Talk:Banc De Binary

Previously deleted article on same topic

I was the admin who deleted the previous article. At Hobbes Goodyear's request, I've restored the deleted version of the article to User:Hobbes Goodyear/Banc de Binary. I think the newly created article's content is substantially different from the one deleted a few months ago, so CSD#G4 does not apply. Deryck C. 23:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

COI tag

Scubadoofeck, who originally placed this incarnation of the article, has been confirmed as a sock-puppet of Morning277. So have Thecandymaker and 54.241.52.228. —rybec 18:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for G4. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The comment above by Deryck Chan says he didn't think G4 pertained to this new version of the article. —rybec 20:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well if there are merits for the article to stay then by all means. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted before due to lack of notability, and I'm not sure that's been addressed. However, after the COI editors recreated this, others added the "US regulatory troubles" and "Investor advisories" sections, which present serious criticisms of the company. If this is deleted again, and if the hired editors manage to restore it, it is likely to again be a thinly-disguised advertisement. Articles that start out as publicity pieces but later have negative statements added may give advertisers reason to hesitate. —rybec 22:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Previous deletion

For the record, this company seems to have now garnered enough notice (the CTFC/SEC civil suits, for instance) that the previous AfD should not be taken as grounds to speedy delete this article. It has been considerably re-written from the alleged sockpuppet-produced versions too, and now seems on its way to satisfying WP:NPOV. I'm not sure about those screenshots of the web platform, though - don't they reek a bit of unnecessary advertising?  —SMALLJIM  13:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Both the images are up for no-permissions deletion, so we could just wait a week and see what happens. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

BBB rating

The bank actually has no rating with the BBB, but the article says it has an F. I checked the source, too. The article is locked, so perhaps somebody with access should change this. 99.38.96.112 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Updated, thank you! —rybec 18:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"quoted by CNN's iReport"

Should this be kept in the article? It seems to be telling us only that the company must be important because company analysts were quoted by CNN's iReport. However, when I go to the story, it says "NOT VETTED BY CNN". According to the site's FAQ,

Everything you see on iReport starts with someone in the CNN audience. Stories submitted to CNN iReport are not edited fact-checked or screened before they post. Only stories marked "CNN iReport" have been vetted and cleared by CNN.

—rybec 22:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. —rybec 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seems best. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

page protection

I am the user ' Historianofrecenttimes' who has added new details to Banc de Binary's page. All my details were cited and I explained the US regulators complaint in simple detail so that it was easy for everyone to understand that it was a simple boiler room scam. Is there any wayt to protect the page from attacks from Banc de Binary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I think we might take out all the uncited awards, but also the allegations of criminality without reliable sources. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. I also removed the section on the "World Finance 100". I suspect it's not bogus (given the WF 100's own site and the existence of other youtube videos of other financial services weasels BSing in front of the same background after getting the same award), but it's also not got any independent source, so we don't have to decide. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pinkbeast, Thanks for the edit, I'm trying to clarify the law on particular rules about companies. Regarding whether or not Oren uses his real name or not, this is a financial rule. If you want to set up a company and do business people will first of all check you out on various registries like the FCA. To be in charge of compliance or a particular duty like this you have to be registered as an individual too, and you will be issued with a particular reference number by the FCA. Only then are you able to carry out the duty of Compliance, and more to the point, anyone can check that you are the person responsible and what job you had before. It's a bit like Wikipedia, but for financial companies, so everyone working in the markets of note has a registration number. To get one you need to show them your passport.... This is how the FCA identify who is who. Oren Shabat Cohen never registered himself with the the FCA, as they would have asked for this and his work history, which would be included in a nearby section. Hence my pedantic going on about giving your correct name when in charge of financial services. Here is a good example of company i picked at random from the register, which shows the wikipedia like detail regulators ask for.https://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmIndivSearch.do?sid=280557

I don't see the pertinence of the FCA when it has already been established that this company was not registered with them. Also, you're veering into original research here. Have independent reliable sources - not random Web forums - commented on the many names of Mr Cohen and the regulatory implications? If not, leave it out. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pinkbeast, Thanks to a weird legal loophole, banc de binary was able to register with the fca, no: 596375, because it managed to register with Cysec first. It was able to passport itself in because of European Union ruling. Banc de Binary does indeed appear on the FCA register: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmRegulator.do?sid=314566. This means that it is fully authorized to do business in the UK, despite not having to give any information about it's staff, though if the guff about Oren working at NAF and Infinity Hedge funds were true it would be listed very clearly on the FCA website under the individual history. As it is they didn't list it or give any names. No I have not found anything online about Oren Shabat Cohen or the regulatory implications. Although I could not find anything about the NAF or Infinity Hedge Fund he claimed to have worked for previously either. Thanks though for the clarity and getting back to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the "passporting", yes, although I would avoid language like "loophole" because that is clearly the intent of the legislation. My point is that he was clearly not required to give his name and hence the FCA seem to have no bearing on what he calls himself. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pinkbeast, I would generally agree but for two reasons in this instance. Firstly the CTFC uncovered Oren's real name, which he gave when registering the site. I'd totally understand why some change their name, but in this case an entirely new persona and life history was created around it, which should have been revealed when he applied for FCA registration, but they didn't insist on this detail, though with UK firms they do. MIFD is a good idea as long as the FCA carries out due diligence and collects the relevant information before giving new companies registration numbers, all UK companies face this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 16:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're doing original research again. It doesn't matter whether MIFD is a good idea or not; it doesn't matter if you or I (as opposed to reliable sources) think the name change and alleged false history are important. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but CTFC say that Oren Shabat Cohen and Oren Laurent are the same person in their indictement, the one filed in Nevada, which is a reliable source and i wanted to make it clear. The article is under attack again from some vandals, i'm new to Wiki so unsure how to stop them? HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)-historianofrecenttimes-HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether the CFTC merely looked at the whois records for some of the company's Internet domains, as mentioned in their complaint. I restored that material.

The IP editors keep removing the unsourced statement "The CFTC and the SEC have frozen all US accounts until further notice." If Banc de Binary doesn't have a presence in the US, are the CFTC and the SEC able to do that?

Another unsourced statement they keep removing is "In the US, binary trading is legal, but only with registered organizations such as NADEX, who follow strict rules on transparency and client capital." Does NADEX list its binary options on an exchange? —rybec 12:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rybec Here is a source that explains that NADEX legally trade binary options and that off shore 'businesses' like Banc de Binary can not.

Yes, the CTFC and SEC can freeze all US accounts as the US government can control money coming in and out of the country. In the CFTC indictment it speaks about restitution, ie, Banc de Binary handing back money that it took from US customers without legally taking it in the first place as it wasn't a legit trade. Here an article which explains how the CFTC freezes assets

I don't know how the CFTC found out who was behind Banc de Binary, but I would guess they checked bank records too, to see if the name of the registrant matched, they would not have put the name Oren Shabat Cohen right at the centre of their indictment unless they were sure he was the individual behind it, the identified the fact that Oren was using more than one name, which is fairly common with fraudsters.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This is Oren Laurent, interesting term: Fraudster. Lets recap: Oren Shabat Cohen is not Oren Laurent. CFTC case was wrong on many aspects. Oren Shabat Laurent was the head of technical department and name in the domain registrar. If you wish to put my name into the spotlight, so be it. Dont ruin the reputation of an employee. Please read the CFTC case thoroughly and see that the "customer complaints" were filed by the CEO and Employees of NADEX, a rival firm. If this seems fair to you, I will go out - have 10,000 interviews with major financial publications and provide 100 citations showing this fact. You are editing a page as if the firm has stolen, cheated, or done illegal acts to personally benefit.