Michael Noble also likely facing BitConnect criminal charges
A supplemental motion filed by the DOJ suggests Michael Noble is facing BitConnect criminal charges.
In their February 14th motion, the DOJ seeks to stay SEC proceedings against Noble.
The motion requests a modification to an existing order, which stayed proceedings against Trevon James and Craig Grant.
The Government respectfully seeks a modification of the Court’s December 15, 2021 Stay Order to include civil defendant Michael Noble within the terms of the Stay Order.
Although the docket reflects the case against Noble was terminated, the SEC’s claims for disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and civil money penalties remain pending against Michael Noble pursuant to the partial judgment on consent entered as to him.
In a nutshell, the DOJ are wanting to stay the money side of the SEC’s case against Noble.
Noble (right) wasn’t included in the original November motion due to oversight.
Upon entry of the Stay Order, the Government and the SEC realized the inadvertent omission of Noble from the Government’s motion papers and the Stay Order.
Following negotiations with Noble regarding the oversight, on February 14th he informed the DOJ he opposed the requested stay.
This promoted the DOJ filing later that same day.
Given the lapse of time since entry of the Stay Order, the Government files the instant Motion to clarify and perfect the record.
On February 16th the court gave Noble till March 1st to file a response to the DOJ’s supplemental filing.
A hearing on the matter will then be held at a later date.
The stated reason for the DOJ’s stay request repeats what is known about defendants Trevon James and Craig Grant.
A stay of civil proceedings is appropriate because of the pendency of a parallel criminal case, United States v. Glenn Arcaro …
currently pending in the Southern District of California, and a related, ongoing grand jury investigation.The same underlying facts are at issue in both the Civil and Criminal Cases.
Glenn Arcaro (right) was sued separately by the SEC, and he has already settled the charges.
Likewise Arcaro has pled guilty to BitConnect criminal charges brought against him.
Named defendants in the SEC’s BitConnect promoter case are Trevon James (as Trevon Brown), Craig Grant, Joshua Jeppesen, Ryan Maasen and Michael Noble.
The DOJ hasn’t filed for a stay of proceedings regarding Jeppesen and Maasen, leaving James, Grant and now Noble the suspected subject of grand jury proceedings.
Grand jury proceedings are held in secret. Till they are concluded and, I suspect, arrests are made, we are unlikely to hear anything further.
Now going by “TrVon”, James continues to promote fraudulent crypto investment schemes on YouTube:
James is believed to still be residing in North Carolina.
Craig Grant fled the US shortly after the SEC filed its civil case.
Grant is believed to be hiding out in central Jamaica. The SEC has had difficulty tracking him down.
Grant had been documenting life on the run on YouTube, but deleted all his Jamaica videos in early December.
Under the alias “Dulse Poger” (@craigonesun), Grant now publishes Jamaica videos on Twitter:
Like James, Grant continues to promote fraudulent cryptocurrency investment schemes.
In contrast to James and Grant, Michael Noble went dark after BitConnect collapsed.
There are plenty more of the team that have been flying under the SEC radar.
What about CryptoClover? That guy was neck deep in marketing the scam all over the place. He got detained and questioned by the FBI sometime ago and then took off.
Last I heard he fled the Philippines for Iquitos Peru and bought up property setting up some sort of eco housing with shipping containers. Pure scammer to the bone.
Will you post up the new info on the SEC vs Grant where someone was served?
I checked the docket recently and there was no new info about anyone else getting served.
You’re not talking about the guy who got served last year?
https://behindmlm.com/companies/bitconnect/sec-bungles-service-on-craig-grant-in-jamaica/
Search bar is on the top right of every page.
I’m talking from this link..
pacermonitor.com/public/case/40433686/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v_Brown_et_al
Shows on Feb 17th someone was served.
Ah I checked the wrong docket. Forgot this one is split into two cases.
That Feb 17th service entry is for Noble. What’s more interesting is a Feb 22nd motion to serve Grant by email/publication.
Will have an article up on that shortly.