Talk:Banc De Binary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 thi--HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)s, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.241.207 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oren, you and Banc de Binary are being prosecuted by CTFC. If the CTFC was wrong they would have issued a statement by now. Your name is Oren Shabat Cohen not Oren Laurent, this person does not exist, as made clear by the CTFC which pointed out you use two names. If you did exist you would have shown your passport to the CTFC, FCA and other EU regulators, had it checked and then they would have written down your name on the list of individuals in charge of the company, along with other key staff. You stated in your online interviews that you worked at NAF and Infinity Private Funds etc, these do not exist, if they did there would be a way of finding them in some list of companies and citing them. How on earth could you have been a real NY trader and then gone on to forget that you needed to register your new company with US regulators? You do not employ people 300, as a local person found out when they read one of your job advertisements which showed you were based in Petach Tikvah and only wanted staff under 30/ 35. You have talked about putting families out of work, but your job advert shows you recruited young people who most likely would not have families. The real victims here are the customers, who like the CTFC stated were illegally approached to invest in your company, despite not having jobs or even more than $1000 in their bank. Will you return all their money now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) --HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Options XO/Dolce Formula Ltd/YTF Trade Ltd

The Options XO contact page currently says

OptionsXO is operated by YTF Trade Limited, an authorized and regulated company by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC license No. 206/13). Company number HE 308115. Registered office: 6th Floor, Florinis 7, Greg Tower, 1065 Nicosia, CY.

However, in January it said "Address: 111 Park House Uxbridge Road London W5 5TL UK". A page about the building contains the term "serviced office"; the same term is used in another listing and in an advertisement). A Web search for the address turns up several companies using it: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] [13], [14] , [15] , [16].

The whois record for optionsxo.com currently says:

optionsxo.com whois record

Domain Name: OPTIONSXO.COM Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com Updated Date: 2013-08-14 12:33:35 Creation Date: 2012-05-28 05:32:37 Registrar Expiration Date: 2015-05-28 05:32:37 Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited Registrant Name: Tomer Levi Registrant Organization: Dolce Formula Ltd Registrant Street: Trident Chambers Registrant City: Victoria Mahe Registrant State/Province: Registrant Postal Code: 5555 Registrant Country: Seychelles Admin Name: Tomer Levi Admin Organization: Dolce Formula Ltd Admin Street: Trident Chambers Admin City: Victoria Mahe Admin State/Province: Admin Postal Code: 5555 Admin Country: Seychelles Admin Phone: +44.2034045709 Admin Fax: Admin Email: domains@dctl.co.il Tech Name: Tomer Levi Tech Organization: Dolce Formula Ltd Tech Street: Trident Chambers Tech City: Victoria Mahe Tech State/Province: Tech Postal Code: 5555 Tech Country: Seychelles Tech Phone: +44.2034045709 Tech Fax: Tech Email: domains@dctl.co.il Name Server: NS07.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS08.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

Note that the e-mail address is maintained by an Israeli company. The record was updated this past August.

The company's legal terms currently give the London address, but an archived copy says "DOLCE FORMULA (CY) LTD, Parthenonos 6, SMARAGDA COURT, 3rd floor, Flat/Office 201 3031, Limassol, Cyprus". The whois record for easytradeonline.us currently says:

easytradeonline.us whois record

Domain Name: EASYTRADEONLINE.US Domain ID: D26176494-US Sponsoring Registrar: GoDaddy.com, Inc. Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 146 Registrar URL (registration services): whois.godaddy.com Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited Registrant ID: CR40248995 Registrant Name: Jack Caine Registrant Organization: Banc De Binary Registrant Address1: Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Registrant Address2: 3rd Florr, Office 201 Registrant City: Limassol Registrant State/Province: Limassol Registrant Postal Code: 3031 Registrant Country: Cyprus Registrant Country Code: CY Registrant Phone Number: +1.6462918934 Registrant Email: cto@bbinary.com Registrant Application Purpose: P1 Registrant Nexus Category: C11 Administrative Contact ID: CR40249020 Administrative Contact Name: Jack Caine Administrative Contact Organization: Banc De Binary Administrative Contact Address1: Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Administrative Contact Address2: 3rd Florr, Office 201 Administrative Contact City: Limassol Administrative Contact State/Province: Limassol Administrative Contact Postal Code: 3031 Administrative Contact Country: Cyprus Administrative Contact Country Code: CY Administrative Contact Phone Number: +1.6462918934 Administrative Contact Email: cto@bbinary.com Administrative Application Purpose: P1 Administrative Nexus Category: C11 Billing Contact ID: CR40249025 Billing Contact Name: Jack Caine Billing Contact Organization: Banc De Binary Billing Contact Address1: Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Billing Contact Address2: 3rd Florr, Office 201 Billing Contact City: Limassol Billing Contact State/Province: Limassol Billing Contact Postal Code: 3031 Billing Contact Country: Cyprus Billing Contact Country Code: CY Billing Contact Phone Number: +1.6462918934 Billing Contact Email: cto@bbinary.com Billing Application Purpose: P1 Billing Nexus Category: C11 Technical Contact ID: CR40249003 Technical Contact Name: Jack Caine Technical Contact Organization: Banc De Binary Technical Contact Address1: Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Technical Contact Address2: 3rd Florr, Office 201 Technical Contact City: Limassol Technical Contact State/Province: Limassol Technical Contact Postal Code: 3031 Technical Contact Country: Cyprus Technical Contact Country Code: CY Technical Contact Phone Number: +1.6462918934 Technical Contact Email: cto@bbinary.com Technical Application Purpose: P1 Technical Nexus Category: C11 Name Server: PDNS01.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: PDNS02.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Created by Registrar: GoDaddy.com, Inc. Last Updated by Registrar: GoDaddy.com, Inc. Domain Registration Date: Tue Jan 12 18:06:52 GMT 2010 Domain Expiration Date: Sun Jan 11 23:59:59 GMT 2015 Domain Last Updated Date: Sun Nov 11 22:24:56 GMT 2012

I note that this domain is registered to Banc De Binary, with the same Limassol address—including the same suite number—that appeared in the Options XO terms. When I opened http://easytradeonline.us in a browser, it redirected to http://www.bbinary.com/ . The domain binarybank.asia is similarly registered to Banc De Binary, with the same Limassol address:

binarybank.asia whois record

Domain ID:D1859570-ASIA Domain Name:BINARYBANK.ASIA Domain Create Date:10-Aug-2011 00:20:57 UTC Domain Expiration Date:10-Aug-2015 00:20:57 UTC Domain Last Updated Date:10-Jun-2013 16:48:12 UTC Last Transferred Date: Created by:GoDaddy.com, LLC R45-ASIA (146) Last Updated by Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC R45-ASIA (146) Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC R45-ASIA (146) Domain Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED Domain Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED Domain Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Domain Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED Registrant ID:CR89984907 Registrant Name:Jack Caine Registrant Organization:Banc De Binary Registrant Address:Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Registrant Address2:3rd Florr, Office 201 Registrant Address3: Registrant City:Limassol Registrant State/Province:Limassol Registrant Country/Economy:CY Registrant Postal Code:3031 Registrant Phone:+1.6462918934 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant E-mail: Administrative ID:CR89984909 Administrative Name:Jack Caine Administrative Organization:Banc De Binary Administrative Address:Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Administrative Address2:3rd Florr, Office 201 Administrative Address3: Administrative City:Limassol Administrative State/Province:Limassol Administrative Country/Economy:CY Administrative Postal Code:3031 Administrative Phone:+1.6462918934 Administrative Phone Ext.: Administrative FAX: Administrative FAX Ext.: Administrative E-mail: Technical ID:CR89984908 Technical Name:Jack Caine Technical Organization:Banc De Binary Technical Address:Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Technical Address2:3rd Florr, Office 201 Technical Address3: Technical City:Limassol Technical State/Province:Limassol Technical Country/Economy:CY Technical Postal Code:3031 Technical Phone:+1.6462918934 Technical Phone Ext.: Technical FAX: Technical FAX Ext.: Technical E-mail: Billing ID:CR89984910 Billing Name:Jack Caine Billing Organization:Banc De Binary Billing Address:Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Billing Address2:3rd Florr, Office 201 Billing Address3: Billing City:Limassol Billing State/Province:Limassol Billing Country/Economy:CY Billing Postal Code:3031 Billing Phone:+1.6462918934 Billing Phone Ext.: Billing FAX: Billing FAX Ext.: Billing E-mail: CED ID:CR89984908 CED CC Locality:IL CED State/Province:Israel CED City:Moshav Bazra CED Type of Legal Entity:Corporations or Companies CED Form of Identification:Societies Registry or equivalent registry for non-corporate entities CED Identification Number:200113892 Operations and Notifications ID:CR89984908 Operations and Notifications Name:Jack Caine Operations and Notifications Organization:Banc De Binary Operations and Notifications Address:Parthenonos 6, Smaragda Court Operations and Notifications Address2:3rd Florr, Office 201 Operations and Notifications Address3: Operations and Notifications City:Limassol Operations and Notifications State/Province:Limassol Operations and Notifications Country/Economy:CY Operations and Notifications Postal Code:3031 Operations and Notifications Phone:+1.6462918934 Operations and Notifications Phone Ext.: Operations and Notifications FAX: Operations and Notifications FAX Ext.: Operations and Notifications E-mail: Nameservers:PDNS01.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Nameservers:PDNS02.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

When I opened the BINARYBANK.ASIA Web site in a browser, it redirected to a Banc de Binary site.

Likewise for several other domains: bdbaffiliates.us, binarybank.us, binary-bank.us, thebinaryoption.us, and bbinary.asia. All redirected to the main Banc de Binary site.

I noticed that mmghq.net is registered to Elisa Amouyal instead of Jack Caine, and Banc de Binary is not mentioned. However, the registration address is the same as that used for the other domains (except it is written differently, without the typo "florr"):

mmghq.net whois record

Domain Name: MMGHQ.NET Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com Updated Date: 2013-06-18 07:07:35 Creation Date: 2012-06-27 15:05:23 Registrar Expiration Date: 2016-06-27 15:05:23 Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited Registrant Name: Elisa Amouyal Registrant Organization: MMGHQ Ltd Registrant Street: Parthenonos 6 Smaragda Court, Registrant Street: 3th Floor, Flat/Office 201 Registrant City: Limassol Registrant State/Province: Cyprus Registrant Postal Code: 3031 Registrant Country: Cyprus Admin Name: Elisa Amouyal Admin Organization: MMGHQ Ltd Admin Street: Parthenonos 6 Smaragda Court, Admin Street: 3th Floor, Flat/Office 201 Admin City: Limassol Admin State/Province: Cyprus Admin Postal Code: 3031 Admin Country: Cyprus Admin Phone: +33.671350361 Admin Fax: Admin Email: elisa.amouyal@gmail.com Tech Name: Elisa Amouyal Tech Organization: MMGHQ Ltd Tech Street: Parthenonos 6 Smaragda Court, Tech Street: 3th Floor, Flat/Office 201 Tech City: Limassol Tech State/Province: Cyprus Tech Postal Code: 3031 Tech Country: Cyprus Tech Phone: +33.671350361 Tech Fax: Tech Email: elisa.amouyal@gmail.com Name Server: NS659.WEBSITEWELCOME.COM Name Server: NS660.WEBSITEWELCOME.COM

Unlike the others, it's using WEBSITEWELCOME.COM name servers. Its Web site identifies it as MMG Music Publishing.

For those of these domains that are registered to Banc de Binary, I see Jack Caine, not Oren Cohen, as the technical contact.

It seems like more than a coincidence that Banc de Binary uses the same address as another company dealing in binary options, and that both companies have a contact person in Israel and an "instant office" in London. —rybec 01:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rybec, I've only been on wiki a few days so don't think can i can edit a protected page yet, but wanted to add stuff here - great citing and research btw. Maybe add Jack Caine to the list of names Oren goes by, the Daily Mail article also says a Lauren O'Connor emailed the client, but unless stated, this must also be another a/k/a for Oren.

I found some more citations but as I'm new to wiki, not able to add them - thought about this for opening paragraph stating that the Financial Times also tried to investigate the company:

The British newspaper The Financial Times also tried to investigate Banc de Binary after the CTFC charges were filed and found that the company had not appointed a defense counsel.

Maybe a bit more under US regulatory issues like:

Banc de Binary then retracted this statement and put out this shorter one instead:

“The release was inaccurate in several respects,” its website said. “BDB has been advised by the CFTC that it is not permitted to market binary options to United States persons.”

Although on it's website Banc de Binary gives addresses for it's contacts, it's Israeli location is missing and remains unknown, meaning it can not directly contacted. On 18th October 2013 an IP address in Tel Aviv updated the companies location to that city.

In response to the CFTC charges, Banc de Binary have not yet appointed a defense counsel On 18th October 2013, the same Israeli IP user claiming to be Oren Shabat Cohen, the CEO and founder of Banc de Binary posted on the Wikipedia talk page of Banc de Binary in response to the CFTC allegations incorrectly stating that:

"... the CFTC case was wrong on many aspects... Please read the CFTC case thoroughly and see that the "customer complaints" were filed by the CEO and Employees of NADEX, a rival firm."

In fact the CFTC case was led by David Meister, the Director of the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement who stated: “If a company wants to offer U.S. persons the opportunity to buy and sell predictions on the direction of commodity prices, the company must play by the rules or suffer the consequences. The applicable rules are on the books for good reason – to protect market participants and promote market integrity – and we will serve the public by enforcing them.”

NADEX is not mentioned anywhere in the CTFC charges, and they do not state for reasons who of privacy who made the customer complaints, though it does state that employees of Banc de Binary told customers that they were based inside their Wall Street Offices in Trump tower, which was incorrect as it is just a virtual office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC) --HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be added that Banc de Binary give their address as somewhere in Hong Kong, but this is also a virtual address, as I found when I looked it up online--HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor from 77.125.241.207 had written that "Oren Shabat Laurent was the head of technical department and name in the domain registrar." I found it interesting that Jack Caine listed for several domains, with "CTO" (chief technical officer) in his e-mail address.

The Hong Kong address didn't appear for me at https://bancdebinary.com/about-us/contact-us (I got a page asking me to choose a region of the world) but I see it at https://hongkong.bancdebinary.com/about-us/contact-us/ which says:

Two Exchange Square

8 Connaught Place

Central, Hong Kong

—rybec 22:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Excellent point Rybec - I feel it is safe to assume that Jack Caine as registrar for the site is a pseudonym for Oren Shabat Cohen. The only person identified as working for banc de binary so far is Oren Shabat Cohen, an individual named by the CTFC, Jack Caine's Linkedin profile appears to be fake as he has only 11 contacts, most unusual for a cto of a 'major' company: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jack-caine/49/42a/516. I also noted that Lauren O'Connor, referred to in the Daily Mail article responded 'in place' of Oren Shabat Cohen, and refused to meet Tony Hetherington, making a bizarre excuse up, that the London office was for a different kind of work.

Banc de Binary has no office in Hong Kong as it is not registered as a company in Hong Kong: https://www.eregistry.gov.hk/icris-ext/apps/por01a/index# You can do a quick search and it will come up with nothing. The Hong Kong address is a virtual one, if you look at the top of the page you'll see they offer virtual offices. If it was a real one it would be more precise than "Two Exchange Square....", it would also give the floor number.

Regarding the address, this is the corporate address, so it's meant to be the head office, but this is also fake as Hong Kong records show.--HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramat Gan address

‎HistorianofRecenttimes found https://www.facebook.com/EtBinaryOptionsLtd?_fb_noscript=1 which says "משרדנו ממוקמים ברמת גן במתחם הבורסה‬" which translates to "our office is located in the Ramat Gan Diamond Exchange complex." The citation was removed on the grounds of "improper refs, original research". Does it fail WP:SELFSOURCE and if so, how exactly? —rybec 22:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, how does it fail? my edit seemed to be totally in line with selfsource, I also found job adverts stating the company was based in Moshe Aviv tower, which I noted from this link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zESuJ6Noyk0J:www.israeljobs77.com/q-options-jobs-ramat-gan+moshe+aviv+tower+et+binary&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari . The Ministry of Justice has records for the company which concur with this fact, there is no doubt that their registration number is 524405281. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC) --HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Never cite google cache. Cite the original source. Never put citations inside of wikilinks (that was just a formatting issue). And definitely don't introduce your own research, such as claiming that a business is not listed with a local government despite requirements otherwise. Unless a secondary source has pointed that out, it should not be mentioned on the article. That was the main reason for which I reverted your edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I also just went back through and removed a bunch of original research from the article. The article should be expanded from content drawn from secondary sources; not a list of stuff you figured out yourself from reading primary sources. For routine stuff that has a direct bearing on Banc De Binary (like who is listed as the CEO in a court case) it is one thing, but for very clearly implying that said CEO is lying, this is a violation of both the original research policy, as well as BLP. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The CEO has put out this information on his own website - surely it would be natural to quote the Secretary of State's office for NY's registry of New York companies, which clearly show these companies don't and have never been around.

I am sure that as the CEO also put his name, date of birth and location on his website too (at www.orenlaurent.net), the CFTC routinely checked whether there was such a person and decided there wasn't, hence them naming the CEO as they did. The CEO even gone on Wikipedia has said that Oren Laurent does exist and disputed this though, although NY birth records would have been checked first by the CFTC.--HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit vexing because manifestly (ahem, OR) those firms don't actually exist. How about rewording the relevant section to read

he had worked at "NAF" and "Infinity Private Investment Funds", which he described as hedge funds in New York.

That confines ourselves to the facts - it is Oren Laurent who asserts those firms exist - but avoids the opposite implication which one may read into what we have at present, ie, that their existence is established as a fact. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

well said pinkbeast, have added

Rybec, sorry I stuffed up your edit and could not work out how to get your citation back, can you help, many thanks for your edits.

I would like to add their companies house report, which is free to download and contains the information about who runs the company, although I cited from a standard link externally. How can I add this document to the wiki page, I noted there are other docs there too like the CFTC indictment.

Oren gives his name and nationality as Oren Shabat and Israeli in the Companies House Report, which is checked so a good source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 21:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE discuss edits here first before adding them. I don't have time to fix this now, but your most recent ones add text in the middle of a quote from a reference! Pinkbeast (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Infinity Private Investment Funds"

I wonder whether he could have meant Infinity Group. It has offices in Tel Aviv and in New York City (I also looked at the user page of the creator of its Wikipedia article). —rybec 03:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Rybec, I know what you mean about Infinity Group, there are several companies and one particular Israeli-China private equity group with that name. If Infinity Private Investment Fund existed it would be called that and nothing else, as financial companies make sure that they don't have exactly the same name, a bit like actors, who have to change their name if another actor already has it. So, no, Infinity Private Investment Fund does not exist, but the name was chosen to add cloud cover.

Whoever is behind Banc de Binary has a sense of humour at least, as the 'NAF' hedge fund is clearly a pun, based on the word Naf, like rubbish. The company also humourously awarded themselves the prize for more secure binary broker from Moat and Bailey, which was also a clever pun, bearing in mind that they protect themselves by changing the price of assets when it suits them to ensure clients lose, and not following the US regulators golden rule of keeping clients money in a separate account, but in theirs, hence the term Moat and Bailey, as they keep all the money in their castle (bailey).

Pinkbeast, I have just checked with companies house and they told me that when Banc de Binary was incorporated at Companies House they did give their nationalities, although they did not have to. The nationalities are Israeli and Cypriot and this is recorded as fact in the incorporation document which anyone can download for £1. This is why the CFTC described the company as Israeli-Cypriot, and as Oren has described himself as Israeli on it, surely it is safe to add? --HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is original research. If other sources don't report on this, Wikipedia should not. I also think it is best to avoid unsubstantiated potential libel on talk pages, as with your remark about changing the price of assets.

I realise you have a bit of a gripe against them, perhaps justifiably, but Wikipedia is not a sensible place to post the results of your own investigations. Wikipedia posts the results when other reliable sources have investigated. Personally, may I suggest talking to Private Eye about this? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• When I searched for "NAF" I found that the financial industry uses that as an abbreviation for "non-affiliated fund".

Wouldn't it be all right to include facts from the incorporation document so long as we don't interpret them, as WP:PRIMARY warns us not to do? —rybec 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea Rybec. Incorporation doc gives information provided by Banc de Binary afterall, so including this seems reasonable. Oren said he worked for 'NAF', so that must be the name of the company, not the way they do business? - though there is a company called NAF - the National Arbitration Forum, whose job it is to abitrate with unhappy customers. HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

screenshots

The screenshots were copied to Commons, then deleted here because they existed there, then deleted there for lack of permission. There might have been permission recorded on the English Wikipedia; I've made an inquiry. —rybec 06:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The administrator has undeleted them, but said that "they have been tagged as OTRS pending since August 11, and will soon be re-deleted if a permission email is not received." —rybec 15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits (11th Nov)

Hey all, there's been vandalism of the page as what seems to be a sock puppet has shifted things around, can someone restore to when yobot last edited on the 8th nov?

I thought about adding that Banc de Binary only has real offices in Israel as you can clearly see Ramat Gan out of the window in the background in the videos they put online, it may only be based in Israel, the rest seem to be virtual offices.

Should it be added that ET Binary options, (the alternative name for Banc de Binary) operates from Israel, which is against Cypriot legislation, which says that companies have to legal in their country of origin, but gambling has been illegal in Israel since the year dot?HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a serious faux pas to classify things as vandalism when they are not, even if they are edits by a somewhat suspiciously new account. Furthermore, after User:Ruby Murray has come in, we seem to have much the same stuff we started with, but better arranged. So why revert?

You seem still to be missing the basic point about not doing synthesis. Have reliable sources reported that they only have real offices in Israel? No? Then leave it out. Should it be added that - essentially, you allege the company is illegal in Israel? No, absolutely not. That is a matter for the Israeli authorities. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That said, User:Notsosoros has quite carefully moved all the bad stuff below the fold. I've rearranged things again. It is a bit unfortunate that we now have three bites of the cherry on US regulatory issues, though. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at this page and found it very confusing as a user because the content was disorganized and repeated in different ways in different sections, so I reorganized it. Pinkbeast is wrong to say that I moved bad stuff below the fold because actually cysec regulation is a positive thing, but I don't see a need for technical and legal content in the summary. The summary should make it easy for the user to see what the firm does, so I moved the US regulation stuff from the summary into the US regulatory section, and the cysec info from the summary to the regulation section. I was surprised to have a notification from wiki that you have criticized this. I am not sure why my edits were re-arranged again or why this is even a matter worthy of comment!

--Notsosoros, 2013-11-13T10:40:53

surely this section:

In an interview, the company's founder stated that by June 2011 the company had around 20,000 client accounts,[21][unreliable source?] and in an open letter published by August 2012, he stated that number was then 200,000.[22] In 2013, Banc De Binary has customers in 80 countries worldwide.[23][unreliable source?][24] The Independent on Sunday newspaper described it as a "leading City trading firm".[25]

Is unreliable and just advertising? The Independant Newspaper bit appears to be an advertising plug posing as news when in fact Banc de Binary is not based in the City of London and operates from a website run from Ramat Gan in Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

investmentunderground.com and cabusinessjournal.org

I've tagged these as unreliable sources. In short, I think the writers there are hired by the people and companies they write about. I've explained my suspicions about them in other posts:

• Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277
• [17]
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airomo

This article says "[Wiki-PR CEO Michael] French told Rahim [a Wiki-PR client] to raise his media profile, and connected the academic to Scarsdale media, who offered 30 days of 'media relations efforts' for another $800." The Investment Underground trademark is owned by Scarsdale Media. —rybec 22:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Gambling/Casino description

I have found an interview with the founder of the company on a site that deals with and promotes gambling and casinos: http://www.casinoaffiliateprograms.com/blog/exclusive-interview-oren-laurent-founder-of-banc-de-binary/

As the company describe themselves as such, shouldn't this be cited and made clear in the article? They're already described as a betting firm, but surely 'online casino' is more appropriate as they don't have sporting events or other kinds to bet on, just unpredictable movements in commodity prices over 60 seconds etc.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The company _do not_ describe themselves as such in that interview. If it happened to appear on a site about horse racing, their business would not be horseflesh. Please try to maintain a neutral point of view, not allowing your personal gripe to dominate your editing. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pinkbeast, thanks for your edit. The company are an online casino for the following reasons. They do business through a software product called SpotOption, as you can see here: http://www.igamingsuppliers.com/vendor/spotoption/ . Spotoption is a supplier of software for the online gaming industry, which is a fancy term for gambling. It's the 175th most popular gaming site: http://online.casinocity.com/binary-options/banc-de-binary/, and 4th most popular binary options site: http://online.casinocity.com/binary-options/. They also offer a bonus which is standard practice in online casinos, though I take the point this is original research. Spotoption is the platform on which the bets take place, and Banc de Binary contacts clients who are induced to bet through them on the Spotoption platform, here's a full list of all the online gamers/ casinos using Spototion: http://www.spotoption.com/brands/. HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is synthesis, though. I appreciate that in many respects this sort of financial trading doesn't look that different from a flutter on the horsies (and indeed personally I suspect they are very similar), but it's up to reliable sources to say it's just gambling. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Better Business Bureau says "The site essentially allows investors to gamble on the future price of something at a point in time." —rybec 23:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, would you agree on whether the BBB statement is reliable enough to classify the company as an 'Online Casino', and not Financial Services?HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The change to the industry parameter in the infobox is non-neutral. Yes, some reliable sources do characterise binary options trading as gambling, but others do not. Even its critics describe Banc de Binary as a financial services company—not a casino—as exemplified by the material in the "Investor advisories" and "US regulatory issues" sections of the article. "Binary options trading" would be a more neutral description. "Online gambling" may lead inattentive readers to believe the site offers poker or sports betting. —rybec 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Online Gambling necessarily refers to poker or sports betting, it's a new form of it - and the Daily Mail and Wall Street Journal both described the company as a betting firm - which backs this up. Also, it can not be a financial services firm, other than in the sense that it is regulated by the same people, for the following reason - they don't offer any financial services or trading facility. It's misleading to call it binary options trading - as you don't trade - buy or sell anything - all you do is bet on whether the price will go up or down, there's nothing to invest it and no financial service is provided at any time to the client, it's just a bet. If you bet wrongly, Banc de Binary keep all your money, they don't pass it on to anyone else, there is no extended market, it's just a bet, so that's why it's called gambling. I don't see why being clear and stating that it is just betting (gambling/ an online casino), as clearly cited by the Daily Mail, Wall St Times and the BBB is non-neutral, though I would agree that the fact that Cysec would have regulated it in the EU, and have also regulated financial products would seem confusing. I think the Daily Mail and Wall Street Journal description that it is a betting company is fairly precise, hence 'Online Casino'. Maybe someone from Banc de Binary could come on here and explain why it is not an Online Casino, and what happens to the clients money when they win or lose? HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Rybec is absolutely right. It was not reasonable to change the company description in this way, and more generally the page is not a platform for your personal vendetta against BdB (for example, "what happens to the clients money when they win or lose" is an irrelevant slur - if you win in a reputable online casino, they pay out). Any commodity trade could be seen as "gambling" on the future price of that commodity, so I don't think that BBB link changes anything at all. I believe strongly this should be reverted. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is like or comparable to commodity trading. While commodity traders rarely take actual delivery of their assets, or even need them, they do own them. Furthermore, commodity trading takes places in a transparent market where good are bought and sold and you can hold onto an asset and sell it later. Binary Options is not trading, as nothing is bought or sold. The Daily Mail article says that Banc de Binary is a betting firm as do the Wall Street Journal. Banc de Binary are a betting firm and as they operate only via an website then it is online betting/ gambling. Maybe Online Betting is a better description?HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of betting or gambling is a suitable description. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What I was alluding to with my mention of the "Investor advisories" and "US regulatory issues" sections of the article was the attention from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Ontario Securities Commission and Autorité des marchés financiers. Those agencies don't usually concern themselves with gambling sites in the usual sense of the term. I see HistorianofRecenttimes' point about the word "trading"; how about just "binary options" as the industry? —rybec 04:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. In particular, no-one could argue that that is not true, even if it might be felt to be not the whole truth. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it [18]. Gordon Pape's Forbes post is quoted in the binary option article, which I linked from the "industry" parameter. I've also inserted the quote from the BBB. [19] —rybec 22:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've happened upon a story [20] that mentions BDB appearing at a convention of online gaming companies. It says

  Chaque année, les opérateurs de jeux en ligne se donnent rendez-vous aux conventions pour discuter business et connaître les tendances. [...] Comme toujours, les groupes phares ont répondu présents comme Euro Partners, Winner, Party Gaming, Bwin, 365Bet, Ego, 24options, Banc de Binary pour ne citer qu'eux.

  or in English,

  Each year, operators of online games convene to discuss business and identify trends. [...] As always, the leading brands were present such as Euro Partners, Winner, Party Gaming, Bwin, 365Bet, Ego, 24options, and Banc de Binary, to name a few.

  —rybec 04:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This must be a good enough citation to define the company as 'online gambling', as it's independent of the company and shows their connection to other recognized online gamers? HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Hello. I'm an independent, individual paid editor declaring my coi on this page.

There are several spam/unreliable links in the info box, specifically in the Headquarters section, which I think should be removed. I've included this sentence from the SEC document http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-103.pdf (below), which states that Banc de Binary is headquartered and licensed in Cyprus. The 'licensed in Cyprus' material is in the Regulation section and I think it should be in the lede.

"Banc de Binary is based in the Republic of Cyprus and regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (“CySEC”). Based on its registration with CySEC, Banc de Binary has obtained reciprocal licenses in several other countries in the European Union, including Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, but not in the United States.” AlkalineWinsor (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for using the talk page. If you don't mind saying, does your conflict of interest tend to predispose you in favour of the company, or against it?

If you're working on behalf of the company, you may want to tend to File:Banc De Binary Home Page Screenshot, Aug 2013.png and File:Banc De Binary One Touch Platform, Aug 11 2013.png. They are in danger of being deleted if the company doesn't send permission through OTRS as was promised when the files were uploaded.

Would you like the article to say that the company is based in Cyprus, without mentioning Israel? Or should it mention Israel without mentioning Ramat Gan? Or shall it mention Ramat Gan without saying the headquarters are there?

I agree that CySEC should be mentioned in the introduction. —rybec 08:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this link from BDB's own terms and conditions they are based in Seychelles: https://bancdebinary.com/terms-of-use/ - so can someone explain how they can also be based simultaneously in Seychelles, Cyprus and Ramat Gan, Israel.

Also, is it correct that BDB have been blacklisted by CONSOB, the Italian regulator? I have found this link which says so: http://www.cedarfinancescam.com/banc-de-binary-scam/. HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The terms of use page says that the company's operations "outside the European Union" are conducted by BDB Services Limited, formerly BO Systems Limited, incorporated in the Seychelles. I didn't check whether BDB Services is regulated by CySEC. I added the information about BDB Services to the end of the paragraph about the CySEC rules regarding operations outside the EU, in a way that will lead readers to make an inference about why BDB Services was created, but I think it's justified by the company's use of the phrase "outside the European Union". —rybec 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I put the Suite 106, Premier Building, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles address into a search engine and found several other companies using it, for example baryons.com. It seems to be a shared address, so perhaps it shouldn't be listed as a headquarters. —rybec 23:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Banc De Binary Comment

Headquarters: 1. The company is headquartered in Limassol, Cyprus only. According to Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission Investment firms says: Banc De Binary Ltd. 12, Arch. Makariou III, Kristelina Tower, Flat 301, Mesa Yeitonia, CY-4000 Limassol, Cyprus (Here is the link**http://www.cysec.gov.cy/licence_members_1_en.aspx) The links in the box with the logo for Ramat Gan, Israel,[1][2][3] Petah Tikva, Israel[4][5] is for an office in Ramat Gan, no headquarters. 2. The beginning sentence says "Banc De Binary...is an Israeli-Cypriot based private option broker..." BDB is Cyprus based. Kindly appreciate your input. Respectfully yours, Om.piat (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

On my talk page, Om.piat stated that he/she works for the company's legal department. I feel that I have a bias against the company.

The Web page http://banc-de-binary.net/ , which displays the company's logo, (archived copy from May 2013) says

An award-winning investment and trading firm headquartered in New York City, Banc De Binary provides financial services to more than 20,000 clients in over 80 countries around the world.

Another of the company's Web pages states that it has a division headquartered in the Seychelles. Exactly what offices, if any, the company really occupies has been a topic of much debate on this page. I feel that the likelihood is that the main office is in Israel, but I agree that there aren't adequate sources for that statement. Besides the sources in the article and already mentioned on this page, I found these:

• Twitter post by Moises Mattout (archived copy) with a link to Foursquare [21] (archived copy) where he wrote "Moises M. checked in at BDB Tower (Banc De Binary Ramat Gan, Israel" and posted a photo that appears to show a sign in the hallway reading "Floor 4/Human Resources/Accounting Dept/Legal Dept/BDB Academy/Auditorium"

• Twitter post by Rony Rosenberg (archived copy) where he wrote "I'm at BDB Tower (Banc De Binary (Ramat Gan)" and likewise linked to Foursquare [22] (archived copy) where he likewise wrote "Rony R. checked in at BDB Tower (Banc De Binary/Ramat Gan, Israel" Some other photos have also been posted on Foursquare.

• The page at http://issuu.com/eventsteamimh/docs/may_issue just shows as a black page in my browser, but a search engine snippet from it says

  ISSUU - GOLD Magazine by Kevi Chishios/Banc de Binary was established in 2009 in the United States and it is the first EU-licensed binary options brokerage in the world. "When I have spoken to key figures in Antwerp and Ramat Gan [near Tel Aviv] about the Cyprus project, they have become very tense," Melas recalls.

It appears to me that the situation is complicated: the company seems to maintain physical offices in Israel, along with a legal presence in Cyprus and the Seychelles. Perhaps it would be best to omit the "headquarters" parameter from the infobox. —rybec 23:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Om.piat can clarify why the company's own Web pages claim that its headquarters are in New York (and where they are, other than the virtual office in Trump Tower) and the other discrepancies you list.

In the mean time, perhaps the "locations=" parameter for the infobox would be more appropriate. The list now labelled "headquarters" does seem to be locations where the company actually has offices.

If the Ramat Gan "Tower" has 4 floors it is a little bigger than the Cyprus address, which if http://www.chris-michael.com.cy/estate/PropertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=5185 is to be believed is a one-floor office of about 250 m^2.

Bluntly, I suspect the import of what you (Rybec) are saying is that given that they have claimed their headquarters to be in about eight places, there is no reason to be excessively trusting of this claim. I agree. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Pinkbeast, I was hoping you'd comment. However, the locations= parameter causes "Number of locations" to be displayed. —rybec 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I can live with HobbesGoodyear's edit. As they say, we're a bit short of any reliable source. The only thing we really know is they're not in the Trump Tower in any meaningful sense. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent whitewashing

Anyone else who isn't an SPA in favour of the recent whitewashing by Notsosoros / Webgrasp? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read them thoroughly, but one thing I noticed was that the edits were similar to Notsosoros' changes of last November in putting all unfavourable statements "below the fold". Another thing I didn't like was the removal of some of the domains I'd listed in the "Internet presence" section. If the company has relinquished those domains, they could still be mentioned, with a note that they belong to someone else now.

Thank you for restoring those two comments to this talk page. —rybec 17:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked a couple of the removed domains, and they still seemed to be attached to BdB. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Help! The vandals are back, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How dare you?!? I have read the entire talk page and the article multiple times. I am a practicing libel attorney who was asked to look at this page. This is nothing short of cowardly slander! You are hiding behind a username. A company who has been served by the financial regulators should not be subjected to such horrific comments and "out of context" references. If charges were pressed, I could understand to need to warn the public. It is obvious that this is an nonobjective editing, to say the least. (Nadex anyone?) My recommendation is either to stop your abusive editing or have this page deleted. This has gone far enough. Scrapeme (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

HistorianofRecentTimes, be careful about accusing someone of vandalism, please. It has a specific meaning, and "being an obvious company shill out to whitewash the page" isn't it.

I'm opening a sockpuppet investigation for the recent crop of new accounts. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Have no clue why you think I am a sockpuppet. I made my position very clear. I did not delete any facts. I merely presented them in an orderly fashion. There are 2 ways to go about the original page: either create a page for oren shabat laurent or create a page for the SEC/CFTC civil suit - either way, dont create a Banc de Binary page around either. Scrapeme (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutly no reason to rv my edits. All the information has been given and no reply to my last comment. Does anyone feel here feel I am a sockpuppet? If so, please explain. I have made my position very clear in the last comment.Scrapeme (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I fear you do bear considerable similarity to the other editors so eager to make similar edits. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinkbeast I think you have misunderstood Scrapeme. Not my concern as long you don't keep reversing his edits. Let the page be. It holds all the content you asked for without seeming overly eager to judge the company. I do agree that its a ridiculous scenario. I have never seen a page edited so many times in such a short period of time. Please respect the opinions of others as well. No need for a editing war over such a page. Nadexman (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If Scrapme, Nadexman, Notsosoros or any other incantation of the same sockpuppet were genuine, why not air your view here on the talk page and tell us all why you feel something is 'slander'? No point being vague, afterall Wikipedia is based on cited verifiable sources. The US CFTC and SEC charges are quite serious as anyone who reads them will see, especially the potential for RICO action? The case is now proceeding to Washington for a hearing, which is a sign of how serious. HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

HistorianofRecenttimesobviously you have a hidden agenda. 1. Using a blog post to reference the Italian regulator CONSOB when in fact the company appears on their website. 2. Using the CFTC and SEC case as leverage for your malicious writing. No charges were pressed or filed. Nor could they be. Its not an American company. Read the case once again. If you knew anything about legal cases or financial legal cases for that matter, you would notice that this a case that is always settled out of court. It usually done by CFTC and SEC, who dont work together so quickly, to try and set a precedent. RICO - Where? How? When? Obviously your reading wrong once again. Washington...heres where it gets even better: A COMPANY WHICH IS NOT LOCATED IN THE USA WILL ALWAYS CONDUCT THE HEARINGS AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE GOVERNMENT BODY. 3. The SEC nor the CFTC have still not proven anything against the company, they are merely gathering evidence. The case is CIVIL. No indictments exist in this case. An injunction - yes. Can be and prob should be. They sold financial products to US customers without getting licensed. But keep reading the DOJ records....and wait for it....ALL THE FUNDS WERE RETURNED TO US CUSTOMERS AND ACCOUNTS SHUT DOWN. It seems that you were hoping for a ponzi scam or a bioler room, but the company seems large and stable. They made a mistake, correct, but what financial institution hasn't? Stop trying to deliberatly ruin the page and look up legal facts before posting and posting.Nadexman (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nadexman, Wikipedia operates on wp:consensus. If an edit is contested, especially by multiple editors, it should be restored to the original state. The article should stay in the original state until consensus is reached. When consensus is reached, the article may be changed. Jim1138 (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk) - Agreed, but not when it seems that there personal vendettas through the original editors. Suggest to leave page as Nadexman edits. "innocent till proven guilty" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambernits (talk • contribs) 08:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nadexman - I agree with you. I will continue to assist you. Seems very strange. (unsigned comment by JordanTime (talk), 08:25, April 3, 2014‎)

Wow, four brand new accounts posting within 24 hours of each other who all share the same views? Honestly, you guys would get your points through more easily if you'd work with the process. This kind of crap just gets the article locked down and your accounts banned. 165.214.12.68 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's right, 165.xx, the sockfarm has been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notsosoros. I'm going to unprotect the article now; it's easy to reprotect if more recently-autoconfirmed socks should turn up. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

Whitewashing / Marketing

The article as posted by Jim1138 and Black Kite is not written from a Netural Point of View and also contains marketing material for NADEX (see line 229 of the source code)

Other examples of slander / innacurate information include:

Line 14: "In addition to being blacklisted by the Italian regulator CONSOB" - Banc De Binary's CONSOB license is 361.4

Line 14: "elsewhere it does business through BDB Trading" - Even according to the article, the company has used the business names of "BO Systems Limited", "BDB Services Limited" and "ET Binary Options LTD".

Line 76: Reference is an allegation and thus not fact. It should fall into the "rumours" category and should NOT be usable as a reference.

Line 81: The section "Internet presence" should be split off into a seperate article as shown by the example List of Google domains.

The article does not seem to be focus on the company, its offerings, its history or any of its information except for information which can be used to damage its reputation.

Scapestessa (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is someone going to acknowledge this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scapestessa (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any point? Your "edit" is clearly there to remove everything that may be seen to be negative about the company, whether it is reliably sourced or not. This is simple whitewashing. A balanced article will include both positive and negative sections. If there is anything that is simply incorrect (and can be proven to be so, if sourced) then you should remove those sections one at a time, with a clear rationale for doing so. Making mass reversions is simply pointless, as your changes will be reverted. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So I propose reverting to Revision as of 23:57, 27 March 2014 until content can be created and modified to correctly reflect the information posed. I have no problem with negative information, however it SHOULD be both accurate and in balance with positive information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scapestessa (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that people are going to agree to revert to a version favored by a guy who got banned for edit warring on this article. Having to edit war pretty much guarantees that he had no consensus. 165.214.12.79 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Going by that logic, the current article also should be allowed to stay because it obviously didn't have consensus either. Someone felt strongly enough about how this article was written to create an entire sock-puppet network and farm dozens of IP addresses in order to bypass the blocks on this page. MAYBE, just MAYBE that kind of behavior should be looked at as a beacon to see why the article is being re-written? Maybe it is pointing out that the article in its current form is biased and thus doing damage? This article is meant to be an informational article explaining about the existence, presence and operations of a company known as Banc De Binary, not as a forum to point out every flaw. 2.55.129.143 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's because "someone" works for them or was hired by them to do it; a company shill is necessarily not an unbiased source. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Factual Corrections

Hello All. Due to obvious COI I am not able to make these edits myself, however I would like to point out the following factual errors:

1) Banc De Binary is the operating name of several companies which are registered and regulated seperatly in different regions of the world. These companies include:

• • Banc De Binary LTD (Cyprus)
  • ET Binary Options LTD (Israel)
  • BO Systems LTD (Seychelles)
  • BDB Services LTD (Seychelles)

2) Banc De Binary offers options via a regulated exchange called the spotoption exchange.

3) There is no reference to Banc De Binary operating at any time as BDB Trading. This is because it never has. All companies that it has operated as / under are listed above.

BDBJack (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll want to provide the material in references bare on a talk page, not in "ref" tags... and spotoption already seems to be mentioned. Teasing apart the degree to which these "separate" companies are actually intertwined will take rather better references, I suspect.

Agree that the mention of "BDB Trading" seems to be spurious. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it is hard to find the seperation between SpotOption and BDB. However SpotOption Exchange is licensed seperatly under CySEC with license number 170/12, and as a seperate corporate entity. See pages:

• http://www.spotoption.com/regulation/
• http://www.cysec.gov.cy/licence_members_1_en.aspx (Search for SpotOption / S.O. Spotoption Limited).

Also, we can infer the seperation between Banc De Binary and SpotOption by the following facts:

1. SpotOption was never included in the SEC / CFTC joint case against Banc De Binary despite all other corporate entities operating as ::Banc De Binary have been included (See http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2013cv00993/94851/57)
2. SpotOption's own website explains the "WhiteLabel" program (http://www.spotoption.com/whitelabelprogram/whatisawhitelabel/)

BDBJack (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)