Member Info for Spikeyj

10:59, good post.

My guess is that whispering bought additional cloudtag shares via SB partners, and is now naively thinking that her ‘investment’ in that entirely different private overseas registered unlisted company is somehow protected, or voucher for, by the FCA, simply because amit used to be registered with FCA at the time she dealt with SB partners. .. just speculating…

I suspect the reason the word ‘regulator’ found its way into the last update is probably just about amit reading this chatboard, and seeing various pis talking about making complaints to regulators etc.

23:10, snap!

… night all.

22:55, doug, what evidence is there that any ‘compliance with a regulator’ happened?

all that’s happened is that amit put out an update which mentioned an unspecified regulator amit saying something in an update hardly counts as evidence, surely??

Whispering: “Some are trying to suggest that St Vincent and the Grenadines registered companies don’t comply with any regulations”

i have not seen any poster make that claim.

the relevant point is that a company registered in st vincent, but which is not registered in the UK, should follow st vincent regs, not UK regs.

22:48, blimey doug, you’re being a bit thick.

i have been highlighting the specific assertion you made at 15:40 that:

“SFO and the regulator have found nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries.”

? how could you possibly know that for a fact, doug? - prove it.

It’s not been published, has it? - which is pretty darn telling, imv. EUA would have shouted if from the rooftops if the contents were fab. … just take a look back at the published accounts, jarv — EUA loses money mining, and there has been no evidence whatsoever to show that has changed.

night all, tennis tomoz.

Doug, investigations can take *years*, and sometimes witnesses are interviewed several years in … take a look at the timescale for the WRN investigation.

but it also depends whether any particular agency has relevant powers / jurisdiction ( … i.e. over a st vincent company, not UK …)

& also depends if an investigation agency thinks it stands a realistic chance of being able to prove some wrong-doing that it suspects … if they think that’s unlikely, they’ll close down the investigation and conserve their resources for other things.

Doug, your 15:40 was crystal clear: you stated as a factual matter that the ‘SFO and the regulator have found nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries.”

you then went on to speculate that you thought that would suggest cloudtag’s notices were “sound”.

It costs EUA more to dig up their shiny stuff than they can sell it for — they own a loss-making mine. ——> if they start operating it again, then they lose even more money even if they do manage to sell some of the mining product.

nobody wants to buy EUA’s ‘assets’ because they are very poor assets. there has been no news at all to change that basic situation..

Doug, you made the very specific claim in your 15:40, that “the SFO and the regulator find nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries”.

you are simply guessing - there is no evidence to back up your assertion.

I doubt that the UK FCA has the power to compel every web server everywhere in the world to shut a site down, just because FCA doesn’t like it.

FCA would not want to be sued for restraint of trade, so one should *not* assume that just because FCA has not immediately shut down a company, that it means the FCA has no concerns.

… perhaps more importantly, UK FCA does not regulate st vincent companies.

21:32, doug, cloudtag is *not* a UK company.

You’re being rather naive, doug.

for example, just because an agency doesn’t immediately mount a prosecution or shut someone down does not mean they have not found any evidence of wrongdoing …. it might, for instance, mean, that further material is still being gathered, or might mean that some suspected wrongdoing has indeed been found, but not seen as likely to meet evidential thresholds for a likely successful prosecution in the public interest.

bear in mind too, that different regulators/ agencies would have different powers. (?who do you think would actually have any power to shut down amit’s website?

“… SFO and the regulator find nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries ..”

? what is the *evidence* for that claim of yours, doug?

“… now that Amit Ben Haim has been approached by the regulator to observe compliance with the regulations.”

- which regulator?

- what regulations?

- where is there any *evidence* at all that any of the above is even remotely true? ( …. amit saying something hardly counts as evidence in any meaningful sense!)

( and unclear why doub chooses to misquote the update at 15:40)

SFO is not in the habit of telling pis what it has or hasn’t found, if there is any ongoing investigation.

zero independently verifiable evidence that any regulator is involved in any meaningful way.

previous delays were supposedly nothing to with regulators or ‘compliance processes’ — was meant to be about cloudtag keeping rubbish records about who it had sold shares to (“anomalies”)

Crew in full swing. … beware, honest pis.