
Mt. Gox CEO Karpeles refuses travel to U.S. for questioning - Tenoke
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/03/27/mtgox-ceo-karpeles-refuses-travel-to-u-s-for-questioning/
======
jxf
As a US citizen, if I lived outside the US and was summoned back for
"questioning" by adverse parties, there's almost no reason I can imagine
going. If that's truly all they want, then there's no reason it needs to be
done in person. Depositions can be conducted remotely in many (though not all)
jurisdictions.

~~~
300bps
You're right; this isn't even close to news. Essentially, the plaintiffs are
complaining that Karpeles isn't volunteering to massively inconvenience
himself to make the lives of the people suing him easier.

Their offer to "pay all travel expenses" was hilarious. As if $5,000 or even
10x that amount is even a rounding error to the case they're pursuing against
him.

~~~
dragontamer
On the contrary: he's asking for bankruptcy protection from US Courts.

US Courts can use bankruptcy law to protect you from your creditors. But if he
refuses to comply with the Courts, then why should get get any bankruptcy
protection?

~~~
300bps
_But if he refuses to comply with the Courts_

Who said he refuses to comply with the courts? He's opposing a filing made by
the plaintiffs. The court has not even ruled on the filing (which is merely a
request from the Plaintiffs for the court to order).

Deposition by video conference is common. Alternatively, he's offered to meet
them in Taiwan. The guy can be guilty of whatever, but to paint him negatively
because he's not going out of his way to help someone who wants to destroy him
doesn't make sense to me.

~~~
dragontamer
1\. He borrowed money from various US Institutions.

2\. He has failed to return that money. Furthermore, he claims he cannot repay
the money back and requests Bankruptcy protection

The Plaintiffs are in their right to try and get their money back. You don't
just _borrow_ millions of dollars and lose it all. Actually, you're _allowed_
to do that in the US as long as you file Bankruptcy protection and listen to
court requests and make an honest effort to repay as much of the money back.
Its one of the reasons why the US is good for businesses, Bankruptcy law
reduces the risks businesses make in regards to losing money / paying
creditors.

It is okay to fail in the US... but only if you properly document your
failures and make an honest effort to repay what you owe.

However, that is not what he has done. He's hiding out in Taiwan thinking
there is some government conspiracy against him. On the contrary, US Laws are
relatively forgiving. Hell, he may have multiple layers of legal defenses: if
he properly created a Limited-liability corporation, his personal wealth will
remain uneffected. Currently, he is NOT responsible for paying back the
millions upon millions of dollars that he should be responsible for.

But that is only because of Bankruptcy _protection_. The US Courts and US Law
_protects_ you from creditors in this situation.

The Texas Court is protecting him from creditors currently. He does _NOT_ have
to pay all the money back, so long as the courts are on his side. However, the
Texas Courts are complaining because this man is utterly ridiculous and
ignorant on how the US Court system works. He is biting the hand that feeds
him, so to speak.

In fact, it is quite unfair that the US Law treats businesses with such
leniency. Student Loans evade bankruptcy protection for example. Nevertheless,
if Karpeles plays his cards right, he will not have to pay back his loans. But
he has to work with the Texas court for that kind of protection. It is only
fair.

And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this protection,
it is the State of Texas. The _Texas Court_ is asking for him to enter Texas.
I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people
who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court.

Anything less is rather disrespectful to the Judge.

~~~
dragonwriter
> And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this
> protection, it is the State of Texas.

No, its the Federal judiciary. The particular bankruptcy court happens to be
located in Texas (US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas).
People often confuse federal courts _located_ in a state with state courts,
but they are not at all the same thing, and have nothing to do with the state
government.

~~~
dragontamer
Thanks for the clarification.

The whole "multiple governments" thing in the US gets confusing sometimes.

------
xenophonf
Seeing how the U.S. arrested foreign gambling website CEOs transiting through
U.S. airports - CEOs and businesses that didn't violate U.S. law, in my
opinion - I can't blame Karpales.

------
logfromblammo
I believe Admiral Akbar might have some advice for this CEO.

Given the U.S. propensity for arresting foreign nationals for allegedly
breaking U.S. laws while completely outside of U.S. territory just as soon as
they finally set foot on it, I would politely decline this request as well.
The offer to pay 100% of all travel expenses up front is particularly
suspicious.

Given what has already occurred, I'd probably also wear nitrile gloves and a
dust mask when handling the "first class plane tickets" sent by my former
customers.

~~~
dragonwriter
Yeah, somehow, I'm not seeing any reason to believe that the people suing
Mt.Gox for fraud are in league with a government plot against Karpeles.

Mt.Gox sought bankruptcy protection in Japan, and then in the US (tied to the
Japanese process). People with claims in the US against Mt.Gox, as is fairly
_routine_ in bankruptcy cases where there are active claims, sought to have
Karpeles testimony as a representative of the bankrupt firm with relevant
knowledge compelled by the bankruptcy court.

> The offer to pay 100% of all travel expenses up front is particularly
> suspicious.

Payment of a witnesses travel costs, lodging, plus attendance fees in US
federal court is generally _mandatory_ (28 USC Sec. 1821.) Offering to pay up
front as a means of removing a potential convenience barrier for a witness is,
AFAIK, fairly routine, rather than "particularly suspicious".

~~~
logfromblammo
Except there is no particular reason why Karpeles actually needs to be
physically present to provide his testimony, or for the corporation's
designated representative in court to be a specific individual rather than an
attorney hired for that purpose.

I am not one who believes that physical custody of a witness is either
necessary or sufficient to obtain truthful statements from him. I already find
some of the traditional rituals of courtroom procedure to lie somewhere
between useless and ridiculous, so I still stand behind my statement. I will
now expand it to say that the routine practice of paying for the physical
transportation and upkeep of a witness is particularly suspicious _and_
wasteful.

If you want questions answered, ask them. You should probably be prepared to
be disappointed in the answers, if you get any at all. You may find that some
people are more forthcoming when a grim-faced person in a robe, with armed men
ready to mete out punishment at a word, is not the one demanding answers.

We have an Internet now. Information moves a lot faster and more inexpensively
by itself than it does in the custody of a human courier. Thus, the stated
motive--"to appear for questioning"\--appears on its face to be bogus.

~~~
gamblor956
_We have an Internet now. Information moves a lot faster and more
inexpensively by itself than it does in the custody of a human courier. Thus,
the stated motive-- "to appear for questioning"\--appears on its face to be
bogus._

The purpose of a deposition isn't to elicit information as quickly as
possible. That can be held by document requests responded to by email. The
purpose of a deposition is to take the _sworn testimony_ of the witness and to
record various aspects of their testimony ahead of a trial. Most importantly,
demeanor and other side information that isn't properly conveyed by a video
deposition. One of the most important concerns, especially with a defendant
accused of fraud--is ensuring that the defendant is offering their own
answers, and is not merely reading scripted answers from out of the camera's
view.

 _You may find that some people are more forthcoming when a grim-faced person
in a robe, with armed men ready to mete out punishment at a word, is not the
one demanding answers._

That's cute. You actually think a deposition is where a judge asks questions
while the bailiff stands menacingly over the witness? Here's a clue:
_depositions are conducted by the parties themselves without the assistance of
the court._ Most depositions are held at the law offices of either the
plaintiff or the defendant; the only 3rd-party present is the courtroom
reporter who, despite the name, is actually a non-court affiliated commercial
service provider licensed to transcribe depositions. At most, the judge will
participate in a deposition only if the parties call him to resolve a legal
dispute. Bailiffs _do not_ participate in depositions under any circumstances.

~~~
logfromblammo
It is equally cute to believe that someone will not lie to you just because
you made him promise not to. The actual threat is that if you lie in court,
and get caught, you will be thrown in a cage by men with guns.

An oath is not necessary for that. It suffices to say, "If you misrepresent
the facts here, we will punish you for it in addition to whatever may be
decided in this case. Do you understand?" and for the witness to say "Yes".

If a fact as stated in a deposition is discovered to actually be false, the
armed men and iron bars do come into play. Don't make the mistake that just
because they are not physically present and visible at the time that the
threat of them is not important while someone is being deposed.

I can't tell if you are an apologist for the system, eliding over its obvious
flaws, or someone genuinely clueless about theories of trust.

Either way, some cross-disciplinary study of the development of moral behavior
in primates may be useful. Imagine asking young children of varying ages
whether they took the cookie from the table in the room with the hidden
camera, and asking the follow-up question about whether they were lying or
not.

After having done so, you may realize that most court procedures operate on
the principle that people make moral choices based upon fear of retribution
after getting caught. This is entirely unsuitable for people at different
stages of moral development from the median, such as children, retarded
adults, sociopaths, geniuses, sociologists, atheists, autistics, and
philosophers. The implied courtroom intimidation tactics just don't work.

There are several reasons why. Telling the truth as you know it is not an
absolute defense against being punished anyway. The only information the court
may have about something may be what you tell them. The measure for
credibility is not how true something is, but how believable it is. The
punishment for lying may be less than the punishment for telling the truth. My
cartel enforcer can punish me to a greater extent than the court's enforcers.
Etcetera.

~~~
gamblor956
I'm a former criminal defense attorney with a background in cognitive science.
I speak from experience.

Almost everything you just wrote is a fantasy view of the US judicial system,
morality, and cognitive development, and psychology which doesn't actually
exist in the real world.

~~~
logfromblammo
It appears as though you are saying your argument holds more strength because
of who you are (or were), and who I am not. Is that not an ad hominem, appeal
to authority, and judgmental language?

It _could_ be true. Were we arguing formally, I might ask you to prove your
(negative) statement instead of just nakedly asserting that everything I said
is wrong.

I was referring to Kohlberg's stages of moral development, assuming that the
common criminal, as encountered by the justice system, would be at a very low
stage, on par with very young children. The justice system's overwhelming
focus upon punishment and deterrence seems to align with that assumption.

The system itself can only accomodate people between stages one and four. If,
for whatever reason, someone decides that the law is an ass, and goes to stage
five or six with a personal philosophy that is fundamentally incompatible with
social norms, there is really nothing the system can do to accomodate him.

A catch-and-punish-by-lawful-authority model does nothing to prevent crimes by
people who have arrived at a sociopathic morality model by introspection. _IF_
Karpeles is such a person, the actions taken in civil court are completely
pointless, as he would never voluntarily submit to the authority of what he
would see as a system morally inferior to his own.

You can't really know how to deal with people at stage five or six without
knowing the foundation principles of their morality. It could be literally
anything. There is no reliable way for a cooperative society to enforce
conformity on someone who has rejected society's common set of rules for
another based on original thought.

------
badman_ting
I wouldn't either. Law enforcement can do what they want here.

~~~
wavefunction
With a name like yours, I'd think you'd realize that your statement applies to
pretty much every corner of the globe minus a few countries.

~~~
wavefunction
Downvoted for stating the truth, I lol at thee...

~~~
skj
Downvoted for stating an irrelevant truth.

------
ChuckMcM
Not surprised that he doesn't want to step into the jurisdiction of federal
marshalls. And the excuse that it would be an 'unacceptable misuse of
resources' from the opposing counsel is pretty thin. People teleconference all
the time and there are plenty of certified court reporters in either Japan or
Taiwan who could facilitate a deposition.

------
CharlesMerriam2
Remember when the U.S. was the "shining beacon"? Where someone coming into
questioning couldn't be held indefinitely as a "material witness"? Or to first
have all assets seized and then assigned a terrible attorney because of
insolvency? When it would not be a stupid move to submit to questioning on
U.S. soil?

Yesh, that's what I thought.

~~~
coldtea
When was that? The slavery era? The prohibition? The seggregation? The
McCarthy era? The J.E Hoover era?

~~~
zacharypinter
I think it was the era when we were young and learning about the U.S. in
school :)

------
malka
[http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/technology/security/bitcoin-...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/technology/security/bitcoin-
arrest/)

I would not go either.

------
shellox1
As a European I wouldn't go to this messed up country either, especially since
he isn't citizen there.

------
jrockway
So a bunch of Americans are suing a Japanese company in US courts? Let me know
how that works out.

~~~
pmorici
MtGox has an entity incorporated in Delaware.

~~~
andyjohnson0
Does this "entity" have any assets?

~~~
samstave
~$400MM in stolen BTC?

~~~
sk5t
That is... not an asset.

~~~
gress
It is property.

~~~
noja
Since this week.

~~~
gress
No - it was property all along. All that happened this week was that the IRS
agreed publicly with this view.

------
srdev
Rather understandable, since I'm sure theres a good case for him going to jail
in the US. I'm not sure why there's all the comments about the US being
authoritarian here though -- Karpeles really screwed a lot of people over,did
a bunch of shady stuff, and was grossly negligent in running his exchange.
Jail time would not be unwarranted, presuming that the law allows for it.

------
malandrew
Why doesn't he just invite the US officials to visit him in order to question
him? Why must he be the one burdened with travel?

------
aspensmonster
Wow. After 5 hours and 51 comments this story is already on page three at rank
73! Slow clap right there.

------
emeidi
So wouldn't I.

------
notastartup
peculiar he would choose Taiwan of all places, where there is no extradition
treaties with the US.

