Further Proof the Justice Department is Protecting JP Morgan from Criminal Prosecution

In what may be the least surprising article of 2013, we find out from Newsweek that the Department of Justice is going out of its way to protect the poor little babies at JP Morgan from criminal prosecution in the Bernie Madoff case. While we know all too well about the institutionalized practice of “Too Big to Jail” that dominates the current fraud system of so called “justice” in America, it is still of the utmost importance that we spread these stories far and wide. Amazingly, in this instance the DOJ is actively blocking the Treasury Inspector General from doing his job in order to protect the mega-bank.

From Newsweek:

Bernard Madoff’s principal bank, JPMorgan Chase, has for years obstructed federal bank examiners trying to ascertain what it knew about his gigantic Ponzi scheme, an official document obtained by Newsweek shows.

The Justice Department refused in September to back up Treasury inspector general staff who wanted a  court order to enforce a subpoena, in effect shielding JPMorgan from law enforcement, the October 8 document shows.

The Justice Department told the Treasury Inspector General “that they were denying the request for enforcement of the subpoena,” which means officials “could not undertake further actions regarding this matter,” wrote Jason J. Metrick, the inspector general special-agent-in-charge.

The memo revealing that Justice protected JPMorgan from an obstruction complaint raises anew questions about how much the Obama administration has done to protect the big banks, whose lies about mortgage securities and other investments they sold sank the economy in 2008.

continue reading

from A Lightning War for Liberty http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/12/27/further-proof-the-justice-department-is-protecting-jp-morgan-from-criminal-prosecution/
via IFTTT

Slate’s Yglesias Gets It Right on Uber, E-Hailing Regulation

I’ve jabbed at Slate‘s Matthew Yglesias in the past
over things like his uncomprehending and unreasoned
hostility toward gold-as-money
, but when he’s right, he’s
right,
getting exactly to the point
on the supposed desperate need to
regulate such smartphone-app hired ride hailing services as
Uber:

The regulatory issue around Uber is whether the rules
governing rides-for-hire need to be drastically different than the
rules governing driving-yourself-around.

….my answer is always the same: Of
course
 there are significant public safety concerns
about people driving vans. But the concerns are essentially the
same whether it’s a delivery van or a dollar van. You need rules
about what’s an acceptable vehicle, who’s an acceptable driver, and
what’s an acceptable way to pilot the vehicle.

But you don’t need rules that specifically discriminate against
rides for hire. The right way to think about this panoply of rules
is that it’s all part of a regulatory structure designed to make
single passenger automobile traffic and one-car-per-adult the
normative American lifestyles. Anything you want to do around
driving yourself is presumptively legal, and anything you want to
do around hiring someone else to drive you is presumptively
illegal. That’s a worldview that’s bad for the environment, bad for
cities, bad for the poor, bad for many classes of physically
impaired people, and all-in-all bad for America. But by all means,
regulate cars-for-hire. Just regulate them the same way you
regulate the other cars.

This is not necessarily endorsing his particular vision of what
regulations are appropriate for private drivers, which he goes on
about in his article, just the point that drivers for hire don’t
need any more regulation than drivers not for hire.

Not that Yglesias would be the one to notice this, but Ayn Rand
was on to something in noting there is a psychological block and
objection to anything people perceive as done to earn
money
that haunts and warps too many Americans’ ability to
make intelligent judgements involving what behaviors do or
don’t need to be “regulated.”

As cartoonist Chester Brown argued in his
graphic memoir Paying For It,
if people can wrap their
heads around the fact that you should be able to choose who to have
sex with for free, why shouldn’t you be able to choose who
you have sex with for money?

I wrote here on California’s
regulatory regime on the likes of Uber and Lyft
back in
October.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/27/slates-yglesias-gets-it-right-on-uber-e
via IFTTT

Slate's Yglesias Gets It Right on Uber, E-Hailing Regulation

I’ve jabbed at Slate‘s Matthew Yglesias in the past
over things like his uncomprehending and unreasoned
hostility toward gold-as-money
, but when he’s right, he’s
right,
getting exactly to the point
on the supposed desperate need to
regulate such smartphone-app hired ride hailing services as
Uber:

The regulatory issue around Uber is whether the rules
governing rides-for-hire need to be drastically different than the
rules governing driving-yourself-around.

….my answer is always the same: Of
course
 there are significant public safety concerns
about people driving vans. But the concerns are essentially the
same whether it’s a delivery van or a dollar van. You need rules
about what’s an acceptable vehicle, who’s an acceptable driver, and
what’s an acceptable way to pilot the vehicle.

But you don’t need rules that specifically discriminate against
rides for hire. The right way to think about this panoply of rules
is that it’s all part of a regulatory structure designed to make
single passenger automobile traffic and one-car-per-adult the
normative American lifestyles. Anything you want to do around
driving yourself is presumptively legal, and anything you want to
do around hiring someone else to drive you is presumptively
illegal. That’s a worldview that’s bad for the environment, bad for
cities, bad for the poor, bad for many classes of physically
impaired people, and all-in-all bad for America. But by all means,
regulate cars-for-hire. Just regulate them the same way you
regulate the other cars.

This is not necessarily endorsing his particular vision of what
regulations are appropriate for private drivers, which he goes on
about in his article, just the point that drivers for hire don’t
need any more regulation than drivers not for hire.

Not that Yglesias would be the one to notice this, but Ayn Rand
was on to something in noting there is a psychological block and
objection to anything people perceive as done to earn
money
that haunts and warps too many Americans’ ability to
make intelligent judgements involving what behaviors do or
don’t need to be “regulated.”

As cartoonist Chester Brown argued in his
graphic memoir Paying For It,
if people can wrap their
heads around the fact that you should be able to choose who to have
sex with for free, why shouldn’t you be able to choose who
you have sex with for money?

I wrote here on California’s
regulatory regime on the likes of Uber and Lyft
back in
October.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/27/slates-yglesias-gets-it-right-on-uber-e
via IFTTT

Steven Greenhut on Excessive Public Pay

Cash“The
art of government is to make two-thirds of the nation pay all it
possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third,” mused
Voltaire. Even that cynical French Enlightenment writer couldn’t
imagine what would transpire one day in California, where a portion
of the mere 15.3 percent of the public that works for government
has gotten the rest of the public to pay for an eye-popping level
of compensation. Increasingly, writes Steven Greenhut, the public
may be seeing that the problem isn’t a handful of officials who
illegally gamed the system, but a system that—as Voltaire
understood—allows a powerful minority to legally game the
majority.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/27/steven-greenhut-on-excessive-public-pay
via IFTTT

What Does Government Do When People Start Living Healthier? Tax That, Too, Obviously.

Then the libertarian turned to the progressive and asked, "But who will pay for the roads?"When you tax something, you get
less of it. It’s a fundamental rule most creators of government
economic policy know or at least claim to know. The rule has been
used for Nanny State meddling for ages, piling on bigger taxes on
disliked consumer goods like cigarettes, gasoline, and alcohol. The
revenue can be used for good things, proponents say, like
government programs to help children, the environment, and improve
citizens’ health.

There’s an obvious flaw here – if the paternalistic nudging
works, less money will be spent on the taxed goods, which then
reduces the revenue for government programs (and the employees –
both public and private – whose livelihoods have grown dependent on
them) the taxes created in the first place. California has seen
this in its
children’s programs
funded by the state’s cigarette taxes.

California’s gas taxes
went from the second-highest in the
country to the highest in the country entirely to make up for the
loss of revenue caused by people buying less gas, an obvious and
predictable outcome of having such high gas taxes.

So what happens when the government’s grand Nanny State plan
works and people start living the healthier, more environmentally
friendly lives city and state functionaries want for us? Will they
start scaling back all these programs funded by those now-redeemed
sinners? No, don’t be silly. They’ll start looking for new ways to
tax them. Several states and municipalities are looking for ways to
drag revenue off of bicyclists. A Chicago City Council member
proposed a $25 annual tax for cyclists. The Associated Press

notes
:

A city councilwoman’s recent proposal to institute a $25 annual
cycling tax set off a lively debate that eventually sputtered out
after the city responded with a collective “Say what?” A number of
gruff voices spoke in favor, feeding off motorists’ antagonism
toward what they deride as stop sign-running freeloaders.
Bike-friendly bloggers retorted that maybe pedestrians ought to be
charged a shoe tax to use the sidewalks.

“There’d be special bike cops pulling people over? Or cameras?
What do you do (to enforce this)?” asked Mike Salvatore, owner of
Heritage Bicycles, a new Chicago hangout that neatly blends a
lively cafe with a custom bike-building workshop in a 19th-century
building.

Chicago is by no means the only place across the U.S. tempted to
see bicyclists as a possible new source of revenue, only to run
into questions of fairness and enforceability. That is testing the
vision of city leaders who are transforming urban expanses with
bike lanes and other amenities in a quest for relevance, vitality
and livability – with never enough funds.

Two or three states consider legislation each year for some type
of cycling registration and tax – complete with decals or
mini-license plates, National Conference of State Legislatures
policy specialist Douglas Shinkle said. This year, it was Georgia,
Oregon, Washington and Vermont. The Oregon legislation, which
failed, would even have applied to children.

“I really think that legislators are just trying to be as
creative as possible and as open to any sort of possibilities to
fill in any funding gaps. Everything is on the table,” he said.

Oops. If cities and states wanted more of this behavior and less
of the “naughty” (imagine an army of scare quotes around that
word), shouldn’t they have prepared for declining revenue? Now that
they’ve taken cars off the streets, how do they pay for the roads
the bicyclists are using? Tax them, too, and watch as the Nanny
State mask slips. The money was always more important than
encouraging healthy living.

Tying infrastructure taxes to the citizens who use such
infrastructure isn’t itself a bad idea, but that doesn’t seem to be
the approach most governments are taking. The AP notes Colorado
Springs has a special sales tax for bicycles that the community
accepts as a way to help fund cycling projects. Other cities and
states, though, seem to just be trying to get money.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/27/what-does-government-do-when-people-star
via IFTTT

Anthony Weiner Hints at Return to Politics

Former
Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, who
has

twice
had his political career derailed by sexting scandals,
has hinted in a Facebook post that he might be working on a return
to politics.

From
The Hill
:

Former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) may not be done with
politics.

Weiner, whose run for New York City mayor imploded after it was
revealed he hadn’t stopped his online interactions with women apart
from his wife, penned a Facebook post thanking his supporters and
hinting at future political involvement.

“What’s next? I’ll keep you posted on my plans. But I hope we
keep the band together,” he says in the post.

“You have been an amazing resource and the network we have all
become part of has helped lead the debate on national health care,
the need for a smarter and more compassionate approach to the
growing pockets of need in our nation, and we all have sought to
make the argument that too often we progressives come to knife
fights carrying library books.”

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7
.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the
 widgets
here
. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at 
@reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/27/anthony-weiner-hints-at-return-to-politi
via IFTTT

Relaxing Oil Export Ban is Bad News for US Consumers

By EconMatters  

 

 

US Energy Boom

 

The US is producing much more energy domestically the last decade in all forms from natural gas to crude oil with a myriad of boutique products along the way, and so it is natural for producers to want to maximize profits by expanding their marketplace.

 

 

Free Markets haven`t been Free for a long time

 

This would be the free market response, and that would be a great principle in theory, but nothing has been ‘free market’ in this country, and the world we live in for decades; that nostalgic business ideology has been replaced with corporate cronyism, powerful lobbying, state sponsored agendas, and closed door deal-making. 

 

Petroleum Products versus Natural Gas

 

We have seen the inevitable outcome of any lifting of this ban by looking at the products markets, namely gasoline. There is an abundance of cheap domestic oil (would be a lot cheaper without excessive QE Stimulus & Artificial Demand created by refinery Exports of Products) but still domestic oil production, and oil production in North America is at multi-decade highs, and yet gasoline prices are at record highs for this time of the year, and this is after coming down considerably from earlier highs in 2013.

 

An Abundance of Natural Gas & Oil Subsidizing Gulf Coast Refiners

 

Why is this the case? It is because the highly profitable export market for end products like gasoline where refiners along the gulf coast have expanded capacity to take advantage of cheaper North American oil, and low natural gas prices that enabled lower petro manufacturing costs. 

 

 

These cheaper input costs made US fuel and other derivative petroleum products very competitive on a global price basis which had the effect of higher prices for US consumers as supply markets were much tighter than they would have otherwise been without a robust export market during the last five years of this US Energy resurgence. 

 

Lower Prices Good for US Economy

 

Natural Gas is the energy market that has helped domestic businesses and consumers with lower prices which has benefited the overall US economy, while the domestic oil market which should be helping US consumers and businesses more, is being pegged higher due to the exporting of products. This gets even worse for US Consumers and businesses if the Oil Export Ban is relaxed. 

 

 

Somebody Wins, Somebody Loses

 

In effect, this results in the following scenario: US Consumers & Businesses pay higher prices, US Domestic Oil becomes more expensive due to widening the marketplace for exports, and Global Oil becomes cheaper for international consumers. This process just becomes a giant wealth transfer, another tax, a business subsidy from the US Consumer & Businesses that utilize domestic energy to foreigners and companies exporting said products to these international consumers.

 

Let`s just be consistent: Lift all Exporting Bans

 

While the government is at it let us just lift any Natural Gas bans on exporting, and just raise costs all along the energy input continuum for 2014. I am sure Dow Chemical will love this outcome and open up more manufacturing capacity here in the United States. Profits will be great for those who benefit from the aforementioned changes to energy export bans. But those business interests who rely on energy input for operations will be hurt from this legislative change, and so will US Consumers. 

 

I am sure these same gulf coast petro-refiners will have no problem with also lifting the export bans on any natural gas products so that their manufacturing and operational costs will rise along with higher natural gas prices which will eat into their operating margins and thus transfer this wealth to the natural gas industry players.

 

Market Correlations & Paradigm Shifts 

 

One can see the positive correlations in the charts between the increased production of domestic natural gas, thus leading to much lower input prices for refiners; and the takeoff in petroleum products exports from a pretty stable baseline previously , starting to gain steam around the 2005 to 2006 timeframe.  

 

 

This export dynamic for petroleum products along with high oil prices relative to the economy due to QE Stimulus liquidity and potential Middle-East instability inflated commodities and oil specifically thus further incentivizing US Domestic Oil Production along with new and cheaper technological drilling techniques in the energy industry activating the rebound around 2010 for the increased Domestic Oil part of the equation. 

 

This led to the Gulf Coast refiners expanding capacity and seeking cheaper transportation methods of this increased North American and Domestic Oil via pipelines, rail, and barges. The US domestic Oil production was the definite laggard in this US energy boom renaissance.

 

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out from a market standpoint, i.e., will US Domestic Oil production continue to trend higher without a robust export market like Natural Gas or will the recent trend reverse itself with production shutdowns in domestic Oil production projects? 

 

Another interesting dynamic to watch is what price is needed for the marginal cost of production for these domestic oil producers? Some refiners close to the fields are currently paying $25 below the WTI price for Oil – this is telling in how inefficient and costly our oil transportation system currently is, and that the actual market price needed for oil projects is much lower than the rhetoric thrown around in the media.  

 

When you factor in alternative opportunities for capital use, the oil industry has been quite attractive for investment over the last decade at these prices; that ought to tell you something given the contraction in most other industries. 

 

Consequently what happens when the Oil production market gets too frothy relative to demand, and what happens if there is a major pullback in oil price
s which has been built into many market intelligence scenarios at the big oil companies? 

 

Moreover, would cheaper oil prices be all bad as this could lead to an improved economy both domestically and globally causing demand for consumption to rise thus soaking up some of these increased production gains of the last three years. 

 

The energy markets will be fascinating to watch over the next ten years as the big players fight for production share and lucrative revenue streams on a global scale from Iran and Venezuela to the United States and Canada.

 

Self-Interests Problem & Power

 

If this comes down to a self-interest problem which it usually does then one would think that the vote would fall along the lines of a 2-1 constituency vote against lifting the export ban on these domestic energy resources, but US Consumers haven`t had a vote at the table for a long time.

 

It probably will come down to which corporate lobby is stronger, and has more sway with the politicians in the decision making process. If past history is any indication, consumers usually get taxed with higher prices in the end, so the exports ban probably has a bunch of complicated and opaque loopholes added that provide enough cover for the politicians, and increased profits for the oil exporters.

 

But the lobbyists better get going and influence the politicians on this issue ASAP because once the next presidential election comes around higher gas prices seem to matter a whole bunch to these same politicians – see Barack Obama during the last election cycle.

 

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | Post Alert | Kindle


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/cCsdS2W2Z9Y/story01.htm EconMatters

Relaxing Oil Export Ban is Bad News for US Consumers

By EconMatters  

 

 

US Energy Boom

 

The US is producing much more energy domestically the last decade in all forms from natural gas to crude oil with a myriad of boutique products along the way, and so it is natural for producers to want to maximize profits by expanding their marketplace.

 

 

Free Markets haven`t been Free for a long time

 

This would be the free market response, and that would be a great principle in theory, but nothing has been ‘free market’ in this country, and the world we live in for decades; that nostalgic business ideology has been replaced with corporate cronyism, powerful lobbying, state sponsored agendas, and closed door deal-making. 

 

Petroleum Products versus Natural Gas

 

We have seen the inevitable outcome of any lifting of this ban by looking at the products markets, namely gasoline. There is an abundance of cheap domestic oil (would be a lot cheaper without excessive QE Stimulus & Artificial Demand created by refinery Exports of Products) but still domestic oil production, and oil production in North America is at multi-decade highs, and yet gasoline prices are at record highs for this time of the year, and this is after coming down considerably from earlier highs in 2013.

 

An Abundance of Natural Gas & Oil Subsidizing Gulf Coast Refiners

 

Why is this the case? It is because the highly profitable export market for end products like gasoline where refiners along the gulf coast have expanded capacity to take advantage of cheaper North American oil, and low natural gas prices that enabled lower petro manufacturing costs. 

 

 

These cheaper input costs made US fuel and other derivative petroleum products very competitive on a global price basis which had the effect of higher prices for US consumers as supply markets were much tighter than they would have otherwise been without a robust export market during the last five years of this US Energy resurgence. 

 

Lower Prices Good for US Economy

 

Natural Gas is the energy market that has helped domestic businesses and consumers with lower prices which has benefited the overall US economy, while the domestic oil market which should be helping US consumers and businesses more, is being pegged higher due to the exporting of products. This gets even worse for US Consumers and businesses if the Oil Export Ban is relaxed. 

 

 

Somebody Wins, Somebody Loses

 

In effect, this results in the following scenario: US Consumers & Businesses pay higher prices, US Domestic Oil becomes more expensive due to widening the marketplace for exports, and Global Oil becomes cheaper for international consumers. This process just becomes a giant wealth transfer, another tax, a business subsidy from the US Consumer & Businesses that utilize domestic energy to foreigners and companies exporting said products to these international consumers.

 

Let`s just be consistent: Lift all Exporting Bans

 

While the government is at it let us just lift any Natural Gas bans on exporting, and just raise costs all along the energy input continuum for 2014. I am sure Dow Chemical will love this outcome and open up more manufacturing capacity here in the United States. Profits will be great for those who benefit from the aforementioned changes to energy export bans. But those business interests who rely on energy input for operations will be hurt from this legislative change, and so will US Consumers. 

 

I am sure these same gulf coast petro-refiners will have no problem with also lifting the export bans on any natural gas products so that their manufacturing and operational costs will rise along with higher natural gas prices which will eat into their operating margins and thus transfer this wealth to the natural gas industry players.

 

Market Correlations & Paradigm Shifts 

 

One can see the positive correlations in the charts between the increased production of domestic natural gas, thus leading to much lower input prices for refiners; and the takeoff in petroleum products exports from a pretty stable baseline previously , starting to gain steam around the 2005 to 2006 timeframe.  

 

 

This export dynamic for petroleum products along with high oil prices relative to the economy due to QE Stimulus liquidity and potential Middle-East instability inflated commodities and oil specifically thus further incentivizing US Domestic Oil Production along with new and cheaper technological drilling techniques in the energy industry activating the rebound around 2010 for the increased Domestic Oil part of the equation. 

 

This led to the Gulf Coast refiners expanding capacity and seeking cheaper transportation methods of this increased North American and Domestic Oil via pipelines, rail, and barges. The US domestic Oil production was the definite laggard in this US energy boom renaissance.

 

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out from a market standpoint, i.e., will US Domestic Oil production continue to trend higher without a robust export market like Natural Gas or will the recent trend reverse itself with production shutdowns in domestic Oil production projects? 

 

Another interesting dynamic to watch is what price is needed for the marginal cost of production for these domestic oil producers? Some refiners close to the fields are currently paying $25 below the WTI price for Oil – this is telling in how inefficient and costly our oil transportation system currently is, and that the actual market price needed for oil projects is much lower than the rhetoric thrown around in the media.  

 

When you factor in alternative opportunities for capital use, the oil industry has been quite attractive for investment over the last decade at these prices; that ought to tell you something given the contraction in most other industries. 

 

Consequently what happens when the Oil production market gets too frothy relative to demand, and what happens if there is a major pullback in oil price
s which has been built into many market intelligence scenarios at the big oil companies? 

 

Moreover, would cheaper oil prices be all bad as this could lead to an improved economy both domestically and globally causing demand for consumption to rise thus soaking up some of these increased production gains of the last three years. 

 

The energy markets will be fascinating to watch over the next ten years as the big players fight for production share and lucrative revenue streams on a global scale from Iran and Venezuela to the United States and Canada.

 

Self-Interests Problem & Power

 

If this comes down to a self-interest problem which it usually does then one would think that the vote would fall along the lines of a 2-1 constituency vote against lifting the export ban on these domestic energy resources, but US Consumers haven`t had a vote at the table for a long time.

 

It probably will come down to which corporate lobby is stronger, and has more sway with the politicians in the decision making process. If past history is any indication, consumers usually get taxed with higher prices in the end, so the exports ban probably has a bunch of complicated and opaque loopholes added that provide enough cover for the politicians, and increased profits for the oil exporters.

 

But the lobbyists better get going and influence the politicians on this issue ASAP because once the next presidential election comes around higher gas prices seem to matter a whole bunch to these same politicians – see Barack Obama during the last election cycle.

 

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | Post Alert | Kindle


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/PZ9PJKf1jg4/story01.htm EconMatters

Indian Bitcoin Exchanges Halted As Government Shifts Capital Control Attention Away From Gold

Having failed miserably in the "control" of capital outflows from the Rupee (via Gold), the India government (following a Reserve Bank Of India advisory) has raided one Bitcoin seller and issued a warning cautioning citizens against acquiring and trading virtual currencies. As VentureBeat reports, the RBI did not outright ban the currencies, but it slammed them as risky and potentially illegal. On Thursday, the "Enforcement Division" raided the premises of Mahim Gupta who provides trading platform through his website – buysellbit.co.in – finding it in clear violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) rules. Whether smuggling gold or utilizing Bitcoin, it seems the government is fighting a losing battle…cue confiscation?

India practically "bans" Bitcoin (via VentureBeat)…

Several Bitcoin exchanges in India have suspended operations amid fears they could violate anti-money laundering and financial terrorism laws.

They’re reacting to a warning issued on Tuesday by the Reserve Bank of India, the country’s central bank, which cautions citizens against acquiring and trading virtual currencies. The RBI didn’t outright ban the currencies, but it slammed them as risky and potentially illegal:

It is reported that VCs, such as Bitcoins, are being traded on exchange platforms set up in various jurisdictions whose legal status is also unclear. Hence, the traders of VCs on such platforms are exposed to legal as well as financial risks.

 

There have been several media reports of the usage of VCs, including Bitcoins, for illicit and illegal activities in several jurisdictions. The absence of information of counterparties in such peer-to-peer anonymous/ pseudonymous systems could subject the users to unintentional breaches of anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) laws.

First Bitcoin exchange raid has occurred (via DNA India),

We have found that through the website 400 persons have recorded 1,000 transactions that amount to a few crores of rupees. We are gathering the data of the transactions, name of the people who have transacted in the virtual currency from Gupta’s server that is hired in the US. At present, we believe that this is a violation of foreign exchange regulations of the country. If we are able to establish money laundering aspect then he can be arrested,” said a top ED official.

As per sources, a separate raid was also conducted in Satellite area of the city, however, the person the investigation agency was looking for could not be found. “When we reached his office, he was not there. We have sealed the premises,” the official added.

Sources also added that there are a handful of entities that provide trading in the virtual currency in India. “I think there are only five entities. Of these, we believe two are operating from Ahmedabad. We believe that they have channel of agents or people who promote the use of such currency but entities that provide online platform are few,” official said.

Perhaps it is time to confiscate all the gold, computers, and internet access for anyone not invested in stocks?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/XqMauezq1dE/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Robert Dale Holcomb, 60, of Sharpsburg

Robert Dale Holcomb, 60, of Sharpsburg, Ga. passed way unexpectedly on Tuesday, December 24, 2013.

Born January 24, 1953 in Welch, WVA, he was the son of Catherine Fitzgerald and Jimmy Dale Holcomb. Mr. Holcomb was devoted to his family especially his wife and daughter, and he always enjoyed spending time with them. He was also a faithful friend to his neighbors, golfing buddies, and business associates. Whether family or friend, he delighted in helping those he loved and often did so.

read more

via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/12-27-2013/robert-dale-holcomb-60-sharpsburg