Jump to content

Talk:Banc De Binary: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→References: new section
Line 272: Line 272:
* Moved Cyprus material to new subsection.
* Moved Cyprus material to new subsection.
[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 07:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 07:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

== References ==

Most of the references are either deadlinks or do not verify the claims. Some are not even a RS. I have tagged such links so it needs an expert attention to fix these references. [[User:Beranpolti|Beranpolti]] ([[User talk:Beranpolti|talk]]) 21:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:45, 1 August 2016

Banc De Binary's corporate structure.

Since the BDB team is very concerned with their corporate structure being described correctly, here is the text from a court order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada:

Defendant Banc de Binary is a Cypriot corporation with a principal place of business on Cyprus’southern shore, in Limassol. (Summons (#58-1) at 1). It is affiliated with three other corporations, Defendants ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd. (Second. Amend. Compl. (#58) at ¶¶ 4). Although Banc de Binary’s affiliates are incorporated in Israel and the Republic of Seychelles, the companies collectively do business as “Banc de Binary.” (Id . at ¶¶ 4, 13–15).
Banc de Binary was founded in 2010 by Defendant Oren Shabat Laurent, a twenty-nine year old American and Israeli citizen who lives on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. (Id. at ¶ 16); (Pl.’s Serv. Mot. (#43-1) at 3:10–11). He owns fifty percent of Banc de Binary, and is also the sole owner or fifty percent shareholder of ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd. (Second. Amend. Compl. (#58) at ¶¶ 5, 18, 19, 31).

Source: [1] That's a court order by a judge, not a filing. It reflects what the SEC, the CFTC, and the Federal courts were able to determine. If any of that was wrong, Banc De Binary had a chance to correct it before that order was issued. So that can be treated as a reliable source. I suggest updating the article to match. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That lucid, plain-language document is clearly usable. It also is important in understanding BDB's motivation to dominate this article, its talk page and allied Wikipedia processes. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably expect it to be disputed on the grounds that the order is a primary source, or at least not sufficiently independent. BDB's answer to the Second Amended Complaint, while not openly contesting ¶ 4 of the SAC (the significant one for the purposes of this article), seems to anticipate making an issue of linking the corporations up. I'm skimming the docket sheet for anything useable, but I doubt there'll be much of anything. If possible, it might be best to attribute the claim that they're all the same company, such as "which the United States SEC has argued includes X, Y and Z". I know that specific wording sucks, but I think that might be better. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Mendaliv. The court has stated everything correctly (except the relatively immaterial founding date), as this order comes after we had the CFTC amend its incorrect information. This document is also the sister of the document we recommended when User:BDBJack first requested the edit (67 days ago) that Nagle and Figureofnine now espouse, and so there is no problem with the source; there is also a press release from CFTC linked above that does the job as well. Banc De Binary is a common enterprise or group of the four corporations (so it is not formerly known as or also known as any of them), but Banc De Binary, Ltd., is one of the four corporations; and it is important not to misconstrue the court on that point, as it does not say they are the same company or entity, but the same enterprise or group. My edit request appears above and my proposed extended in-text description appears within the #Discussion list collapsed box. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the "former" is probably incorrect, though it leads me to another question. Is the article is about the corporate entity known as Banc De Binary (organized in Cyprus), or about the collective enterprise that the Cypriot corporation—as well as the Israeli and Seychellois organizations—do business as? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not especially complicated nor controversial. Brokerages frequently have related enterprises and they function as one entity, with different corporations in different jurisdictions. "Formerly" in the lead is not correct. I don't know why this was not done, but it appears to be a product of the rather poor editing atmosphere in this article, for which I regret the company has no one to blame but itself. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This court order is worth reading in full, for those interested. There is reference to the CEO fearing criminal prosecution on p. 4. In the footnote on p. 11, it states that the company's principal place of business is Cyprus. Mendaliv, while this is indisputably a primary source, it contains much of a factual nature that does not require interpretation, so I think passes the test in WP:PRIMARY. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent source. It is clearly independent of the subject, clearly reliable, and as an impartial summary of primary sources, it's equally clearly a secondary source for the stated facts - it's a primary source for the text of the order, but a secondary source for the facts in the Findings Of Fact. If this does not meet WP:RS then it is hard to see what would. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even for the aspects of the case for which this holding might be a secondary source, I do not believe we can call it reliable. Judicial opinions have little if any editorial (as opposed to judicial) oversight, and in my experience sections on background facts are highly prone to containing nonprejudicial errors (i.e., mistakes with the details that don't affect the outcome of the case). This can be really simple stuff... in writing Collision between MV Testbank and MV Seadaniel, for instance, the multiple judicial opinions in that case differed significantly in the dimensions of the ships, the amount of contaminant that was spilled, and in the treatment of other simple facts... and when compared to the NTSB accident report, they all had some nonprejudicial errors. Indeed, I would argue that the facts not essential to the holding in the instant order should be considered less reliable. In short, there are a lot of problems with using judicial opinions as sources for anything but quotations and textually attributed statements. While I think the statement in the order is probably right, and probably should be included in the article, I just want to make clear that judicial opinions need to be used very carefully. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even the BDB team says "The court has stated everything correctly (except the relatively immaterial founding date)". So we should be done here. John Nagle (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be consensus, a formal edit request:
  • Delete from lede "formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd."
  • Add, at beginning of History section,
Banc de Binary is a Cypriot corporation based in Limassol, Cyprus. It is affiliated with ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd., incorporated in Israel and the Republic of Seychelles. The companies collectively do business as “Banc de Binary". Banc de Binary was founded by Oren Shabat Laurent, a 29 year old (as of 2014) American and Israeli citizen who lives on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. Laurent owns 50% of Banc de Binary, and is also the sole owner or 50% shareholder of ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd. (Cite to [2])
That follows the source as closely as possible. John Nagle (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I agree there seems to be a consensus, and there has been no objection in three days. Is a reduction in protection now advisable? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I recall seeing in one of the BDB rep's walls o' text an objection to the lead sentence referring to the company as "Israeli-Cypriot". Should we remove Israeli? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I notice that the most recent article on the subject in a reliable secondary source referencing the company [3] refers to it as a Cypriot company, and so does the court ruling that has been discussed. So I don't see a problem with that. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as well. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ on BdB

See the last 2 paragraphs at Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. $10K's a bit special compared to the usual army of minimum-wage freelancers. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This enterprise is hardly notable except for its controversial aspects. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a short sentence about this in? It seems to have been uncontroversial here. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: @Pinkbeast: you need to provide a specific wording, and make sure that wording has consensus, before this can be enacted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'll wait for the page protection to run out (also providing other editors with an opportunity to howl in protest). Thanks anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I propose new section at the bottom, "Paid Editing of Wikipedia":
In June 2014, an advertisement on a freelance employment Website offered more than $10,000 for "crisis management" of the BdB page on Wikipedia.
Since there has been no reporting of the previous socks, I don't see that we can get it in. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see this as a separate section. Maybe a sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did ponder that given that I have a princely dozen words... but it seems an odd fit in any other section. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History? Coretheapple (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banning COI editors from this talk page

Note: This talk section is limited to volunteer editors only.

This talk page is insane. All of the crud introduced by COI editors and responses by volunteers retards the improvement of this article. What's the best way to at least get a respite (6 months?) from the depradations of the COI's? Back to ANI? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbes Goodyear:, please note the discussion underway at WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal Coretheapple (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of names from infobox

I have made an edit to this fully-protected article because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the full-protection dispute.

Per OTRS ticket 2014061810015646 initiated by Roy Ogen, I have removed his name from the infobox. He no longer works there, and I confirmed this from his own LinkedIn page.

In the same edit I removed Sarah Fenwick also, per OTRS ticket 2014061810006129 initiated by Ms Fenwick. She also says she no longer works there. Her LinkedIn page confirms that this company is a past client of hers. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About paid editors on this article

Wouldn't it be accurate to include in this article the informations from independent secondary sources (such as The Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera or Slate) about the consequences of the actions of the Banc De Binary's paid editors on this article? El Comandante (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed above, in the context of the WSJ article. I see that AJAM and Slate picked up and repeated the WSJ article, with credit, not really adding much. But yes, definitely, worth mentioning. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit

I intend to remove the sentence which says A 2013 investigation by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington alleged that one client had $25,000 stolen from his bank account after signing up with them. on the basis this is not what the source says (suggesting original research/synthesis), and that in any case, the Daily Mail is not generally considered a reliable source (per discussions above). If there are any objections or someone would like to provide revised wording and sourcing, please list them below. Nick (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That statement needs work, not deletion. How about this: "Investigations by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington in 2013 and 2014 alleged losses by two clients of Banc de Binary. One client alleged that Banc de Binary had made unauthorized withdrawals from his Lloyds TSB bank account. Lloyds TSB agreed and refunded the client's money.[4] Another Banc de Binary client reported being unable to withdraw funds from Banc de Binary. After being contacted by Hetherington, Banc de Binary refunded the money. [5] John Nagle (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail isn't generally considered a reliable source, is there another source to supplement or replace the DM which could be used ? BDB also insist they and not Lloyds TSB refunded the money of the first client, is there anything to support that, that you're aware of ? Nick (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one can make that kind of sweeping judgment about the Daily Mail. It is indeed used as a source and I have myself. BDB's side of the story is situated within the article and it can be adjusted to reflect that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel uncomfortable making statements like this with only one source. I tried and I can't find anything else regarding this particular issue. If this was more than an isolated incident this would have garnered more coverage. I tried looking for mentions of Lloyds TSB and Banc De Binary and found nothing but this story. I found it in several of the Daily Mail subsidiaries, but it was all the same story. I say get rid of it. If we find something more to support the story we can always put it back. Padillah (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a second source would be optimal. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Quebec securities regulator also noted the "bonus lock-in" feature that BdB used to avoid returning customer funds.[6] The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission recently prohibited Cyprus-based binary option dealers from using "bonuses" to lock up customer funds.[7] There are similar complaints about BdB on scam-oriented blog sites.[8][9]. This was the subject of one of the Daily Mail stories about a customer who could not withdraw funds. So it's clear enough that BdB was locking in customer funds and had to stop doing that. The Quebec securities regulator item is already in the article, and the Daily Mail article could be used as an example of a customer running into the practice the Quebec regulator noted. John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the two are connected, then the customer complaint can be moved to that section but as just that - a complaint, and that BDB denied it. That gives the regulatory statement meaning. However, there would have to be a direct connection between the two. As you can see, there is considerable reluctance to use the tabloid as a source. Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - It's misleading to simply describe The Daily Mail as an unreliable tabloid as this is a well written article which gives adequate weight to the companies response. It doesn't say that Banc de Binary repaid the money. As the money was taken without permission from the account Lloyds TSB were legally obliged to refund it, and they would have taken further steps to find where it had gone. Padillah can do a search for 'Banc de Binary Scam' and they'll find numerous similar things online about Banc de Binary. I'm more uncomfortable about the sudden appearance of Nick announcing this, as it reminds me of CorporateM's also mysterious and sudden appearance to announce Edits. I'd leave it where it is as it is quite fairly stated and previous editors all said it was well sourced.

When are we going to add the detail about Banc de Binary's attempt to pay someone $10k to edit, which hit the press, into the article. Has Sarah Fenwick really left the company, she still seems to be making ahead of the week video reports for them. Can the company really be described as Cypriot and not Cypriot-Israeli bearing in mind that that we already put a link to a photo on this page of their Israeli HQ and that the various affiliated companies all do the same thing, are simply a way of them allowing to trade in different geographical areas such as the EU or outside the EU. As far as I can see ET Binary Options is still based in the Diamond District in Ramat Gan, Israel and it is this building which we put a link to the photo of, which appears to have the Banc de Binary logo on the outside of, this proving they are based there. ET Binary options are still posting job ads for sales reps on their Facebook wall, showing that this is where the calls are made from. Quite telling that they are looking for people who can speak many different languages, as Banc de Binary's site is in this too.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ms. Fenwick has left. Her company Jazz Arts & Communications Ltd is producing BDB's videos. The latest video confirms that she is presenting and that it is produced by her company. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Wellllll Daily Mail continues to do a fairly good job on a very regular basis of assuring that they do not establish such a reputation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of Daily Mail utilized as sources in various articles, especially on popular culture. I notice that it was just added as a source to Ava Gardner, for instance. I don't mean to defend this tabloid, but I don't believe there is a blanket ban on use of it. Coretheapple (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
while there is no blanket ban (yet), there is certainly also no "default reliable" - particularly on potentially controversial content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HistorianofRecenttimes I understand where you're coming from, but the edit/change is in response to a complaint we have received, and it has merit (if it didn't, I wouldn't be here). The word "stolen" does not appear in the reference source so it cannot appear in the sentence in the article that is sourced to the reference, to have it there is original research or synthesis, which we don't permit. If there's a source which says BdB has stolen money, then add that instead. There have been long standing concerns about the reliability of the Daily Mail source, with extensive discussions at the Reliable Sources noticeboard concluding it's generally not to be considered a reliable source (see discussions at 1, 2, 3, 4) which is why I'm asking if there are other sources that could supplement or replace the Daily Mail.
I'm quite happy to mainly leave this to editors with more experience of the topic and knowledge of source material which can be used, but as it stands, the minimum that needs to be done is the sentence containing the word "stolen" needs to be changed to remove the word stolen and to say something along the lines of "a customer complained that BdB withdrew funds from their account without their authority". As I said earlier, if there is another reliable source that specifically states BdB stole money, then add that reference and don't worry about changing the sentence.
I don't think I'm telling you all anything you don't already know or understand, but Banc de Binary, as they're now banned, will be channelling complaints through administrators/OTRS volunteers, and they're likely to continue to flag up every part of the article which doesn't say what they would rather it said, specifically parts of the text which doesn't match the references precisely. I'm almost certainly going to be back with some of the other issues that BdB will almost certainly raise with us, so if regular editors could read through the article, double check all the used references still work (i.e no 404s) and still say what they did when they were first used that would be brilliant. If there any potential issues with references supporting a little original research etc, fixing it now would be enormously helpful. Nick (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "stolen" needs to go, because it's not in the source. Frankly I think it would have been taken out already if the article was unprotected. I've asked for that, as the reason the article was protected was because of edit warring with BDB socks and corporate accounts, and all are now side-banned. Without them breathing down the necks of volunteers, I think that all article issues can now be amicably addressed, including this one. However I do think semiprotection is wise. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that "stolen" is unwarranted. "Withdrew funds from account without authorization" is more like it. See Direct debit#Fraud for an explaination of the process. John Nagle (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still no word on the unprotection. It only has until July 3 anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, changed "stolen" to "withdrawal without authorization". It would be easier to alert administrators about these things if the {{editprotected}} tag were used. Fortunately I am monitoring this page.
I can make consensus-based edits to the protected article, as I have above.
I can also reduce the protection level to semi if there is a consensus to do that. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite think we have consensus yet, but it's a lot closer now than it was a few weeks ago. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history, I'd say drop to semi-protection when full protection runs out on July 3. John Nagle (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or drop it to semi- now. Whether it's unprotected now or in a few days doesn't make much difference I guess. I asked at WP:RPP and was referred to the protecting administrator, who seems off-wiki. Coretheapple (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've asked User:HistoryofRecenttimes to voluntarily stand down from the talk page. We don't need partisans from either side breathing down our necks. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something went wrong here. Amatulic's edit in response to this request [10] distorted the passage so as to make it say that the journalist claimed BdB took that money from his own account, rather than from some other anonymous complainant. I've removed the sentence for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, I would rewrite the sentence as: A 2013 investigation by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington alleged that Banc de Binary withdrew $25,000 from a British customer's bank account without authorization and refused to return the money when challenged.
Comments? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that the Daily Mail author isn't even in a position to "assert" or "allege" anything at all. He is only reporting what his anonymous informants claims. The journalist had no way of independently verifying what that customer said; he only had his word for it. While it might be debateable whether the Daily Mail as such is or isn't a reliable source, the anonymous individual certainly isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are now two alleged victims, so I'm leaning toward saying that the Mail reported two customers losing sums deposited there, and that BDB denied wrongdoing. I wouldn't go much beyond that. Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Sorry about mangling that sentence while implementing this edit request. Looks like I left out the key word "client", making it appear like the reporter had lost money. My bad. I restored it with appropriate copyediting and added another citation. Feel free to re-remove it if the sentence and the sources are deemed inappropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've received an off-Wikipedia email from Hetherington. But the Daily Mail's email system added "This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright." So I can't post what he wrote. John Nagle (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and we'd have to be sure that it isn't original research. I just wanted to amplify a bit a posting I made a bit earlier concerning my reorganization of the article. All the paid editors have been swept out of the article, in a very definitive way. So now the onus is on the volunteer editors to make this as fair as possible. If we don't, if we turn this into a hatchet job, the apologists for paid editors are going to use this as an example of how righteous it is to have paid editing, how terrific it is, what a great thing paid editing is. So please, people, let's bend over backwards to be fair. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Banc de Binary news

There's another article by Tony Hetheringdon of the Daily Mail.[11]. Another victim who thought Banc de Binary was really in the US.

Then there's this: "CySec issues warning to investors about Banc De Binary ancillary website" [12]. It's a blog, which links to another blog with a dead link. so that's useless as a source, but maybe there's a better reference for what, if anything, CySec did. --John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text of the Cyprus SEC warning: [13]. A primary source, but clear as a bell and permitted by WP:PRIMARY. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that's it. CySEC says BDB Services can't operate in Cyprus. "BDB Services Ltd" is, according to BdB itself [14] and the CFTC [15] their unit in the Seychelles. The CFTC also says that corporation has an office in Israel. The Seychelles address, "106 Premier Building Victoria, Seychelles" is also the address of a large number of other businesses and a service for setting up an offshore business. It appears to be a mail drop service of some kind. John Nagle (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Reorganizing

I've done a bit of reorganizing. As I see it, the main problem was that there was a big chunk of text in the lead describing BDB's regulatory travails. In my opinion that was just banging them over the head too much. So I replaced with a summary sentence and moved it to the "regulatory issues" section. Also I put "products and services" first, so that readers understand what these folks do. Then I merged the "regulation" section, which wasn't necessary and simply needed to be part of the "history" section. There are other issues as well, such as jargon and dense writing. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I took out a line in which the Daily Mail calls them a "betting parlor" or something like that. This is a tabloid and I'm not comfortable with using their characterizations. We have a description from the WSJ already and that will suffice. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should mention that I removed the NPOV tag as there was no talk page discussion to justify it. I think that removing the block of text in the lead on their regulatory issues actually helps a lot in that regard. If anyone wants to of course they can reinstate the tag. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of this article, a "reorganization" which makes BdB look better has to be viewed with scepticism. "The company has a history of regulatory issues on two continents, and was barred from accepting U.S. customers in August 2013.[8]" misrepresents what they were doing. They were operating illegally in the United States, (and lying about their location) and they were caught. I'm tempted to revert that whole block of edits. Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know what you mean by "skepticism," but let's discuss what you think the problems are. Reviewing the article it worried me that we were putting so much on the regulatory issues in the lead. but I have an open mind on the subject. Maybe I overdid it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory issues section

I have consolidated all the negative stuff about this company into the "regulatory issues" section. Now, there is no question that this company is notable because of its negative news. I am fully acquainted with the fact that it is barred from doing business in the United States. I know that the Better Business Bureau hates them. I know all that stuff. But I think that we have to condense this section a bit. I could go ahead and boldly do it but I'd like to get some input from everybody about that general concept. I realize that there are some articles that are predominantly negative, and I'm not saying that this article shouldn't be one of them. But I do think that we need to consider carefully a reduction in the size, perhaps omitting some details, of all the negative stuff. Also, as a side issue, we need to fix some of the jargon and wordiness. Comments? Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also archived but if anyone objects <sigh>, go ahead and unarchive and restore the fifty Berlin Walls of text. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to have more of the "negative stuff" in the lede. This outfit has been booted out of the US and two Canadian provinces for operating illegally, and is facing significant financial penalties if (when) they lose their lawsuit with the CFTC and SEC. That needs to be prominently mentioned. John Nagle (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But not to the size it formerly had, which also was problematic by not summarizing what was in the body of the article. In fact, I moved it wholesale without causing any duplication. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted a phrase into the lead referring to them being charged; I agree with Nagle that it deserved some more prominence. I'm not sure we do need to condense the regulatory issues section much; AFAICT from the outcome of previous AFDs, the company is only notable because of its regulatory issues. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I think we should lose the two mentions of "more general warnings" about binary options trading. That's pure guilt by association. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hsve no problem with giving the regulatory issues more prominent play. In fact, if that's what you want, y'all can revert my edits and restore all the stuff I removed from the lead. I was bending over backwards to be fair, and I see that far from being pleased by my removal of all that text from the lead, a BDB editor squawked on his user page that my perfectly reasonable summary sentence was no good. That has kind of dampened my enthusiasm for bending over backwards. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Others may differ, but I'm not unhappy with where it is now. I will remove those "more general warnings" absent objections. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that the general warning stuff doesn't bother me, as it puts the regulatory stance toward binary options into perspective. Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotoption

Re Huon's recent edit, do you think we might have something about how they provide such services to "other" binary options brokers, leaving out the 170? I agree the text removed was inappropriate, but I think the point that Spotoption (as far as we know) isn't a BdB cutout is significant. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's SpotOption's list of "brands".[16] Banc de Binary is at the top of the list. SpotOption at least hosts the sites and runs the back end.[17] SpotOption offers several levels of affiliation. There's "white label", where they're just a service provider. Then there's SpotOption Exchange, where SpotOption Exchange takes the financial risk and the front organization just drives traffic to them. Banc de Binary is on the SpotOption Exchange customer list, too.[18] SpotOption claims 70% of the binary option market. SpotOption would be worth an article if we could find out more about them. Here's an informal overview of the industry.[19]. There are six back-end providers in the binary options business, with SpotOption by far the largest, with 148 of the 248 known binary option "brokers". (A previous big player was iOption, but they shut down in November, 2013.[20][21]) John Nagle (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SEC vs Banc de Binary update

The SEC won an initial summary judgement.[22]. Litigation continues.

There's an "Statement of Uncontroverted Facts in Support of Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission" (case document 79-2) available, but you have to go to Pacer to get it. This comes from depositions of Owen Laurent: "According to Mr. Laurent, he and his father own the Banc de Binary Group. ... Mr. Laurent is the founder, president and chief executive officer of BdB Ltd. ... Mr. Laurent is the 50% shareholder of BdB Ltd; the other 50% shareholder is his father." All the businesses of the BdB group were owned by Laurent and/or his father. We have in the article that Laurent owned 50%; now we know who owns the other half.

Other than Offshore Alert, no press source has picked up on this yet. So it's premature to put this in the article. John Nagle (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are permissable but need to be used with care. If the document doesn't require interpretation it might be OK. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The court documents aren't that clear, and some key ones are under seal for now. Updating the article is probably premature, unless there's more press coverage. The case is moving forward to trial some time next year. John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the court case is finishing up, and a settlement between Banc de Binary, the SEC, and the CFTC is expected by October 25, 2015.[23] So we should have a disposition on that soon. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Settlement period extended to the end of 2015, per Justia. No resolution yet; case still pending. John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another extension, to February 8, 2016. [24] John Nagle (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Case settled. Court order issued. BdB to pay $11 million in restitution and penalties. US customers get refunds. Owen Lawrent pays a personal penalty. Good WSJ source. Added to article. John Nagle (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PACER link (pay) for the actual settlement document. [25]. The National Futures Association, not Banc De Binary, is administering the refunds. They have BdB's US customer list. One of the minor provisions is that BdB had to agree that "neither they nor any of their agents or employees under their authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the Complaint, Amended Complaint, or the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint, Amended Complaint and this Consent Order is without a factual basis". John Nagle (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

Please change the logo from 'Banc de Binary logo.gif' to 'Banc de Binary Logo.svg'. Thanks McMetrox McMetrox (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not in any way promote the company

I think that the screen shot of bdB's page is not needed in the article, or even the link to its page or logo. BdB is essentially an illegal site in the US because it doesn't even follow the minimal rules for a "financial institution." There's no need for us to promote the company in any way. That would be a gross disservice to our readers. This is up to a consensus of the editors here, of course. There are no rules that say we *must* include this info. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care about the screenshot, but I strongly oppose the removal of the logo and the link—those are important pieces of information about the company, useful to readers both for ensuring that they have reached the page they're looking for and for informing them about the company. I don't think there's anything promotional about including a link, a screenshot, and a logo—those are standard pieces of information included in many Wikipedia articles about websites. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That violates WP:NPOV. The logo and link are standard elements we try to have, no matter what the organization does. The only exception I can think of for the link is if the organization hosts copyright violations or other illegal materials. --NeilN talk to me 16:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that these elements are "standard pieces of information" does not mean that we have to include them. BTW, this organization does host illegal materials. They are closed down in the US without a trial, only because they will not come to the US to give depositions and face trial. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "U.S. Wikipedia". Many, many companies can't operate in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this colloquy is about, but I agree the logo is appropriate. But I don't think we need the screenshot, given that many readers can't even access the page in the screenshot! A more appropriate screenshot would be the one US readers see, but that is just a pathway to a self-serving statement. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a US reader, I can access the page in the screenshot. Is there reason to believe that some readers can't? —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on the link in the infobox I get a statement saying as follows: "Dear Valued Customer, Banc De Binary is voluntarily discontinuing its operations in the United States. The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission have asserted that Banc De Binary is not permitted to offer its binary option products to U.S. residents without registering with those agencies." The rest of the screen is whited out and there is now way to access it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well, in that case, maybe we should include the screenshot, in order to illustrate the appearance of the website for readers who can't access it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about whether we have a screenshot or not. --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the logo but the screenshot is unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BdB is not "closed down in the US without a trial". They're in court, and have been since at least July of 2013, when the first injunction against them was issued.[26]. Currently, they're arguing over whether BdB will have to disclose the identity of their "confidential ultimate beneficiary owner".[27]. (That's new information; previous info indicated that Owen Laurent and his father were the owners. Apparently there's someone else behind the scenes.) Owen Laurent was deposed, but exercised his Fifth Amendment right not to answer. The SEC and CFTC still want more documents and files from BdB, including their list of US customers. John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the screenshot issue, Bank of America doesn't have a screenshot. Wells Fargo Bank doesn't have a screenshot. None of the big brokerages seem to have a screenshot, not even e-Trade. Online gambling doesn't have a screenshot. Online poker does, but it's not identified as a specific company. So why should BdB? John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a much more cogent argument than the question of legality in certain jurisdictions. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The screenshot has been gone for over a month... --NeilN talk to me 18:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banc De Binary Liverpool Sponsorship

There have been a few sources noting that Banc De Binary has started to sponsor Liverpool F.C:

http://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/brokers/liverpool-fc-signs-new-one-year-deal-with-banc-de-binary/

https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/comments/3k268e/liverpool_fc_agree_new_partnership_with_banc_de/

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/premier-league/17836-liverpool-land-banc-de-binary-in-new-online-trading-deal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.54.181.221 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional text from questionable sources? I don't think so. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing anything on Liverpool FC's own web site about this. Here's their official merchandise.[28] They sell Liverpool FC T-shirts with a choice of "Standard Chartered", "Garudo Indonesia", or "Carlsberg" logos. No "Banc de Binary" option. But Liverpool FC did do some kind of deal with Banc De Binary.[1] Not clear how much. Maybe anyone can buy a sponsorship at some low level. When they buy "Banc de Binary Stadum", then it's worth mentioning. John Nagle (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that someone in Florida doing business as Vision Financial Partners was reselling Banc De Binary services in the US. (Also, allegedly, stealing customer funds.) The CFTC has clamped down. BdB is not a named defendant in this one, but allegedly did accept funds from US persons, which they are enjoined against doing.[29][30] Not worth a mention in the article yet, but worth following for future developments. John Nagle (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016

Hello, Please link to our website http://bdbvictims.org We have set up a website to assist people who have been harmed by Banc De Binarys fraudulent activities and have also written a guide to assist them in recovering their funds through chargebacks with their banks.

We have found that a number of forums have removed posts about Banc De Binary and are obviously affiliated with them. We are an independent organisation who are helping people fight fraud. We have also managed to have one of Banc De Binarys affiliates here in Australia http://www.binaryoptions.net.au shutdown by ACORN and the Australian Police. Banc De Binary have now posted on their home page that they no longer offer services to Australians (after their affiliate was shut down and they were trading in Australia without permission) which you have mentioned in the wiki already.

Kind Regards, Cameron Hay Co Founder BDBVictims.org

27.33.250.5 (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wikipedia is not a soapbox. By the same token, we don't allow any sorts of petition sites. Advocacy sites are rarely included unless the site or organization itself is notable enough to merit an article. The lede already notes that they are banned from accepting customers in several countries (including Australia). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tightened up US enforcement actions section

  • The court case is complete and a permanent injunction is in place, so text was changed to past tense where appropriate.
  • Added link to official court-ordered refund site. (Not a soapbox; that's where US victims can file claims and get refunds.)
  • Consolidated some duplicated material.
  • Moved Cyprus material to new subsection.

John Nagle (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Most of the references are either deadlinks or do not verify the claims. Some are not even a RS. I have tagged such links so it needs an expert attention to fix these references. Beranpolti (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banc_De_Binary&oldid=732579036"