Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 09 2017, @09:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the paying-a-large-"bill"-for-a-bitcoin-scheme dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found an interesting story: Bogus Bitcoiners battered with US$12 million penalty in The Register.

The US SEC (Security and Exchange Commission) won its case against two Bitcoin companies — GAW Miners and ZenMiner — operated by Homero Joshua Garza that bilked 10,000 investors out of about $20 million in what was essentially a Ponzi scheme. The companies purported to sell shares in cloud-based Bitcoin mining machinery, but "the companies never owned enough computing power to be serious miners." The companies were hit with a $12 million penalty. Garza is not, however, off the hook as he is facing a separate criminal trial and he is in talks with the SEC about how to handle the claims lodged against him.

Here's the literal money quote:

Ironically, the Bitcoin price ended 2015 bouncing between US$400 and $450. Had the two companies simply bought Bitcoin with their $20 million, on today's $2,740 price for the crypto-currency there'd be around $140 million in the kitty.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday June 09 2017, @02:30PM (1 child)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday June 09 2017, @02:30PM (#523074)

    So they bilked customers out of $20M, and now they have to pay a $12M fine for their fraud. That leaves them with $8M in profit.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Friday June 09 2017, @05:05PM

    by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Friday June 09 2017, @05:05PM (#523155)

    Originally quote as more like $19M from investors in their first scheme. There was actually more than one scheme involved.

    https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2015/comp23415.pdf [sec.gov]

    I'm not clear on exactly how much they got to keep though. A Ponzi scheme implies they were paying out money to earlier investors with the later moneys.