[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
--- Viking Coder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It appears to me the only mistake Costa Gold made wasto use Omnipay for their outexchange... I don't see how Omnipay acted any differently than anybody else would. I'm not surprised, you have an obvious blind spot where e-gold/GSR/Omnipay are concerned... perhaps you got hit in the eye by some of the shit that always flies around them. Would you want to be on the receiving end of a $1 million lawsuit because you gave the money to the wrong person? Yeah right, these guys who wont even identify themselves are going to open a lawsuit? When will people learn, the lads at the top of e-gold/GSR/Omnipay have a VERY biased modus operandi? Okay... So don't use Omnipay. JP May run's a very nice e-gold wholesale... Exactly what I said in the first place, WAKE UP DUDE!!! __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
It appears to me the only mistake Costa Gold made was to use Omnipay for their outexchange... When will people learn, the lads at the top of e-gold/GSR/Omnipay have a VERY biased modus operandi? Would you want to cash-out an account for over 1 million dollars without even getting a copy of the guy's driver's license? IF this were a requirement for OPENING and MAINTAINING an account..yes. Since it isn't, no. It is an Omnipay requirement, and has been since last summer. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
It appears to me the only mistake Costa Gold made was to use Omnipay for their outexchange... I don't see how Omnipay acted any differently than anybody else would. Would you want to be on the receiving end of a $1 million lawsuit because you gave the money to the wrong person? Sending the gold back to the e-gold account could be considered giving it to the wrong person if the claims of an internal security breach were true. Omnipay hasn't 'seized' the gold, they are waiting for somebody from Costa Gold to provide the identity verification to claim the gold. However, it probably won't happen for 10 years; the statute of limitations on fraud. Omnipay can do this without even bending their user agreement. They aren't e-gold ltd. When will people learn, the lads at the top of e-gold/GSR/Omnipay have a VERY biased modus operandi? Okay... So don't use Omnipay. JP May run's a very nice e-gold wholesale service, Coconut Gold, which has absolutely no connections to Omnipay. There are several MMs who will pay you more, and/or quicker, than Omnipay will for your smaller amounts of e-gold. I have yet to met, or even hear of, more than a few people who don't have a VERY biased modus operandi. Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, and Leonardo Da Vinci all had a VERY biased modus operandi. If somebody doesn't have a VERY biased modus operandi, I question their strength of will and ability to think for themself. This especially applies to anybody at the top. How do you think they got to the top? Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Also, in paragraph one above, why didn't e-gold/Omni just go with the if the password fits, tough tittie model? What went wrong? Please fill us in Viking! Well.. I'm not viking... but I'll still answer this. e-gold did go with the if the password fits rule and completed the spend as stated in their user agreement. However, when the gold reached omnipay, it was their decision as to what to do with that. At the time the CostaGold website stated something to the affect of Our account has been hacked... and our funds have been stolen The OmniPay user agreement allows them to not fill an order if they don't want to and return the gold. However because of the above stated, they put it into escrow. The OmniPay website does not allow an OutExchange of over 1 million but instead asks for the user to call as far as I know. It is suspicious that Costa did 10 outexchanges instead of calling OmniPay. It is also suspicious that Costa has not provided proper documents to claim the gold as of yet. You'd think that a million USD worth would be some motivation. Khurram Khan == 2 cents worth? http://two-cents-worth.com/?135153 _ Get email for your site --- http://www.everyone.net --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
JPM wrote We await Viking's enlightenment! Jeesh... I was away from the computer for a few hours, and you're already impatiently calling for my reply? I usually do keep a close eye on this list, but I do have a life other than computers e-gold. At least, I try to pretend that I do. :) What the hell does CYA stand for again? Cover Your Ass seems to be a nice working definition for that TLA. Eric wrote If my company, Gaithmans, issues an outexchange request, then a scammer trys to claim he is me or my company and reroute the funds, does this mean that Omnipay will turn my funds over to an escrow account? If some scammer knew exactly when you did an OutExchange to Omnipay and then pulled off a grand indentity theft; of which you quickly found out about and re-asserted who you were, then probably yes. They probably would put the funds into escrow. How would you get them out? Provide hard validation (i.e. legal paper documents) of who you are. The problem wasn't that different people at Costa Gold were trying to get a check sent to different places. The problem was some people were trying to get money sent somewhere while other people were trying to get the order cancelled, and the gold put back into the account, while others were complaining that they had had an internal security breach. Why did someone at Omnipay even bother to listen to the second request if the first request had proper account passwords? One thing a lot of people seem to forget, or simply disregard, is the fact that e-gold ltd. and Omnipay are two completely separate companies. They have different, distinct user agreements. (Yes, I know that they are both owned by the same people.) The CYA manuever on Omnipay's part was to put the disputed funds into escrow. Would you want to be held responsible for giving $1 million to the wrong person and then getting sued by the right person? This was completely within Omnipay's user agreement. e-gold ltd. upheld their user agreement and transfered the gold without question to Omnipay's account. Omnipay then received multiple conflicting instructions on what to do with the gold. So they decided to sit and wait until everybody has decided on 1 clear instruction. All that Costa Gold has to do to claim the gold is prove who they are to Omnipay, and then give that instruction. This was never an e-gold issue. As I said above, e-gold transfered said gold without narry a thought to the contrary. Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
All of what I said in the previous pose is what I gleaned from the following three documents. http://www.mail-archive.com/e-gold-list@talk.e-gold.com/msg01814.html http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/e-g-agree.htm http://www.omnipay.net/gsr-op-agree.htm Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
. All that Costa Gold has to do to claim the gold is prove who they are to Omnipay, and then give that instruction. So if I could prove I was Costa Gold I could get my grubby hands on a million bucks!! Almost worthwhile creating the paperwork. Nar...I like sleeping at night. Kind regards, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gold-today.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Would you want to cash-out an account for over 1 million dollars without even getting a copy of the guy's driver's license? Why not, if the e-gold / cash is provably in there and available? Because the risk of being wrong is too great. I don't know how GSR reasoned this through, but the requirement for adequate identification on OutExchanges is in their user agreement, and has been since last summer. Craig --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Does this mean that in all this time, no one has made an attempt to provide ID? I'm curious about this. This is not the only case in which I have heard that money hasn't been released due to inadequate ID. How do you decide whether an ID is acceptable? I mean, is the ID matched against the information provided on the account holder's information with the e-gold account? It would seem to me that whoever is recorded on the account as the owner of said account is the only person's ID that should be required. If there is only one receiver of such a large amount of money, perhaps that person too, should be required to prove he/she is who he/she says he/she is :) It's hard to believe that in all this time, no one has been forthcoming in providing ID with all that money at stake, especially considering the interest it is drawing for someone else. Eve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SnowDog Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 6:27 AM To: e-gold Discussion Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts Would you want to cash-out an account for over 1 million dollars without even getting a copy of the guy's driver's license? Why not, if the e-gold / cash is provably in there and available? Because the risk of being wrong is too great. I don't know how GSR reasoned this through, but the requirement for adequate identification on OutExchanges is in their user agreement, and has been since last summer. Craig --- 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]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
It would seem to me that whoever is recorded on the account as the owner of said account is the only person's ID that should be required. If there is only one receiver of such a large amount of money, perhaps that person too, should be required to prove he/she is who he/she says he/she is :) Costa Gold has made it clear, (from documents that I read on their website a few months ago), that they do not want to release any personal ID. They say they have provided incorporation documentation from the company, and that they have the right NOT to release personal information on any of their officers. This information can be found on their website here: http://www.costagold.com/members/main.htm (Then click on Costa Gold, the Real Story) It's hard to believe that in all this time, no one has been forthcoming in providing ID with all that money at stake, especially considering the interest it is drawing for someone else. However, it appears that they raised the money under conditions that might be considered illegal in the US, and it appears that the owners of the website ARE in the US. So perhaps they are a bit squeamish about being identified. SnowDog --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts (in the other sense)
Personally, if I was Costa Gold I'd just offer e-gold (Omnipay .. GSR .. whatever) a deal. Say, 90% and they're out. Omni picks up a hundred bills, COSTA get most of their loot, Omni loose the headache and COSTA don't have to give their names to the Secret Service. In all events, they must be fairly soft criminals if no-one on any side of the quadrangle has had the shit beaten out of them yet over the whole thing. (Or has this already happened? Bodies bobbing in the Hudson with tiny pyramids carved in their forheads? Slick Sam has no left side on his binary -- put a cap in his ass! says the big boss.) If that's the case (ie, if they are just pussy white collar criminals), Omni should just keep the whole thing, and use it to, say, fund the #%!@!$ programming for ads on spend page. Why not? There's no down side. That's my take! :) JP Costa Gold has made it clear, (from documents that I read on their website a few months ago), that they do not want to release any personal ID. They say they have provided incorporation documentation from the company, and that they have the right NOT to release personal information on any of their officers. This information can be found on their website here: http://www.costagold.com/members/main.htm (Then click on Costa Gold, the Real Story) It's hard to believe that in all this time, no one has been forthcoming in providing ID with all that money at stake, especially considering the interest it is drawing for someone else. However, it appears that they raised the money under conditions that might be considered illegal in the US, and it appears that the owners of the website ARE in the US. So perhaps they are a bit squeamish about being identified. SnowDog --- Great ventures create great mottos. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
In a message dated 5/15/01 11:49:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e-gold did go with the "if the password fits" rule and completed the spend as stated in their user agreement. However, when the gold reached omnipay, it was their decision as to what to do with that. At the time the CostaGold website stated something to the affect of "Our account has been hacked... and our funds have been stolen" Not quite..The Outexchange was completed on March 16th (a Friday). Costa Gold was unable to reach anyone at Omnipay until Tuesday, March 20th. NO PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT was made by Costa Gold on their website until several days later. Costa Gold DID "announce" the hack in an email to the membership on March 21st, but Omnipay did not take their action as a result of any announcement by Costa Gold. The OmniPay user agreement allows them to not fill an order if they don't want to and return the gold. However because of the above stated, they put it into escrow. Not quite.Omnipay put it into escrow for two reasons. First, it involved 10 transactions of $110,000 each to the same US bank account. Omnipay was in the process of requesting verification of the request because they felt it was "suspicious." Second, it was during this process that Omnipay was contacted by the "real" Costa Gold and the conflicting info came to light. The OmniPay website does not allow an OutExchange of over 1 million but instead asks for the user to call as far as I know. It is suspicious that Costa did 10 outexchanges instead of calling OmniPay. It is also suspicious that Costa has not provided proper documents to claim the gold as of yet. You'd think that a million USD worth would be some motivation. Costa Gold DID provide documentation. Then Omnipay requested additional info which, if provided, would have violated the law in Costa Gold's country of incorporation.result? A standoff which exists to this day. Michael --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Snowdog writes: Would you want to cash-out an account for over 1 million dollars without even getting a copy of the guy's driver's license? IF this were a requirement for OPENING and MAINTAINING an account..yes. Since it isn't, no. Michael --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Would you want to cash-out an account for over 1 million dollars without even getting a copy of the guy's driver's license? IF this were a requirement for OPENING and MAINTAINING an account..yes. Since it isn't, no. It is an Omnipay requirement, and has been since last summer. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Snowdog writes: Would you want to cash-out an account for over 1 million dollars without even getting a copy of the guy's driver's license? Michael IF this were a requirement for OPENING and MAINTAINING an account..yes. Since it isn't, no. People, Get this through your thick skulls; e-gold ltd. Omnipay are SEPARATE companies with DISTINCT user agreements. You don't need to prove identity to create an e-gold account. However, Omnipay has decided that before they will exchange large amounts of gold for fiat cash they will know who you are. Is there a market maker out there who would take $1 million dollars worth of gold and cash it out after receiving multiple conflicting orders as well as reports of an internal security breach? Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
In a message dated 5/16/01 10:42:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Get this through your thick skulls; e-gold ltd. Omnipay are SEPARATE companies with DISTINCT user agreements "Welcome to the Hotel California".you can check in, but you can never leave." One of the tenants of international contract law is that in addition to the "written word," there be a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING between the parties as to the "intent" of the agreement. Omnipay and E-Gold may be "separate entities" with "separate and distinct operating agreements," but they go out of their way to obfuscate this situation in the way they represent themselves to the public. Now I ask you, what is the efficacy of a system that represents to it's potential clients the "privacy" factor of it's operation, only to have it's premier MarketMaker act in a way totally contrary to that understanding? What about the principle of reciprocity? If a password is all that is necessary to affect an Outexchange from E-Gold, why should the entity that is processing that valid request question it? And, finally, IF the Marketmaker has doubts about the Outexchange, why not simply refuse it and refer it back to E-Gold? Why all the "demands" for "additional information" and "disclosure" AFTER "seizing" the money? (And, please, spare me the argument that Omnipay didn't seize the money, e-gold did, for if that were the case, Omnipay wouldn't be leading the effort to get disclosure of the info, e-gold would.) Michael --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Now I ask you, what is the efficacy of a system that represents to it's potential clients the privacy factor of it's operation, only to have it's premier MarketMaker act in a way totally contrary to that understanding? Privacy? Where do you get that? There is nothing in Omnipay's privacy policy that allows anonymous transactions. What about the principle of reciprocity? If a password is all that is necessary to affect an Outexchange from E-Gold, why should the entity that is processing that valid request question it? It's in their User Agreement. And, finally, IF the Marketmaker has doubts about the Outexchange, why not simply refuse it and refer it back to E-Gold? Why all the demands for additional information and disclosure AFTER seizing the money? (And, please, spare me the argument that Omnipay didn't seize the money, e-gold did, for if that were the case, Omnipay wouldn't be leading the effort to get disclosure of the info, e-gold would.) This is the only point you make that I think is debatable. It seems to me that OmniPay did make some subjective decisions here. However, that's what the court system is for: resolving disputes between people. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Michael wrote Welcome to the Hotel California.you can check in, but you can never leave. How do we go from 1 instance of somebody not willing to claim their money to saying that it is impossible to get cash out of e-gold? One of the tenants of international contract law is that in addition to the written word, there be a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING between the parties as to the intent of the agreement. How was that violated here? Omnipay and E-Gold may be separate entities with separate and distinct operating agreements, but they go out of their way to obfuscate this situation in the way they represent themselves to the public. How are they are going out of their way to obfuscate the fact that the are separate companies? Now I ask you, what is the efficacy of a system that represents to it's potential clients the privacy factor of it's operation, only to have it's premier MarketMaker act in a way totally contrary to that understanding? Omnipay is an independent company and can do whatever it feels like doing. What about the principle of reciprocity? If a password is all that is necessary to affect an Outexchange from E-Gold, why should the entity that is processing that valid request question it? The possibility of having a lawsuit filed against them if they end up following the instructions given to them by the wrong people. Remember this whole situation is about there being no clue as to who the real Costa Gold is. Omnipay was receiving multiple conflicting instructions from the same place. And, finally, IF the Marketmaker has doubts about the Outexchange, why not simply refuse it and refer it back to E-Gold? NO! It is not e-gold's responsibility. e-gold ltd. did exactly what is was supposed to do. They transferred the gold from Costa Gold to Omnipay. That is the sum total of e-gold's duties in this matter. When Omnipay had doubts about the outexchange, they refused it. However, they were also told that there had been an internal security breach. Therefore they couldn't just give the gold back, because they didn't know who would get it; back to the whole lawsuit issue. It was then put into escrow until somebody would step foward and provide the validation to claim it. (And, please, spare me the argument that Omnipay didn't seize the money, e-gold did, for if that were the case, Omnipay wouldn't be leading the effort to get disclosure of the info, e-gold would.) (I wrote in an ealier post) This was never an e-gold issue. As I said above, e-gold transfered said gold without narry a thought to the contrary. How, in all of creation, did you get from what I said to e-gold seized the money? Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Viking Coder You don't need to prove identity to create an e-gold account. However, Omnipay has decided that before they will exchange large amounts of gold for fiat cash they will know who you are. Does this mean that if I want to redeem a 400 oz. bar of gold (if I have that much in my e-gold account) I don't need to prove identity? --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Does this mean that if I want to redeem a 400 oz. bar of gold (if I have that much in my e-gold account) I don't need to prove identity? You don't do redemptions through Omnipay. How are you supposed to receive the gold bar if you won't provide your identity? I haven't had enough spare cash lying around that I could get a 400oz. bar of gold because I felt like testing the redemption system. Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Samuel Mc Kee wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Viking Coder You don't need to prove identity to create an e-gold account. However, Omnipay has decided that before they will exchange large amounts of gold for fiat cash they will know who you are. Does this mean that if I want to redeem a 400 oz. bar of gold (if I have that much in my e-gold account) I don't need to prove identity? You need to keep a valid snail-mail address and phone number in your e-gold account (according to the user agreement), which is used amongst other things when mailing you the gold. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
The last I heard, a capped account cannot have any more DEPOSITS but they can still make spends or outexchange the money in the account. Costa Gold's account was not CAPPED, it was put into escrow when there was some question as to who owned the account when an outexchange for a great deal of money was attempted. Gary - Original Message - From: Eve [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: e-gold Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:24 PM Subject: [e-gold-list] capped accounts I would like to know what actions precipitate the capping of an account. Cayman Money Machine is claiming that they can't payout because egold won't let them and their account has been capped; not even a penny-spend can be made to the account. Is this Costa Gold all over again?? I know who loses, but I would also like to know who profits? Whatever happened to the so-called millions withheld by egold from Costa Gold's egold account? Eve --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.252 / Virus Database: 125 - Release Date: 5/10/01 --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
Eve wrote Cayman Money Machine is claiming that they can't payout because egold won't let them An account with a value-limit can still make spends. They just can't receive payments which would put their total holdings over a certain limit until they validate who they are. This ponzi scheme has run out of steam and is blaming e-gold for it. Is this Costa Gold all over again?? No. Costa Gold was an entirely different escapade. One of the Costa Gold account holders decided to screw the others, and run off with the loot by doing an OutExchange to Omnipay. However, the others quickly found out and requested that the gold be put back into their account. Upon receiving several conflicting orders from the same group, Omnipay put the disputed funds into escrow until the situation got sorted out. Whatever happened to the so-called millions withheld by egold from Costa Gold's egold account? They are still sitting in escrow, waiting for somebody to step forward and provide the validation to claim them. It isn't e-gold who is withholding the funds from Costa Gold. It is Omnipay who did the CYA maneuver. (I love that term) http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=244983 Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
:) Thanks, I felt sure that e-gold was being scapegoated but I needed the 'straight scoop' to inform the group that was told this fiction. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Viking Coder Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:58 PM To: e-gold Discussion Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts Eve wrote Cayman Money Machine is claiming that they can't payout because egold won't let them An account with a value-limit can still make spends. They just can't receive payments which would put their total holdings over a certain limit until they validate who they are. This ponzi scheme has run out of steam and is blaming e-gold for it. Is this Costa Gold all over again?? No. Costa Gold was an entirely different escapade. One of the Costa Gold account holders decided to screw the others, and run off with the loot by doing an OutExchange to Omnipay. However, the others quickly found out and requested that the gold be put back into their account. Upon receiving several conflicting orders from the same group, Omnipay put the disputed funds into escrow until the situation got sorted out. Whatever happened to the so-called millions withheld by egold from Costa Gold's egold account? They are still sitting in escrow, waiting for somebody to step forward and provide the validation to claim them. It isn't e-gold who is withholding the funds from Costa Gold. It is Omnipay who did the CYA maneuver. (I love that term) http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=244983 Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder --- 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]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
At 1:58 PM -0400 5/15/01, Viking Coder wrote: No. Costa Gold was an entirely different escapade. One of the Costa Gold account holders decided to screw the others, and run off with the loot by doing an OutExchange to Omnipay. However, the others quickly found out and requested that the gold be put back into their account. Upon receiving several conflicting orders from the same group, Omnipay put the disputed funds into escrow until the situation got sorted out. Whatever happened to the so-called millions withheld by egold from Costa Gold's egold account? They are still sitting in escrow, waiting for somebody to step forward and provide the validation to claim them. It isn't e-gold who is withholding the funds from Costa Gold. It is Omnipay who did the CYA maneuver. (I love that term) What the hell does CYA stand for again? Also, in paragraph one above, why didn't e-gold/Omni just go with the if the password fits, tough tittie model? What went wrong? Please fill us in Viking! --- Great ventures create great mottos. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: capped accounts
SnowDog wrote: Also, in paragraph one above, why didn't e-gold/Omni just go with the if the password fits, tough tittie model? What went wrong? Would you want to cash-out an account for over 1 million dollars without even getting a copy of the guy's driver's license? Why not, if the e-gold / cash is provably in there and available? --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
