Scams, in order to claim false legitimacy, will cite laws, regulations, and licenses to sound official, when they are grossly exaggerating the truth, or are outright lying.
Below we will discuss four example of such outrageous fraudulent behavior, and how you can see through such deception with just Google and some sense of skepticism.
When it was running at full steam their marketing material claimed that Gemcoin, their supposed altcoin was the first cryptocurrency authorized by California bill AB129.
The problem is AB129 said no such thing. The full text of AB129 is easily Google-able.It is only a single sentence. It simply says that from here on California's restriction (that all transactions must be done with US dollars) is rescinded. Gemcoin was not mentioned or referenced.
Yet the Gemcoin believers did not question the claim. They simply accepted the extraordinary claim as true. And they put in money for something "backed by amber".
There was no amber or amber mine. And now their money is lost or tied up in an international ponzi scheme. At least report, the receiver that took over the company can only locate about 20 million of the 32+ million believed to be involved. A big amount was sent overseas to China and Singapore.
But at least USFIA scam referenced a real law. The next scammer simply made up an agency that doesn't exist.
In New Zealand, securities are regulated by "Financial Markets Authority" or FMA.
No such law referenced exists in New Zealand either, and FSP license numbers are 7 digits long, no slashes.
Further research revealed that this verbiage was copied from Rodeler Investment of Cyprus, where they do have a Securities and Exchange Commission, and such a law in 2007, and the same FSP license number (with slash).
In other words, OptionsRider is not a legitimate investment company, is not regulated by New Zealand authorities, and does not even know which New Zealand regulator has oversight over them, but instead, just randomly copied some other company from another continent, changed some verbiage, didn't realize the verbiage referenced the wrong agency, and hope readers don't ask questions.
And if you don't ask questions how would you know where you money REALLY went?
Basically you're looking at a repeat of the Gemcoin and AB129... Claiming that the law legitimizes the scheme when it does no such thing.
If they are not telling you the whole truth on this one thing... what ELSE may they not be telling you?
Or is that merely negativity to be avoided?
It's your wallet and your money.
Below we will discuss four example of such outrageous fraudulent behavior, and how you can see through such deception with just Google and some sense of skepticism.
Gemcoin, USFIA, and AB129
USFIA was an alleged 32 million ponzi scheme shut down by SEC on September 29, 2015, having been previously chased out of China in 2014 by Chinese authorities. Two of the perps were arrested in Thailand in 2014 through China's Operation Foxhunt extradition program and extradited with other perps back to China, only to see the scheme restart in the US under the same US leader Steve Chen.When it was running at full steam their marketing material claimed that Gemcoin, their supposed altcoin was the first cryptocurrency authorized by California bill AB129.
 |
| Gemcoin believers repeating claims that Gemcoin was first cryptocurrency authorized by California bill AB129 (2014). It was complete bull****, of course. Every bit of Steve Chen's assets had been counted and it came out to only 20 or so million. "50 billion"? Hilarious. |
Yet the Gemcoin believers did not question the claim. They simply accepted the extraordinary claim as true. And they put in money for something "backed by amber".
There was no amber or amber mine. And now their money is lost or tied up in an international ponzi scheme. At least report, the receiver that took over the company can only locate about 20 million of the 32+ million believed to be involved. A big amount was sent overseas to China and Singapore.
But at least USFIA scam referenced a real law. The next scammer simply made up an agency that doesn't exist.
OptionsRider claiming registration with "SEC NZ" where there is no such agency
OptionsRider is supposedly an investment company based in New Zealand, however, there are several company names mentioned, including BancDeOptions, Binary Options Concierge, and so on. However, on their website, they claimed to be authorized by New Zealand Security and Exchange Commission:The Company is authorized and regulated by the New Zealand Securities and Exchange Commission to offer certain Investment and Ancillary Services and Activities under the Provision of Investment Services, the Exercise of Investment Activities, the Operation of Regulated Markets and Other Related Matters Law of 2007, Law 144(I)/2007, as subsequently amended or replaced from time to time (“the Law”), with FSP license number 207/13.There is no such agency as "New Zealand Securities and Exchange Commission".
In New Zealand, securities are regulated by "Financial Markets Authority" or FMA.
No such law referenced exists in New Zealand either, and FSP license numbers are 7 digits long, no slashes.
Further research revealed that this verbiage was copied from Rodeler Investment of Cyprus, where they do have a Securities and Exchange Commission, and such a law in 2007, and the same FSP license number (with slash).
In other words, OptionsRider is not a legitimate investment company, is not regulated by New Zealand authorities, and does not even know which New Zealand regulator has oversight over them, but instead, just randomly copied some other company from another continent, changed some verbiage, didn't realize the verbiage referenced the wrong agency, and hope readers don't ask questions.
And if you don't ask questions how would you know where you money REALLY went?
OneCoin and "Electronic Commerce Act of Bulgaria"
OneCoin is a suspect Ponzi scheme and a reboot of a previously failed "BigCoin" scheme that claims to be a cryptocurrency. It claims thatOnecoin follows strictly the regulations of the Electronic Commerce Act of the state of Bulgaria.But has anyone actually read the law? It's pretty dry reading, but it's about how a company is responsible for keeping the data safe, and not share it with people who's not supposed to have them, and that sort of minutiae. It says nothing about cryptocurrency, currency market, and that sort of things.
Basically you're looking at a repeat of the Gemcoin and AB129... Claiming that the law legitimizes the scheme when it does no such thing.
Conclusion
If a company cites a law or certification, do you ever bother to look it up? Or do you simply accept it as if it is fact?If they are not telling you the whole truth on this one thing... what ELSE may they not be telling you?
Or is that merely negativity to be avoided?
It's your wallet and your money.
