4 ms·

> Or, they do know and more detail wasn’t relevant at the complaint stage of the civil case, whereas it might be to the actual trial and to the parallel crimina

by darawk 4y ago

> Or, they do know and more detail wasn’t relevant at the complaint stage of the civil case, whereas it might be to the actual trial and to the parallel criminal referral that it has been reported that DoJ is investigating. > A civil complaint is not required to be, and generally is not, a catalogy of every piece of relevant information the filing party has. And it especially isn't a catalog of everything they know where a civil lawsuit isn't the venue for addressing it. Cool, so we're back at zero evidence of any of this happening. We agree then.

dragonwriter 4y ago
The complaint as it directly relates that they (1) knew of patterns of criminal activity (including patterns of terrorist financing) and specific criminal actors on the platform, and (2) took specific steps to actively counsel specific customers involved in illicit activity on steps to evade detection of that activity. Now, its not “evidence” because a complaint isn’t a submission of evidence. But, taking the complaint at face value, it directly alleges that that is what has been happening, and that it is a consistent pattern (paras. 104-106). Now, this doesn’t go into much detail in this area, because its not a criminal complaint or indictment where this conduct is the central behavior being addressed, but it is very much in the complaint.
- darawk 4y ago
  > The complaint as it directly relates that they (1) knew of patterns of criminal activity (including patterns of terrorist financing) and specific criminal actors on the platform, and (2) took specific steps to actively counsel specific customers involved in illicit activity on steps to evade detection of that activity. Let's not conflate events here. They did know about some patterns of criminal activity. Its not stated, as far as I know, that they actively aided/coached these people on how to evade anything. They also knew about the use of their platform by e.g. HFT companies based in the US who accessed it via shell company. They appear to have, to a limited extent, coached this group on what to do. This behavior is the primary substance of the CFTC's suit, not the criminal/terrorist/ransomware behavior. It's important that these things not be mixed up. The latter is utterly trivial, protects nobody, and it is the real substance of the lawsuit. The allegations of aiding and abetting crime are not the substance of the lawsuit, presumably because there is no significant evidence of it occurring.
jjulius 4y ago
>Cool, so we're back at zero evidence of any of this happening. We agree then. Yeah, we have no idea whether or not CFTC is looking into this or has any evidence, which means... >I don't [know], but obviously the CFTC doesn't either, otherwise they'd have spelled it out. ... that that statement is not so obvious.

by darawk 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

The complaint as it directly relates that they (1) knew of patterns of criminal activity (including patterns of terrorist financing) and specific criminal actors on the platform, and (2) took specific steps to actively counsel specific customers involved in illicit activity on steps to evade detection of that activity. Now, its not “evidence” because a complaint isn’t a submission of evidence. But, taking the complaint at face value, it directly alleges that that is what has been happening, and that it is a consistent pattern (paras. 104-106). Now, this doesn’t go into much detail in this area, because its not a criminal complaint or indictment where this conduct is the central behavior being addressed, but it is very much in the complaint.

darawk 4y ago
> The complaint as it directly relates that they (1) knew of patterns of criminal activity (including patterns of terrorist financing) and specific criminal actors on the platform, and (2) took specific steps to actively counsel specific customers involved in illicit activity on steps to evade detection of that activity. Let's not conflate events here. They did know about some patterns of criminal activity. Its not stated, as far as I know, that they actively aided/coached these people on how to evade anything. They also knew about the use of their platform by e.g. HFT companies based in the US who accessed it via shell company. They appear to have, to a limited extent, coached this group on what to do. This behavior is the primary substance of the CFTC's suit, not the criminal/terrorist/ransomware behavior. It's important that these things not be mixed up. The latter is utterly trivial, protects nobody, and it is the real substance of the lawsuit. The allegations of aiding and abetting crime are not the substance of the lawsuit, presumably because there is no significant evidence of it occurring.

jjulius 4y ago

>Cool, so we're back at zero evidence of any of this happening. We agree then. Yeah, we have no idea whether or not CFTC is looking into this or has any evidence, which means... >I don't [know], but obviously the CFTC doesn't either, otherwise they'd have spelled it out. ... that that statement is not so obvious.