Scott Chandler dodges prelim injunction contempt violation
While they’ve managed to succeed in having Chandler turn over his acquired bitcoin, the FTC’s contempt motion has been denied.
The FTC’s show cause contempt motion stemmed from Chandler initially refusing to turn over his bitcoin, as required by a previously granted preliminary injunction.
Chandler had argued the injunction would size bitcoin he’d legitimately obtained, but was struck down back in October.
Evidence Chandler attempted to submit (but was denied upon objection by the FTC), suggests he’d purchased around $30,000 in bitcoin.
For some reason Chandler also attempted to submit a “list of friends who lost money”, but that was objected to and denied as well.
Comparatively the FTC submitted four cell phone messages and what appears to be an email conversation, all of which were admitted.
As per a brief November 16th order, following a two-day hearing on the FTC’s contempt motion, the court found ‘the evidence did not establish that Mr. Chandler intentionally violated the Preliminary Injunction Order‘.
The important distinction lies in intent.
Obviously Chandler violated the injunction by not turning over his bitcoin. Evidence presented by the FTC however did not convince the court this violation was intentional, i.e. for the purpose of violating the injunction in and of itself.
The ruling wasn’t a complete loss for the FTC though. The court also directed Chandler to provide the FTC with access to his Skype, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger accounts.
SCOTT CHANDLER: Is nothing but a low life piece of shit that has swindled a ton of money from innocent victims around the world.
His day is coming, if it’s not the FTC, someone will put him where he belongs…. When you shit on innocent people, eventually it comes back to haunt you! Watch you back Scott!
Whoever responded to this article saying Scott Chandler is a piece of shit and that he better watch his back is a low life uneducated PUNK! The truth will come out very soon and Scott will be Acquitted of all charges. For the uneducated Punk, this is what this means!
Anybody, that knows Scott knows that he would never ever intentionally screw anybody over. When he found out that Jetcoin was not Trading and Mining in Japan and Singapore like he was promised, he immediately put in his resignation letter to the owners.
Then he did a conference call informing everyone that he had been lied to and because of that he would no longer be building Jetcoin.
(Ozedit: derail removed)
Chandler can’t be acquitted because the FTC’s case against Chandler is civil. Someone who wasn’t uneducated should know that.
Well all that bitcoin he stole off people wasn’t obtained legitimately. So here we are.
That’s nice. Did he also return the money he stole from people?
As far as all this goes. It’s like Gambling. (Ozedit: derails removed)
Investment fraud has nothing to do with gambling. If you wish to discuss gambling do it somewhere else.
@Katie
This should be mentioned on every Ponzi (or Pyramid) fraud review in this blog (I know it won’t be as that is overly impractical) but the simplest way to explain the difference between a gamble and a Ponzi/Pyramid fraud is this:
– If you enter a gamble at any point of time, you have equal chance to win as you would have if you entered earlier or later.
– If you enter a ponzi or pyramid fraud, the later you get in, the more certain you are to lose. No exceptions.
And in a longer version:
Take the roulette as an example: when playing a single number everyone has 1 to 37 chances to win their money back 30-fold. On any round, no matter if they came in early or not.
The winner gets money from the losers, sure, but anyone can try to win their money back with the very equal chance they had when they lost their money. And yes – that money will come from the pockets of other ones, could be even from the pockets of the previous winner if he continues to play.
In roulette the house always wins, since in a long run you will lose 37 bucks for every 30 bucks you win. But it is still “fair” as everyone has equal chance, you cannot “lure someone in” just to take his/her money – you need to win his money with the same odds he has.
In a Ponzi fraud (or a pyramid fraud) the one that comes in first has almost 100% guarantee to win money. It will be paid from the next entrees that will have smaller odds to win their money back.
When you step in, your money pays the wins of the guy before you but you have smaller and smaller odds to win your money back (from the pockets of the next who hop in).
House always wins, since the last ones to jump in will be suckered with 100% loss. Also: you can increase your odds by luring in more gullible idiots. This has nothing to do with gambling, it is just unfair ripoff.
Anyone lured in will fuel the money gain of previously joined, having ALWAYS worse odds to gain their money back than the ones whose wins they paid.
Hey Kim Roberson. How’s that acquittal work out for Scott Chandler?
Lol. Guilty as charged. Then had the audacity to attempt to not turn over Bitcoin he had stolen. Dude can rot.