CCS,
Thanks for pointing out a few things:
> You are confusing several different and unrelated things.
> 1. You received a wire not e-gold.
> 2. Dealing with a known crook is risky
> Neither of these risks is associated with an e-gold outexchange.
1. I did, in fact, receive a bank wire from Omnipay, not Gary Stroud.
This proves the claims of Gary Stroud and EuroCredit bank that wires have
been intercepted by Omnipay are false and just circulated to delay enlighten
of EuroCredit account holders about his bank's non-USD backing.
2. Yes, dealing with a known crook IS risky. However, you are correct
in your earlier statement, I received that wire from Omnipay. So, Omnipay
fulfilled the outexchange, not Gaithmans. If Gary Stroud is a known crook
(which I am learning more about everyday), this brings to question two
things:
a. Does Omnipay not get involved with Due Diligence with outexchanges?
(Which, they probably do not have to according to the User Agreement.)
b. Why is a KNOWN crook (your words) allowed to outexchange e-gold?
(Again, probably your answer will be the User Agreement. Realistically this
is more of an "ethics vs. morals" issue.)
3. The outexchange risk in this situation was absorbed by Omnipay, not
Gaithmans. However, according to the SEC who has given me a couple of
polite phone calls, accepting funds from a KNOWN crook could still be
considered illegal, especially when that crook and his colleagues are under
a court ordered asset freeze. IT does not matter if you received those funds
in digital form, paper form, electronic form, or hand delivered. You still
RECEIVED those funds from a crook through what is known as a "money
laundering" route. (bait, switch, change forms, reroute and whola!!!)
My point to all of this is that if you honestly believe that there is
ZERO risk associated with outexchanges, you are wrong. There ARE risks
associated with outexchanges. Not the risk of having your transaction
reversed, but worse, having your company dragged into the mischief of
another.
Market Makers have absolutely no way of knowing where a client got the
e-gold the wants to outexchange. While this protects the individual wanting
to outexchange, it certainly does nothing for anyone who was victimized by
the person. That has pro's and con's. And yes, CCS, believe it or not,
this is DEFINITELY related to e-gold outexchanges. I am not pointing
fingers, just pointing out facts.
I do not think people who put money into Gary Stroud's or any other
"program" are victims. They voluntarily put their money into the programs
in the beginning. However, the auction scams, people who get their accounts
hacked (usually do to lack of safe practices) and other known scams prove
that one can steal and wash it through e-gold. As the Market Maker on the
outexchange, you then run the risk (even through you do not know where the
money came from) of getting dragged into some ugly court cases.
More than anything else, this just demonstrates the magnitude of growing
pains the Gold Economy faces in the future. I am not blaming anyone, nor
asking for help, just pointing out that the statement "zero risk involved in
outexchanges" is far from the truth when you fully understand the legal
ramifications one can face by being a Market Maker.
Thanks,
Eric Gaither, President
Gaithmans Gold Nation, Inc.
(317) 788-8580 Voice
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://businesses.msn.com/gege/
Gaithmans: your ultimate e-currency exchange service provider!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "e-gold Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "e-gold Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:43 PM
Subject: [e-gold-list] RE: E-Gold to Paypal
> Eric,
>
> > >There is zero risk in outexchanging E-Gold and you have to get it from
> > > somewhere.
> >
> > I must disagree with you on this point. Technically, there is no
> > *immediate* risk on outexchanges because the transaction is
non-reputiable,
> > agreed. However, due to the large numbers of scammers who hide in
e-gold
> > (auction scammers, "program" scammers, pyramid promoters, for instance)
> > there is a LARGE *associated* risk in outexchanging e-gold.
> >
> > ... he liquidated e-gold holdings and had a wire for $9715 sent to my
company
>
> > So, just because a transaction is "non-reputiable" (non-reversible)
does
> > not mean it does not have risk associated with it.
>
> You are confusing several different and unrelated things.
> 1. You received a wire not e-gold.
> 2. Dealing with a known crook is risky
> Niether of these risks is associated with an e-gold outexchange.
>
> CCS
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
