Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Another Virtual Currency Player Charged with Fraud by CFTC
On the heels of two enforcement actions announced in the first weeks of January, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced fraud charges against yet another company operating in the virtual currency space. The enforcement action alleges that Las Vegas-based My Big Coin Pay Inc., a virtual currency wallet and platform, misappropriated more than $6 million from its customers for “personal expenses and the purchase of luxury goods,” including a home, jewelry and fine art. “As a result, MBC customers have lost most, if not all, of their funds due to defendants' fraud and misappropriation,” the commission's Jan. 16 complaint filed in Massachusetts federal court reads. The complaint was shared publicly by the CFTC after a period of being under seal.
My Big Coin allegedly misled customers by telling them the company was being actively traded on multiple currency exchanges and by falsifying trading price reports. The company told customers it was backed by gold, which the CFTC says it was not. “In reality, the supposed trading results were illusory, and any payouts of funds to MBC customers were derived from funds fraudulently obtained from other MBC customers in the manner of a Ponzi scheme,” the lawsuit states. My Big Coin also lied to customers about a partnership with Mastercard Inc. that would allow customers to use the currency wherever Mastercard is accepted, according to the suit.
A representative from My Big Coin did not immediately respond for comment on the allegations.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.