BitConnect lawsuit is now reduced to three defendants

Bitconnect was suspected of being a Ponzi scheme because of its multilevel marketing structure and impossibly high payouts (1% daily compounded interest). Bitconnect interest fluctuated greatly with the volatility of Bitcoin, which its value was tied to. On January 31, 2018, the U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, granted a temporary restraining order freezing Bitconnect’s assets and “to disclose cryptocurrency wallet and trading account addresses, as well as the identities of anyone to whom Bitconnect has sent digital currencies within the last 90 days.

The future of the BitConnect lawsuit is still in question, following a reduction of defendants to just three on January 9. They deny the plaintiffs’ renewed request to perform alternative service.

The order follows continued reducing BitConnect defendants, owing to the plaintiff’s being unable to serve them. The January 9th order addresses foreign defendants in India.

Bitconnect scammers in India

With the Indian BitConnect scammers, the plaintiffs want to sue many of those Indian defendants to incarcerate in jail. Judge Middlebrooks observes that service by mail does not work with India because international regulation prohibits the requested service.

India has objected service by postal channels, meaning the plaintiff’s request to serve Indian defendants by postal channels must be denied.

Service is available as per the Hague Convention, but Judge Middlebrooks noted that plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit in 2018 and have not even begun to serve process under the Hague Convention, which is a very lengthy process.

Consequently, all defendants in India have been discharged, including Nalin Kotadiya, Dhaval Mavani, Suresh Gorasiya, Guatam Lathiya, Satish Kumbhani, Divyesh Darji, Bitconnect, Ramadayal Purohit, Ranjeet Saxena, Sandip Balvantrai Naik, Smit Sandiphbhai Naik, and Raj Sandipobhai Naik.

The next is Vietnamese Bitconnect scammers

The plaintiffs request to serve defendants Nay Minh a.k.a Mr. Roberts and Le Thi Thanh Huy a.k.a Ms. Helen through registered mail. However, although mailing may be appropriate in this situation, plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently demonstrate that Roberts and Helen would actually receive the service at the provided address.

The address plaintiffs want to send is reportedly a cafe Roberts and Helen opened with BitConnect funds. Judge Middlebrooks noted;

Based upon the information provided, he did not find that the requested method of service will reasonably inform Helen and Roberts of this lawsuit. Because plaintiffs have had almost two years to serve those defendants, we will overlook Helen and Roberts.

For foreign defendants elsewhere, Judge Middlebrooks stated that to the range remaining unserved foreign defendants exist, I also find that they should be dismissed for the reasons stated in this order regarding the plaintiffs’ unjustifiable delay in effectuating service.

Therefore, it stands the only defendants remaining are Trevor Brown a.k.a Trevon James, Ryan Hildreth and Tanner Fox. A decision on whether they will also be dismissed remains ongoing.

Read more:

Follow us on Telegram

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

You might also like