Onsite Traders / AB Watley

O

Onsite-Traders

OK, let's start this again.

A number of licensed individuals in the Class B category of the Onsite Trading LLC, and subsequently in the AB Watley Trading LLC had their accounts stolen and pilfered illegally through the engineered dissolution of the accounts / firm.

This was illegal under any conditions no matter what Gary Mednick kept telling people.

To date a number of persons came forward, however we need to firm this up for presentation to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution .

One person said they lost over $200,000 in their account.

Another person stated that another person known to them lost over $100,000.

One Branch Manager lost not only his production credits, previous credits due but also his trading accounts and his father's accounts. The amounts were never confirmed, however they approach and probably exceed $70,000.

There were some eighty (80+) or more accounts / persons that were ripped off through this process.

SLK held the funds and secured the accounts to some extent, that remains for further confirmation.

-----------

We need to find those negatively effected and reconstruct these events so that even if the monies can't be returned, someone pays.

I was informed that the Class A members who were responsible for the liabilities of the LLC, not the Class B members remain legally liable, and since they have executed their theft of those funds under dubious lies / means, then this escalates into a criminal activity. Even if this does not arise to criminal level, certainly being licensed securities dealers/brokers there are authorities who need to have these facts presented to them for prosecution.

What say you traders?
 
locating any / all affected traders who had positive balances that were no longer honored is essential, as they should have a motivated reason to care what proceeds forthwith.

please assist in this effort.
 
I had an AB Watley account 5 or maybe 6 years ago. There were several trades on my year end statement I never made that they didn't want to correct so I left.
 
The way this thread and the other one, that Baron removed -- on this topic sounds, like a bunch of lousy Thieves.

Hey, is that Gary Mednick still associated with these people, or did the Feds catch up with his lieing ways?


From some other traders, I heard that he took over 80 something accounts for a few million dollars for his own debts instead of returning their money....

How that guy maneuvered through all the checks and balances is a myster, but what's even worse is how he's evaded capture by the authorities...


Frankly, I hope it all catches up with him and his crew of thieves.

Hey, did anyone respond to this thread with their contact information?

I hope that they get together and combine their complaints and the authorities actually listen this time.

So, who's at the SEC?, or the NASD Enforcement Unit?

Any regulators in the room?
 
Please correct me if I am wrong on this or not, was it not the case that those accounts, were held under the account name/number of the broker/dealer and not the "individual" customers. If that is the case then these accounts that have been "stolen" essentially as sad as it is are legal property of the corporation/broker dealers account.

Listen I am still assuming here that these were not individual customer accounts because if they were the SEC would be all over this in a heartbeat. If for instance I traded through XOOM trade which I do not by the way. If I did trade through them and placed 100k and used them as my broker dealer as an individual customer account and furthermore, XOOM trade went bankrupt etc my account would be safe. My account would be safe because the actual cash and securities are held at the clearing firm Computer Clearing Services. It is CCS that you have to hope does not go out of business so to speak, not the broker dealer. The clearing firm would simply switch my account to another broker of my choosing that they also service. Now using this as an example, I highly doubt that those who had their money "stolen" (and they did by moral standards), had actual individual customer accounts and that their money was in fact held in the account of the broker dealer then in turn held at the clearing firm. This is a much different story. I feel bad for those it happened to of course but please correct me if this is not the case because if so it would have had a major ripple effect/precedence of tremendous proportions to everybody in this county who have regular customer accounts and it would have been resolved by now.

These are my thoughts on it.
 
Quote from ChartingMarkets:

Please correct me if I am wrong on this or not, was it not the case that those accounts, were held under the account name/number of the broker/dealer and not the "individual" customers. If that is the case then these accounts that have been "stolen" essentially as sad as it is are legal property of the corporation/broker dealers account.

Listen I am still assuming here that these were not individual customer accounts because if they were the SEC would be all over this in a heartbeat. If for instance I traded through XOOM trade which I do not by the way. If I did trade through them and placed 100k and used them as my broker dealer as an individual customer account and furthermore, XOOM trade went bankrupt etc my account would be safe. My account would be safe because the actual cash and securities are held at the clearing firm Computer Clearing Services. It is CCS that you have to hope does not go out of business so to speak, not the broker dealer. The clearing firm would simply switch my account to another broker of my choosing that they also service. Now using this as an example, I highly doubt that those who had their money "stolen" (and they did by moral standards), had actual individual customer accounts and that their money was in fact held in the account of the broker dealer then in turn held at the clearing firm. This is a much different story. I feel bad for those it happened to of course but please correct me if this is not the case because if so it would have had a major ripple effect/precedence of tremendous proportions to everybody in this county who have regular customer accounts and it would have been resolved by now.

These are my thoughts on it.
More...

Your thoughts reveal too much about your disposition, and its not an honest one, nor is it an innocent one.

Any person (and I'm using severe restraints from using coloful language here in my description), any person who would ever submit themselves to licensing requirements, the pretense of seperate sub-account status held both with the (now as we know - corrupt operators of AB Watley / Onsite) and with SLK, and be considered Class B member - not subject to the firms' liabilities, and then suggest what you did, in your contorted, non-logical babble needs to have their "intentions questioned".

Class B members, some eighty eight or more persons / accounts in total were ripped off for well over one million (and most likely vastly more) dollars through these deceptions, loop holes and abuses of the system.

Class A members were and remain liable, not Class B. Class B funds were segregated, reported upon as seperate and maintained in seperate sub-accounts not for the benefit or ownership of the firm in any manner. Those funds remain in tact at Goldman Sachs / SLK and are not being released to the original and legal owners.

In short, this is the crux of the complaint and will be persued in a criminal manner by all legal authorities that respond to our complaint(s).

I understand the the long arm of the Feds when persuing racktering charges extends quite far and breeches even into the myriad methods used by sophisticated criminal intending souls as those who did these acts.

I agree that the SEC would and should storm the place, put them in receivership or simply force them to pay what was never theirs to abscond with.

So, again, I will restate the other person's question: "are there any regulators in the room?".
 
Quote from Onsite-Traders:

Your thoughts reveal too much about your disposition, and its not an honest one, nor is it an innocent one.

Any person (and I'm using severe restraints from using coloful language here in my description), any person who would ever submit themselves to licensing requirements, the pretense of seperate sub-account status held both with the (now as we know - corrupt operators of AB Watley / Onsite) and with SLK, and be considered Class B member - not subject to the firms' liabilities, and then suggest what you did, in your contorted, non-logical babble needs to have their "intentions questioned".

Class B members, some eighty eight or more persons / accounts in total were ripped off for well over one million (and most likely vastly more) dollars through these deceptions, loop holes and abuses of the system.

Class A members were and remain liable, not Class B. Class B funds were segregated, reported upon as seperate and maintained in seperate sub-accounts not for the benefit or ownership of the firm in any manner. Those funds remain in tact at Goldman Sachs / SLK and are not being released to the original and legal owners.

In short, this is the crux of the complaint and will be persued in a criminal manner by all legal authorities that respond to our complaint(s).

I understand the the long arm of the Feds when persuing racktering charges extends quite far and breeches even into the myriad methods used by sophisticated criminal intending souls as those who did these acts.

I agree that the SEC would and should storm the place, put them in receivership or simply force them to pay what was never theirs to abscond with.

So, again, I will restate the other person's question: "are there any regulators in the room?".
More...

Listen to me whoever you are. Please spare me the theatrics about how you are holding back from colorful superlatives because you dont agree with what I said. I truly dont give a shit about it one way or the other. Secondly, I am just a guy on ET posting what I believe is the logical scenario and if you have such passion and gumption save it for your impending court case. Don't waste your energy posting to me I have nothing to do with your problems. Lastly, if the money was pilfered it had to be done with a signature. A clearing firm would not allow that money to be wired out any other way. If an authorizing signature was allowed to wire money out of a clearing firm that was the collective monies of a number of individuals well that sucks but you wouldn't catch me allowing anyone to have power of attorney over my money. If you were one of then I feel sorry for you for being so naive. Now take your anger and channel it to the authorities that hopefully will rule in your favor. Good Luck
 
There are many ways to get screwed in an LLC structure. I do not think it is getting screwed if you lose your money because some other trader blew-up. That is the risk you take.

In this case however, the situation is allegedly different. What has happened is that On-Site's corporate where its true customers were used some of the Prop LLC money to pay its bills to the tune of over a million dollars. It was never contemplated that the parent would take operating expenses from the prop pool of money. The owners then took the company and sold it to Watley. So, the allegation is that they used other people's money to finance the business until they could sell it.

I am not sure this is a regulatory matter as much as a legal one. Translation is that it will be expensive to pursue.

I think the person who got screwed the most is named Tom something.
 
Quote from Onsite-Traders:

Your thoughts reveal too much about your disposition, and its not an honest one, nor is it an innocent one.

Any person (and I'm using severe restraints from using coloful language here in my description), any person who would ever submit themselves to licensing requirements, the pretense of seperate sub-account status held both with the (now as we know - corrupt operators of AB Watley / Onsite) and with SLK, and be considered Class B member - not subject to the firms' liabilities, and then suggest what you did, in your contorted, non-logical babble needs to have their "intentions questioned".

Class B members, some eighty eight or more persons / accounts in total were ripped off for well over one million (and most likely vastly more) dollars through these deceptions, loop holes and abuses of the system.

Class A members were and remain liable, not Class B. Class B funds were segregated, reported upon as separate and maintained in seperate sub-accounts not for the benefit or ownership of the firm in any manner. Those funds remain in tact at Goldman Sachs / SLK and are not being released to the original and legal owners.

In short, this is the crux of the complaint and will be persued in a criminal manner by all legal authorities that respond to our complaint(s).

I understand the the long arm of the Feds when persuing racktering charges extends quite far and breeches even into the myriad methods used by sophisticated criminal intending souls as those who did these acts.

I agree that the SEC would and should storm the place, put them in receivership or simply force them to pay what was never theirs to abscond with.

So, again, I will restate the other person's question: "are there any regulators in the room?".
More...

first i am not a regulator and i would never leave more than a few 1000 in a class B acct for the start of each month. class B acct's are a pool of money and if the group is managed poorly anything in a class B acct can legally be taken away. i am not sure about class A acct's but i think they are protected and should be released sometime in the future. this is a shady business and it can take years to get that money back but class B people might be out of luck. this is the bullshit of being a prop trader but on the other hand you get alot more buying power this way. a costumer acct is always safe but you get less leverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top