root wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the >> Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half >> of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly >> dubious; I think the first half of the third sentence clearly prevents >> the transfer in that case. Destruction would only happen if the asset >> were *already* owned by someone who then ceased to be a valid owner. >> Which can be arranged, if this whole concept of making pre-existing >> entities assets works at all. > > It's not a transfer to the Bank; it's default ownership.
But that would still be a gain, thus prevented by the first half of the third sentence.
