James Gibson aka gigavps to be named as Pirate ponzi scheme fraudulent beneficiary
As per the recently published SEC filing "Shavers made preferential redemptions to friends and longtime BTCST investors". This bet resolves as Yes if the reputed scammer James Gibson aka gigavps is actually named at any point by the prosecution as one such fraudulent beneficiary, whether during civil proceedings before this court or criminal proceedings in a related case. This bet also resolves as Yes if said James Gibson is indicted on criminal charges in any way related to his participation in the promotion of the Pirate ponzi scheme. This bet resolves as No if it hasn’t resolved as Yes before July 1st, 2014.
- Bet started:11 months 3 weeks ago (24-07-2013)
- Bet closed: 3 weeks 1 day ago (24-06-2014)
- Resolved: 2 weeks 1 day ago (01-07-2014)
- Weighted No: 1`331`135
- Weighted Yes: 1`007`537
- Confirmed bets: 9 ( No: 6 / Yes: 3 )
CONFIRMED BETS: 30.21 BTC
|TIME||BET||WEIGHT||BTC IN||IN||BTC OUT||OUT|
#1137: Anonymous 24-07-13 at 04:51
The action on this one is awfully lopsided for a reason…
#1140: Legal scholar 24-07-13 at 16:26
Ok let’s get a few things straight.. "prosecution" must be referring to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Plaintiff in the above-captioned civil action. "fraudulent beneficiary" would refer to this individual receiving material benefit in a fraudulent manner (in other words, that Gibson acted in a manner consistent with the "badges of fraud", as determined by US federal law). Being "named" merely means that Gibson is mentioned by name, in connection with the fraud allegation. "Before this court" is very tricky, it must be expanded to literally mean ‘in the US District Court for the Eastern division of Texas’. That’s a very tight definition; does Gibson reside in or otherwise have nexus with Eastern Texas? By "criminal proceedings in a related case", I’m assuming any criminal proceeding within the US.
Perhaps the admin should resolve these ambiguities now. If not, and the admin comes down on a technically incorrect interpretation of these pretenses which were established and approved by him or her, perhaps this site could become the target of an SEC investigation.
As an aside, being as vague as this is, no wonder all the bets are yes. Absent clarification, Gibson only need be mentioned by the SEC in connection with the case, or be charged anywhere in the US.
BitBet Mod 24-07-13 at 18:14
Inasmuch as the words you put in quotes are references to the text of the bet and go in that context, then yes on all four. The expression "whether during civil proceedings before this court OR criminal proceedings in a related case" does not imply the related case should also come before the same court.
#1234: Anonymous 22-08-13 at 23:56
I <3 the part where there are a chronic lack of coins supporting the position that Giga does not get pulled into this.
#1236: Anonymous 23-08-13 at 11:01
Maybe that’s the odds.
#1239: Anonymous 24-08-13 at 18:07
It probably is the odds, but even BFL back in February threw some coins up on the bet to make it look like the odds were better…
#1241: Anonymous 24-08-13 at 22:54
But back in February BFL still had some coins.
#1538: Anonymous 01-10-13 at 19:18
Arrr bitcon! http://i.imgur.com/oL1GtPN.jpg
#1808: Anonymous 20-11-13 at 22:46
Beware of this website! READ THIS BEFORE BETTING: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339544.0;all
#1809: Anonymous 20-11-13 at 22:52
Thanks for bringing the comedy gold over anon. I take it you’re the butthurt retard that doesn’t grok Bitcoin and so managed to fuck up? Well done!