular. Sadly, people now fall in the same pitfall by keeping their coins on an exchange.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
The estate was intestate. How would Bitcoin have helped?
- imron 9y ago
  Take the keys from the cold storage in the safe in the deceased's office, and the bitcoin are now yours. /s
  - tankenmate 9y ago
    Then a probate judge will issue a bench warrant for your arrest.
    - imron 9y ago
      I have no idea what you're talking about your honor. What's a bitcoin? I never saw any bits of any coins and the safe has a combination lock, not a key, how could I take the key? My original post wasn't being serious (hence the /s), but if there's no proof of you taking them and no activity on the blockchain for the wallet, there's not much that can be done.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > if there's no proof of you taking them and no activity on the blockchain for the wallet, there's not much that can be done This attitude is the principal reason Bitcoin, specifically, is probably fucked.
        loooooooooooool 9y ago
        Unlike cash, right?...
        mindslight 9y ago
        One of the key points of Bitcoin (and hard money philosophy in general) is that the idea of a separately-existing title is a bug, not a feature. When you start with the assertion that privkey is equivalent to ownership, you can build abstractions on top using computer code rather that legal code. Without this assertion, software abstractions cannot be built as the software's reasoning can always be invalidated by an external court complaint. In terms of abstractions, the analogous scenarios for the estate planning case: 1. Private keys secret-split between individual heirs and dead-man's switch - beneficiary. 2. Private key mutually secret-split between heirs - work it out, possibly escalating to probate. 3. Private key sitting around on paper waiting to be picked up by whomever discovers it - same as cash sitting around. 4. Private key known only to decedent - value escheats to the void (or the currency itself, depending on your interpretation). The question whether Bitcoin specifically is fucked is whether it is strong enough to survive the inevitable clash with the traditional [0] legal system that will insist on destroying one of its core properties. Morons that brazenly advocate stealing cryptocurrency don't help, but a lack of them wouldn't mean the state would remain uninvolved, either. [0] Yes, "the" legal system is one of many possible legal systems. The philosophy of common law asserts that it's inevitable and manifest. But it's anything but.

jjeaff 9y ago

I would guess the thinking of the bank was that they were paying legal fees due to infighting of the family members. Something that, if true, would make sense to pay out of the estate funds. But, assuming it is proven that a lot of the problems were due to incompetence on the part of chase, that is a different story and seems like theft. So to me, the use of the funds for legal fees is not in and of itself an issue.