Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="imrich, post: 2356146, member: 22331"]The essence of the report is that the CFTC knowingly? embellished the truth, thus: "Previously, they said that Tulving "never actually purchased precious metals" (which, ironically, is exactly what Bullion Direct says Tulving did). The CFTC removed that completely from the new court documents. It kind of makes sense that they would remove that claim, since records show that Tulving bought well over $100M of metal during the period in question. How does one buy $100+M of metal and not actually purchase it? The CFTC also added a bunch of qualifiers, especially the word "some". Previously, they made it sound like no Tulving customer got their metal (when in fact, over 99% of orders were fulfilled since Tulving began operations)." I believe it can be established that the Tulving site instructions/statements could be misconstrued as charged, to mislead buyers into believing that Tulving had on-site PM available for "over-night" shipment. The site instructions respectively often stated that PM would be shipped in the future, inferred from an "out-source", occasionally with an approximate stated delayed shipping period. I don't believe that the charges of premeditated thievery could be supported in any past/future trials, probably the reason for allowing a minimal plea and sentence. JMHO[/QUOTE]