New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I wouldn't summarize it much better. But for me, the most important part is this one: he recieved AND withdrawn in blocks of 2.000 USD sequentially. Now, here's the following:
Transaction not recognized or blocked by the bank, originating from Coinbase > returns to Coinbase on max 14 weeks in Europe, usually around those times worldwide, he doesn't have to provide service.
Transaction recognized, and Calin withdrew the money > he has to provide service.
Banks don't retain dirty money. Otherwise, they could be charged of money laundering. Therefore, arguing that the bank blocked the money is not technically correct - in any bank, worldwide.
KYC doesn't apply here, he outright accepted little to no KYC from the customer (and on where it was done, it was false lol). Worse: he's done it through Coinbase, which is a Opsec fatal error, as Coinbase is one of the most stringent KYC-related AND it's an exchange, not a direct wallet as it would be most recommended here.
One can question the customer's practices. But no one can question: either he provides service, or returns the money.
The darker problem of this is actually another one: margins considered, it's quite hard for hosters at Calin's scale to do 22.000 USD of profit in a year. And he doesn't do it: https://www.romanian-companies.eu/man-hosting-gmb-srl-44507600/
Net profit of ~8000 EUR. This is why you won't ever see a refund plan off Calin or any of this money back - it represents nearly three years of profits. Especially at Romanian scale, it's a heck lot of money. Plus, if he did, he would have to take from legitimate funds (declared) to cover ilegitimate funds (and undeclared), which can't be recommended, it's very bad.
He either provides service, or possibly should be out of LET. Providing some sort of service will probably be the only way for him to get out of this if he wants to retain the tag, which at this point and thinking practical, I seriously doubt he wants - especially because he won't lose all customers overnight.
https://antifrauda.gov.ro/w/petitii/
Please close this thread - this not help at all, only his own pockets unless he comes back with an announce. Thank you
All these points from @MannDude @Mumbly @Maelstrom36 @alfatarsos are well-reasoned, correct and fair. I agree with all the statements of these guys and at least I saw that I was not the only one who tried to say this yesterday. I also studied the previous thread of 53 pages again and I am increasingly convinced that, given the information we have at the moment, this is not the way to conduct business, and even more so to solve problems as Kalin does. We could give him a break and write it all off to his inexperience if he really wanted to solve this problem. Here I see quite a few experts both in the field of cryptocurrencies and in the field of banking and other things. At the same time, even providers give their assessment and could suggest a lot on how to solve such an issue. But he does not want and does not do anything in this direction and all this is unfortunate, that this is how it will end.
too much words - how many will read it? none. it goes only in one direction - repeating same things. I am pretty sure if those remains unsolved staff gonna ban him.
Yes, maybe I wrote everything in vain, but I simply highlighted the general points for myself and once again the main theses and also collected them in one place. Because yesterday some forum participants made me think again that I might be wrong. Firstly, to understand that I am not the only one who thinks so, secondly, so that at the end of the thread the main idea would be visible. It was possible not to repeat I agree. Well, if the problem is not solved - yes, the smallest thing that can be done is to remove from the forum.
That's why the community it have young and aged on controls. We tend to get rid of things than repairing what is broken. Just be patient - and watch it.
We already saw - 2 successful attempts in scam with virtually 0 consequences.
@Levi don't forget one important thing - reputation of LowEndTalk forum are in this game. :-)
Why? If you search on web, there are other places where he sells his services. If all other places don't ban him, does it mean they are also bad?
No, it doesn't necessarily. However, providers who have commited fraud and or have shady backgrounds have always been divisive issues for both green forums.
To be sincerely with you. I really don't care about what he did or he do.
That war was begun by the other parties there on forum - not anywhere else. and; since the other parties involved in this scandal it doesn't want that income back - it makes him not guilty.
Who is not guilty?
Those who didn’t syphoned 20k in btc.
Like the fuck you would do this yourself. It's more than he makes in a year. Most of you lot saying he should pay it back out of his pocket wouldn't yourself. SMH
People expecting an apology really haven't been following along. This has been a huge hassle for Calin with no sales or profits from this debacle (assuming the funds are being held by bank). At some point, he tried helping the bank resolve the solution and got back weird paperwork from GoSSD that exacerbated the problem instead of resolving it. So Calin is rightly pissed off for shanking that solution and putting an end to this month's ago.
No. Most kids learn this before age 5. As an adult, unless they're holding your money specifically "fees in trust", you have no security against those funds. And not giving it back is not theft or scam unless they had that intent from the beginning.
In the business world, it's just an order not yet filled. I mean, what does the contract say for delivery date? Oh wait...
Wuh? This wasn't even an exit let alone a scam. FFS, why are you being obtuse?
What paperwork? One must be truly clueless to believe that a Romanian bank would require bank paperwork for a non-existent bank transaction from an Indian citizen. Calin sent money from his crypto wallet to his bank account, not his client.
If your clients pay for your service with crypto and, at some point, you transfer the money you earned to your bank, and the bank wants to know how you got that money, it’s you, and only you, who needs to prove that you earned it through legitimate business.
Of course, this will be harder if you're foolish enough to transfer it to your personal account instead of your business account.
Just to be clear, I know to stay away from these hosts due to host incompetence, not because of malice. I was warning people about cociu from the start.
To repeat, this is incompetence, not malice/theft/scamming. The people harping on about it have little real world experience.
What you're saying is absurd. Gossd received a crypto payment from his client and then sent that crypto payment to Calin. Despite this, at a later point, Calin asked Gossd for his bank details, ignoring the fact that Gossd didn’t use a bank to send him payment. Calin knows very well that Gossd can't provide bank documents since a bank wasn’t even involved in the transaction between them.
Not to mention that Calin's bank is investigating his own transaction from crypto to the bank, not Gossd's crypto transaction to Calin.
Calin is putting this on the client, but the client can't do anything because he has no dealings with Calin's bank. The client didn't send money to Calin's bank - Calin did it from how crypto wallet. He is the one being investigated and needs to prove that he earned the money through legitimate business.
It's not as if Gossd can even send him his bank details, as he didn't make the payment from his bank account to Calin's account.
I have no doubt there are loads of miscommunication between the bank and Calin and between Calin and GoSSD. Regardless, GoSSD could have asked for clarification as to why Calin didn't just produce an invoice for services to satisfy where and why he received the funds instead of responding with whatever he did. I circle back to incompetence and inexperience.
Maybe I give too much credit to scammers, but this one lacks IQ and forethought for this to be a scam from the start.
Yeah, but Gossd can't do anything in this situation. When Calin requested Gossd's bank details, the obvious question is: what bank? It was a crypto payment. Gossd didn't use a bank for this transaction, so he can't provide those details, and Calin knows that. Yet, he still insisted on requesting bank data, which seems like a completely false demand.
I don't think this was a planned scam per se. What's more annoying is how Calin shifted all the responsibility onto his client, when it's actually him who messed up and whose money source is being investigated.
Gossd can't do anything here. Calin is demanding bank details from him - but what bank? As if some random non related to the case Gossd Indian bank account data would do any difference. The payment was made via crypto, not through a bank.
But irs not via mikrotik @Calin ?
I exchanged some informations about that case with my lawyer - the income was reverted along time ago. Good luck & I’m out.
This is some highenddramacourtwtf12pagesofcomments
Off topic, but kudos to @MannDude for strengthening the crypto circular economy.
Probably, but I think there still is the option for @Calin to simply deliver the service, unless the customer has - in a legally binding way - (i.e. not just a loud mouth declaration on LET) informed him that he cancels the order.
Not quite. The pivot point is whether the authorities find sufficient indications for something illegal. The determination whether something was/is illegal still is for a court to make.
But you are right insofar that (a) this is neither under the control of Calin nor his responsibility, and (b) this is likely to take quite some time.
Maybe you are right and @DP attaching a fat warning label to Calin was the right thing to do. And banning Calin without clear evidence of scamming would neither be justified nor in the interest of the community.
But all in all I agree with you.
Nope. What we saw was a crowd with pitchforks and alleged attempts to scam. And at least one very questionable and suspicious "victim".
An interesting take, but at the end of the day, nuh. Said party, a very questionable provider plus his customer and quite some confusion (e.g. who ordered and *who transferred the crypto-"money"?) may well have had their own reason to "absorb the loss", e.g. in order to not wake "sleeping dogs" in their own country, i.e. hoping to not have the authorities in their offices. But that does not necessarily mean that Calin acted correctly and is squeaky clean.
You..
what’s the matter of €20k.
Where is the money?
I don't know but it seems to be frozen by the bank. But hey, if you have solid information and proof that it's actually in @Calin's hands, by all means, let us know!
Otherwise: have you finally stopped beating your mother? No less valid a question than yours.
So, the money is not in the hands of original source. Where is provided services?