Crypto Ponzi MLM OneCoin Officially Loses the Battle Against Coinspondent
The final nail in the coffin for OneCoin in the Bitcoin vs Onecoin lawsuit has finally arrived as the company lost the battle in a German court.
The final verdict came in the favor of defendants Coinspondent which was dragged by the OneCoin to the court over its reporting of the Ponzi scheme run by OneCoin. Instead of going behind major publications which reported the scam run by OneCoin, the company decided to go behind the Coinspondent after it denied OnCoin’s demand of €1440.40 EUR extortion fee.
When Coinspondent denied the asked amount, OneCoin decided to file an injunction against the independent website. The injunction was denied by the court.
Coinspondent Filled a Counter Lawsuit against the OneCoin
Coinspondent raised over €10,000 EUR and filed a counter lawsuit against the OneCoin and a German investor. The main aim of coinspondent was to prove that the lawsuit filed against them was a baseless and clear case of extortion.
According to a February 4th update, coinspondent’s case was heard by the Berlin District court and the court drew the following conclusion:
- Claims by the German OneCoin affiliate that she’d they’d been personally harmed by reporting of the regulatory ban were unfounded.
- This was based on the fact that the affiliate was not named in Coinspondent’s reporting.
- With respect to covering OneCoin’s regulatory ban, at the time Coinspondent published their article German authorities had only banned IMS International Marketing Services.
- IMS, owned by former OneCoin executive Frank Ricketts, is/was a shell company used by OneCoin to launder investor funds.
- German authorities have estimated that some 25,000 German OneCoin victims have together lost over $425 million dollars.
- BaFin’s clarification that OneCoin itself was banned in Germany came a few days after Coinspondent’s initial article.
- That IMS is/was OneCoin or that BaFin intended to ban OneCoin after formally banning IMS, or alternatively that IMS was OneCoin’s payment processor and not the company itself as it had argued, wasn’t enough to sway the court either way.
- In the end, the court decided to settle the matter by requiring Coinspondent to add an update to their initial article.
- The update clarifies that it was IMS that was initially banned, whilst acknowledging that a few days later BaFin banned OneCoin itself.
- The court has ordered that the cost of legal actions for both the parties will be covered by OneCoin, however, coinspondent remains doubtful about it.
The Coinspondent team is throughly satisfied with the verdict and as for the collected funds for the legal matters, the donors have the option to request a refund, even if the publishers have to cover the balance.
One of the publishers from the coinspondent was quoted,
“I also see myself as having a moral responsibility. Because if there is only one donor who currently needs this money and is desperately waiting for a refund, I can not delay the payout with a clear conscience.
Therefore, despite the financial risk, I am now starting to liquidate the fund and hope to be able to compensate for the possible shortfall through a voluntary solidarity solution.”
OneCoin ran a Ponzi scheme that collapsed in January 2017, however, the pyramid recruitment process is still continuing, but barely as the people have been warned about the risks of investing into pyramid schemes like the OneCoin.
BaFin the German regulators have warned the public about the risks involved in investing hard-earned money into Ponzi schemes, calling it “ one of the most dangerous money games of recent years”.
OneCoin remains banned in the Germany as of today.