Bulgarian government petitioned over OneCoin inaction

19 Comments on “Bulgarian government petitioned over OneCoin inaction”

#1

Dr. Jon Levy

Nov 18th, 2021 at 9:52 pm  Dr. Jon Levy(Q)

Nice article by Sputnik:

sputniknews.com/20211118/cryptocurrency-scam-victims-urge-bulgaria-to-take-steps-to-seize-assets-of-onecoin-1090825615.html



#2

Oz

Nov 18th, 2021 at 10:04 pm  Oz(Q)

Why did they put scam in quotes? Is Sputnik News insinuating OneCoin isn’t a scam?

Instant turn off TBH.



#3

Semjon

Nov 19th, 2021 at 2:56 am  Semjon(Q)

Remembered this from my notes, that I don’t think I’ve publsihed before.

At least there has been some kind of tax case against OneNetwork Services in Bulgaria. (Perhaps the only result from the 2018 Sofia raid?). It seems to be some kind of humdrum case about improper VAT deductions.

The court seems to have ruled against ONS, and when ONS appealed, here is machine translated text of Sofia admin. court appeal ruling on the case:

According to the submitted written explanations, the required contracts were seized during a search and seizure on 17.01.2018. permission of Judge LG from the Specialized Court – Order under CND №126 / 2017

By Protocol №1263796 / 09.05.2018, the Contract for administrative services dated 17.12.2014, concluded between O. C. L. D. and [company], was attached to the present proceedings.

With Protocol №1101673 / 20.12.2018 the answers received through the line of international exchange from the revenue administration in Germany are included.

Protocols №1397523 / 07.02.2018 and №1227417 / 03.05.2018 documented visits to the office of the obligated person at the address [settlement], S. Square №6A, where the primary accounting documents were reviewed, accounting records and commercial documentation for the audited periods.

Upon review of the evidence collected, it was found that the main activity of the company is administrative services, including the provision of organizational services, financial and accounting services, marketing services, consulting services, customer service, software services, cash administration, administration of software products and others.

Its activity includes complete administrative service of OL, registered in D. with registration №IC20140882, represented by Dr. R. I ..

A contract dated 17.12.2014 was concluded, concluded with this main client, according to which the audited entity performs IT support, support for payment services, marketing and business analysis, legal services, provision of office space, etc.

The activity is carried out through the website onecoin.eu, owned by O. L .. The audited entity carries out its activity in a rental office located at the above address.

The reporting is filed in accordance with the requirements of the VAT Act and the Accounting Act /AA /, no violations have been established.

According to the submitted contract with OL – E., the company undertakes to pay the audited person / agent / remuneration in the amount of expenses incurred plus allowance, and the agent undertakes to issue an invoice by March 1 of the current year with an appendix to it with a breakdown of all expenses for the previous year.

In this regard, the audited entity has issued to OL an invoice] [PIN] /01.03.2018 for administrative services for 2017 under a protocol from 01.03.2018 in the amount of BGN 11,461,801.99 and accrued profit 5.25 % in the amount of BGN 601,744.60, a total of BGN 12,063,546.59.

The described services are indicated by the audited entity as such under Art. 21, para. 2 of the VAT Act / the recipient is an obligated person established outside the territory of the Community /, due to which he has not charged tax for these supplies according to art. 86, para. 3 of the VAT Act.

The application of the mentioned article was accepted by the Revenue Authority as correct, given the reasons in the decision of the Director of the ODOP S. Directorate №510 / 16.04.2018.

In the course of the audit it was established that during the audited period the company has made taxable supplies – sale of goods in a store at the address [settlement], [street].

The audited entity has made an intra-Community acquisition (IOP) of companies in the European Union with valid VIN numbers, which are: furniture for rented property in [settlement], purchased by S. KG – P. with VIN DE134214316, A. with VIN DE812779422 and software services from B. AB with VIN SE556519949301, as all incurred expenses on these supplies are included in the tax base and are re-invoiced to OL – D ..

For VOP and the received services the company has issued protocols under Art. 117 of the VAT Act, which it has included in its diaries for purchases and sales under the VAT Act for the audited periods. Deliveries are described in detail in tabular form in RD / RA.

Upon inspection in the system V. it was established that during the audited period [company] did not declare deliveries of goods and services or declared a different amount of deliveries received from S. & Schenk R., DE244251633; A. AG, DE127751697; H. K. Luer W. P., DE119459367; D. E. DE127751697; Z. T., DE260725964 / discrepancies of the data reflected in the system with regard to the deliveries declared by the foreign persons, which are not reflected by the audited person / have been established.

In order to clarify the reasons for the established discrepancies, requests for exchange of information were sent to the bodies of the revenue administration in Germany in accordance with Art. 7, 15 and 25-27 of EU Regulation 2010/904 / EU.

A request for administrative cooperation has been sent with reference number VAT_BG_027741_DE_rrrrrr_20180606_G_RI concerning H. Kühn Ljer W. – P. with VIN DE119459367.

In a reply received on 21 November 2018, the following was stated: “The manager of [company] R.I. met with VB from H. Kьhn Lьer W. – P. in the summer of 2016.

Before the start of the next legal consultation, “U. NS “and the law firm H. Kühn Ljer W. – P. with VIN DE119459367 have concluded an agreement on the fees / attached copy /.

The agreement was signed by RI on behalf of [company]. The amount of EUR 36,786.00 that you have indicated consists of three invoices: an invoice dated 04.07.2017 in the amount of EUR 3,072.33; invoice dated 04.08.2017 in the amount of EUR 5,110.60; invoice dated 13.09.2017 in the amount of EUR 28,603.30. All invoices are addressed to [company] .

The total invoiced amount of EUR 91,541.00, which you indicated in the application, is drawn up as follows: invoice dated 06.10.2017 in the amount of EUR 25,659.45, invoice dated 01.11.2017 in the amount of EUR 26,552 , EUR 90, invoice dated 06.12.2017 in the amount of EUR 21,220.10, invoice dated 22/12/2017 in the amount of EUR 18,109.30.

All invoices were paid by bank transfer to the account of the law firm in D. B. AG.

All services were provided at the company’s office in F. A copy of the invoice from 06.10.2017 is attached as an example. ”

From the answers received in connection with the declared ATM of services from the mentioned companies a conclusion has been formed that the audited person is a recipient of services for which according to art. 21 para. 2 of the VAT Act, the place of performance is the place where the recipient has established his independent economic activity, as well as of goods for which the tax is also due by the recipient, according to Art. 82 para. 2 item 3 of the VAT Act.

The tax is charged by issuing a protocol under Art. 117 of the VAT Act. According to Art. 86 of the VAT Act, a registered person for whom the tax has become chargeable is obliged to charge it by issuing a tax document, including this document in the VAT return-declaration and indicating the document in the sales journal for the respective tax period.

Evidence was requested from the audited company as to the reasons for not charging tax in connection with the supplies of services received, but no such information was provided.

Pursuant to Art. 86 of the VAT Act, in connection with Art. 82, para. 2, item 3 of the VAT Act for the tax period of 07.2017 and 08.2017, a tax in the amount of BGN 3,191.88 has been added.

A request for administrative cooperation has been sent with reference number VAT_BG_027740_DE_rrrrrr_20180831 _G_RI concerning A. AG with VIN DE812779422.

In response received on 28.11.2018 it is stated that invoices RE 65922 / 07.07.2017 were issued in the amount of EUR 1,550.42; RE BE80995 / 07.06.2017 in the amount of EUR 36,015.89; RE 65923 / 07.07.2017 in the amount of EUR 16,725.33; RE80977 / 06.06.2017 in the amount of EUR 19,546.95; RE66505 / 04.08.2017 in the amount of EUR 1,026.31, a total of EUR 74,864.90 or BGN 146,423.02.

The invoices were paid in advance on 07.06. and 08.06. The subject of the issued invoices are utensils, dishes and other household items.

Pursuant to Art. 86 of the VAT Act, in connection with 84 of the VAT Act, the audited entity charged VAT with two protocols №159 / 02.06.2017 in the amount of BGN 7,646.10 and №161 / 16.06.2017 BGN 44.17. Pursuant to Art. 86 of the VAT Act, in connection with Art. 84 of the VAT Act for tax periods 06, 07 and 08.2017 VAT was added in the total amount of BGN 25,162.96 / 14,088.19 + 7,148.85 + 3,925.92 /, on the invoices for which no protocols have been issued.

The subject of the Administrative Services Agreement of 17.12.2014 between O. L. and [company] is the provision of administrative services in connection with the development of an online training platform and its subsequent maintenance.

It is accepted that the audited entity should not have charged VAT in the total amount of BGN 124,597.25 on the issued invoice.

The RA states that O. L. is registered in the United Arab Emirates (D./), which introduces one coin payments as a virtual cryptocurrency, which serves as a means of payment regulating payment services.

Unlike bitcoin, which is a decentralized cryptocurrency and anyone can join its mining whenever they want, onecoin is centralized – all trading is done on an internal server after purchasing a package.

The company has all the material, technical and resource security to carry out the activity.

The Bulgarian company [company] is a sales representative of the Dubai company and in this regard the contract of 17.12.2014 is presented as a contract for full administrative services, including a number of additional services such as marketing, financial – accounting, consulting, as well as those that are the basis of trading with virtual cryptocurrency / onecone / such as server maintenance, platform development and administration, cash management, customer service, etc.

It is evident from the submitted accounting registers that the audited entity has entered an account 491 Trustees, in which are reported cash with trustee O. L., which amounts have been received from customers in connection with the purchase of packages.

The initial balance of the account as of 01.06.2017 amounts to BGN 32,454,708.33, and the balance as of 31.08.2017 is BGN 32,554,708,333.

According to the data from the turnover statement as of 31.08.2017 of the audited entity, the same owns in account 214 the following software products – Platforms O., O., E., C. and U. site O. L ..

From the analysis of the cross-checks carried out by the suppliers of [company] it was established that the received services are directly related to the sale of the virtual cryptocurrency / one coin / in the form of purchase of training packages. [company], UIC [UIC] maintains and creates new functionalities in the web-based software system for training of the contracting authority and supports the office network, computer and copying equipment in the offices of the contracting authority.

[company], UIC [UIC] provides expert, organizational and methodological support to the activity of [company] in the preparation and implementation of the necessary guidelines, rules and procedures in connection with the management and implementation of the project; building, training and operational support of the team in the implementation of the administrative, technical and financial management of the project, as well as expert and organizational assistance.

[company], UIC [UIC] provides internet and marketing services, detailed in RA. The audited entity is the recipient of supplies of brand A consumables from I-style E., UIC [UIC] and recipient of the “server maintenance” service from [company], UIC [UIC].

During the audited period in [company] there are 94 employees on employment contracts, incl. in the positions of financial manager, human resources manager, control specialists, employee inquiries, revenue control specialist, database analysts, marketing and advertising specialists, regulation specialists, driver, administrative secretary, host building, etc.

Analyzing the nature of the services that [the company] receives as a supplier, as well as its human and material resources, it is accepted that in the form of the presented contract of 17.12.2014 with OL there is a covert delivery related to the sale of virtual cryptocurrency / onecone /.

During the audit it was established that on the issued invoice № [PIN] /01.03.2018 no payment was made between the parties by bank transfer. The amount was deducted from the balance of account 491 Trustees, which reflects the amounts received from customers / individuals from around the world /, in connection with the purchase of packages for trading in virtual currency.

Therefore, paying on the process invoice, in practice, the audited entity is the recipient of amounts from the sales of the cryptocurrency through the established system in the Internet space.

In this case there is no actual performance of the service, but the audited entity maintains the information network incl. hired staff for trade in so-called currency onecoin.

The Bulgarian company is the sales representative of the official Dubai company, which sells on the Internet in the form of “online training packages”.

Its entire activity is related to O. L., providing it with a base in the country in the form of rented expensive real estate with luxury furniture and security, luxury vehicles, organizing corporate events and more. services in connection with their servicing.

Due to the above and on the grounds of Art. 86 of the VAT Act, in connection with Art. 82, para. 2, item 3 and Art. 84 of the VAT Act, VAT has been added due to established discrepancies of the data reflected in the system with regard to the deliveries declared by the foreign persons, for which the audited person has not issued protocols on invoices issued by HEUKING K’HN LER WOJTEK – P. with VIN DE119459367 in amount of BGN 3,191.88 for delivery of legal services and A. AG VIN DE812779422 in the amount of BGN 25,162.96 for delivery of goods – household items.

The DRA № Р-22221017006937-091-001 / 25.04.2019 was issued, which was appealed administratively and was amended by Decision №1446 / 26.08.2019. of the Director of ODOP.

Within the term for its appeal a complaint was received through the administrative body on the occasion of which the present proceedings were initiated.

From a legal point of view.

Pursuant to the provision of Article 160, paragraph 2 of the TPSC, the court assesses the legality and validity of the appealed act, assessing whether it was issued by a competent authority and in the appropriate form, whether the procedural and substantive provisions have been complied with.

The appealed revision act was issued by a competent body, in compliance with the established form, the procedural and material requirements of the law.

First objection – RA was issued out of time. In order to reach this conclusion, the complainant has indicated that for the result of the inspection an RD was prepared on 11.06.2018, served on 14.08.2018. , due to which the RA should have been issued by 19.02.2019, and it is evident from the same that it was issued on 25.04.2019.

The court finds the relevant objection unfounded. The revision act is issued within 14 days from the submission of the objection or from the expiration of the term for submission of the objection (art. 119, para 3 of TPSC).

The fact that no objection has been filed by the complainant does not allow the administrative body to proceed with the issuance of the RA before the expiration of this term.

Otherwise, it would lead to a procedural violation and would be an independent ground for annulment of the act.

According to the provision of art. 73, para. 1 of the VAT Act, a registered person has the right to deduct a partial tax credit in respect of the tax on goods or services, which are used both for supplies for which the person has the right to deduct a tax credit and for supplies or activities for which the person has no such right.

The amount of the partial tax credit is determined in accordance with the provision of para. 2 of the same text, multiplying the amount of the tax credit by a coefficient calculated to the second decimal place, obtained as the ratio between the turnover relating to the supplies for which the person is entitled to deduct a tax credit and the turnover, relating to all supplies and activities performed by the person.

The provision of para. 4 determines what the turnover includes, referring to all deliveries and activities of the person.

In the course of the proceedings it was indisputably established that the applicant made both taxable supplies and non-taxable supplies under loan agreements / pp.5-6 of the RD /, according to which he received remunerative interest – a total of BGN 683,394.03 The interest loan agreements represent an exempt delivery according to Art.

Art. 46 para 1 item 1 of the VAT Act for the person who grants it. That is why the norm of Article 73 of the VAT Act should be applied to the complainant as well.

In this regard, it should be considered a reliable determination of the amounts of the applicant’s turnover according to the sales diaries submitted by him as appendices to the VAT returns, in which the invoices issued under the argument of para. 3 and 4 of Article 73 of the VAT Act.

Taking into account the provision of Article 73, paragraph 5 of the VAT Act to the specific facts of the case, the court finds that insofar as for 2016 [company] has formed a turnover under para. 3 in the total amount of BGN 2,110,147.88 / issued by №116 / 01.03.2016 with DO 131 781.52 BGN and by №8-7 / 28.09.2016 with DO 1 BGN 955,830.00 to “O. L. ”, company №8-5 / 01.03.2016 with UP to BGN 348.25 per [company] and sales to individuals without invoices with UP to BGN 22,188.11, For 2016 [company ] has formed a turnover under para. 4 in the total amount of BGN 2,793,421.44 / turnover under para. 3 and the performed released deliveries in the amount of BGN 683,273.56 /.

As a result of the calculations thus performed, the coefficient under Art. 73, para. 2 of the VAT Act should be set at 0.76. For the completeness of the statement it should be borne in mind that with Decision №1168 / 25.02.2019 the Administrative Court of Sofia city has ruled in this sense, rejecting the challenge of RA №Р-2221017002826-091-001 / 23.01.2018 confirmed by Decision №510 / 16.04.2018 of the Director of the ODOP Directorate S .. In t.s. is also a decision №13246 / 08.10.2019. According to the adm.d. № 5500/2019 To YOU.

In such a factual situation, after the respective recalculations, the exercised right to a tax credit by the company should be amended as follows: For 06.2017, the right to deduct a tax credit for this period should be reduced by an amount of 16,142.88 BGN / 67 262.02 BGN x 0.76 /.; For 07.2017 the right to deduct a tax credit for this period should be reduced by an amount of BGN 16 072.92 / 66 BGN 970.49 x 0.76 /.; For August 2017 the right to deduct a tax credit for this period should be reduced by an amount of BGN 11,260.77 / BGN 46,919.86 x 0.76 /.

Insofar as the conclusions of the court coincide with those of the administrative body regarding the correct determination of the applicable coefficient and in the absence of discrepancies in the data on the amount of the full supply tax credit, the contested decision complies with substantive law, therefore the appeal is unfounded. and will have to be rejected.

Upon a request for this and on the grounds of Article 161 of the TPSC, the defendant is due costs in the proceedings in the amount of BGN 1,400.

For these reasons, the court HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

DISMISSES the appeal of [company] with UIC [UIC] against DRA № Р-22221017006937-091-001 / 25.04.2019, amended by Decision №1446 / 26.08.2019. of the Director of ODOP.

ORDERS [company] with UIC [UIC] to pay to ODOP-NRA-S Directorate. the amount of BGN 1,400 expenses.

The decision may be appealed in cassation before the Supreme Administrative Court within 14 days from the service of copies of the parties.

JUDGE:

The link I marked as source doesn’t work anymore. (webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FUsSYzYaQIwJ:search.admincourtsofia.bg/Acts/GetActContent%3FBlobID%3Dfc6b42ee-584b-4da5-baeb-848d84704a6a)



#4

Mr. Czech

Nov 19th, 2021 at 3:43 am  Mr. Czech(Q)

Oz, don’t you know Sputnik is not reliable source of information? Run by Russian trolls under government protection & intention, targeted on former soviet satellites (Eastern and Middle European countries)? Disinformation media?

But to be honest…in this case, information provided seems to be OK (neutral). Except that “scam in quotes”. I am not sure… was it intentional “seeding of confusion”? Or just expressing the jargon usage of the word “scam”?



#5

WhistleBlowerFin

Nov 19th, 2021 at 4:20 am  WhistleBlowerFin(Q)

^ I don’t like to link Sputniknews as a news source either, because obviously it’s pushing Russian general agenda.

But the couple OneCoin articles it has published have been quite fine.

I think the journalist behind the Sputniknews OneCoin articles is London based journalist Chris Summers. Even though this latest article doesn’t mention any journalist name..

London-based correspondent specialising in crime, terrorism, military history, shipping, sport, and obscure news from Europe, Africa, Latin American and the Caribbean. c.summers(at)sputniknews.com

sputniknews.com/author_chris_summers/

He has this Twitter channel: twitter.com/totalcrime



#6

Oz

Nov 19th, 2021 at 9:36 am  Oz(Q)

@Czech

I know Russian troll farms run all the Facebook alt right Christian groups and they generally run around publishing misinformation, but I hadn’t heard of Sputnik News.

I did have glance at Alexa and it came in at under 1000. Bit worrying.



#7

Dr. Jon Levy

Nov 19th, 2021 at 10:37 am  Dr. Jon Levy(Q)

Sputnik is the former RIA Novosti news agency and is owned by the Russian government. It gives the Russian view on the news same as VOA gives the American, BBC the British and Al Jazeera, the Qatari spin.

Russia has long history with pyramids, possibly only second to OneCoin was Mavrodi’s MMM founded in 1994 and still going on in Africa.



#8

Mr. Czech

Nov 19th, 2021 at 10:40 am  Mr. Czech(Q)

Off topic (Sputnik News)

Yes Oz, it is worrying and disrupting. This is a Russian media aiming abroad, having global coverage. Their resources are high, impact is larger and operations are more sophisticated than operations of other (mostly regional) stupid “alternative” media. Be cautious with this.

nolink://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)

Interesting point: followers and supporters of these “alternative” media outlets (Sputnik + other regional ones) are often participants in the scams covered by BMLM.

And need to say… they are participants acting like useful idiots, vehicles and proxies of the scam admins, enthusiasts loosing money in the end. And they have similar role in spreading the “news” from these media.

“Before we were able to eliminate stupidity of idiots, they successfully bring up the new generation”. That’s them.



#9

Cane

Nov 19th, 2021 at 4:51 pm  Cane(Q)

This letter while nice and all feels like pissing in the rain.

The very fact that OneCoin et al operates openly in Bulgaria with a public office in the center of Sofia, means that relevant people in Bulgaria’s political circles have already been bribed well enough to ensure the governments indifference in their criminal dealings.

As long as the gravy train is going and bribe money is flowing in Bulgaria no one would do anything.

I doubt that OneCoin is soliciting investors within Bulgaria so there’s no social pressure within the country and at the end of the day neither the Bulgarian authorities nor the populace gives a flying fudge if OneCoin is scamming some random dumb Arabs especially if it benefits powerful people within the country.

Bulgarian authorities will swiftly shut down and erase every trace of OneCoin the moment the bribe gravy train stops or if it becomes a huge enough embarrassment for the country, which I doubt it will at any point because Bulgaria has a huge tolerance for embarrassment.

The EU is entirely impotent when it comes to pressuring member countries regarding their internal dealings, but again I doubt that OneCoin scamming Arabs, Asians and Africans (mostly) even appears on the political radar of EU circles, at least not enough for anyone to bother doing something about it.

The only thing that can be done at this point is ensuring OneCoin investments dry out, and the only strategy I can think of is “death by a thousand cuts”, with examples being bank accounts being reported and shut down, domains being reported, DNS services being reported and small things like that.

I just can’t understand who in their right mind still puts money in that shitshow, how can OneCoin at this point even afford their operations and bribes is beyond me.



#10

Melanie from Germany

Nov 19th, 2021 at 5:53 pm  Melanie from Germany(Q)

OneCoin pyramid still exists in Bulgaria

share-your-photo.com/ed8f8758c4

cryptomonday.de/onecoin-pyramide-existiert-immer-noch-in-bulgarien/



#11

WhistleBlowerFin

Nov 19th, 2021 at 11:52 pm  WhistleBlowerFin(Q)

Article from NRWZ covering the petition and other latest happenings around OneCoin:

nrwz.de/schramberg/onecoin-opfer-anwalt-levy-bulgarien-soll-bueros-schliessen/329622



#12

Melanie from Germany

Nov 20th, 2021 at 12:47 am  Melanie from Germany(Q)

Martin Himmelheber mentions Ruja’s girlfriend Asdis Rán in his article. In this comment our readers will find more details:

https://behindmlm.com/companies/onecoin/bbc-podcast-explores-ruja-ignatovas-disappearance/#comment-432627



#13

Dr. Jon Levy

Nov 20th, 2021 at 3:42 am  Dr. Jon Levy(Q)

I doubt anyone in law enforcement ever questioned Asdis Ran who clearly was a beneficiary of OneCoin money?

Billions missing but no dedicated task force investigating. Typical for crypto crooks, law enforcement turns a blind eye to it.



#14

WhistleBlowerFin

Nov 23rd, 2021 at 8:58 am  WhistleBlowerFin(Q)

I have identified another Bulgarian IT company which cooperates with OneCoin Sofia regarding Dealshaker development.

The IT company is called Plan A:
techplana.com/about/

When browsing the new Dealshaker in development I spotted this yesterday:
Test Business: Plan A
Snejana Vladimirova company email (Project/Operations manager at Plan A)
i.imgur.com/4ZmqgOr.jpg

So of course I went yesterday to Plan A’s Facebook page to ask, what is going on, are they working for OneCoin:
facebook.com/techplana/
i.imgur.com/zXl9vma.jpg

So today, the address for the new Dealshaker development site which was until today completely open access literally for months, went behind a log in script. So it’s pretty easy to conclude that yes, Plan A is now another Bulgarian IT company working for the OneCoin scam..
i.imgur.com/VChhFjh.jpg



#15

Melanie from Germany

Feb 15th, 2022 at 5:53 pm  Melanie from Germany(Q)

A new (?) OneCoin scammer just calls his channel on YouTube “Mr Zmg“. Since February 7th, 2022, this notorious liar from Pakistan has uploaded 16 videos related to OneCoin. Just a snippet:

share-your-photo.com/62b3d6f7fd

Visually, the preview is similar to the videos by Syed Muhammad Muzammil Gilani from Multan, Pakistan.

This video got the petition by Dr. Jon Levy on the content:

Onecoin victims petition unblieveable news

share-your-photo.com/f7798dc9a9

youtube.com/watch?v=QqlVPosplug

PS: In his first video, this Pakistani scammer features age-old offers from the old DealShaker. Among other things, cars offered by the Bulgarian used car dealer Petar Kralev in 2018:

100% ONE COIN FOR PURCHASE VW AMAROK DC, HIGHLINE, V6, TDI, BMT, 4MOTION – 204 HP

share-your-photo.com/93d0eb250e



#16

Melanie from Germany

Feb 22nd, 2022 at 3:32 am  Melanie from Germany(Q)

Onecoin Victims Petition Bulgaria for Seizure of Assets and Compensation

share-your-photo.com/883fc73058

youtube.com/watch?v=p11-ybfC-jM



#17

Melanie from Germany

May 28th, 2022 at 12:00 am  Melanie from Germany(Q)

Nikolai Stojanov wrote in November 2021:

According to a British lawyer, Bulgarian authorities and prosecutors are covering up and helping OneCoin

Bulgaria must take action to stop the OneCoin pyramid activity mentioned by the American authorities, which continues to hurt investors around the world.

share-your-photo.com/a16796b516

Article behind paywall.

capital.bg/biznes/kompanii/2021/11/17/4281509_bulgarskite_vlasti_i_prokuratura_prikrivat_i_pomagat/



#18

Melanie from Germany

Jun 23rd, 2022 at 5:29 pm  Melanie from Germany(Q)

Nothing will change in Bulgaria. The new government was overthrown yesterday.

Crisis in Bulgaria

Prime Minister Petkov’s government overthrown in a vote of no confidence

Kiril Petkov was Bulgaria’s prime minister for just six months. A motion of no confidence in parliament in Sofia brought his government down.

spiegel.de/ausland/bulgarien-regierung-durch-misstrauensvotum-gestuerzt-a-61a9fd9f-ff2f-4803-a345-8ffe3047a3cb



#19

Melanie from Germany

Jun 23rd, 2022 at 11:48 pm  Melanie from Germany(Q)

FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION

In Bulgaria, the security of Europe’s border is at stake

The reform government had barely begun its fight against corruption and entanglements with Moscow when it was overthrown again.

The suspicion is that the mafia fears for revenue.

A minister has evidence of unbelievable events at the EU’s external border with Turkey.

welt.de/politik/ausland/plus239529393/In-Bulgarien-steht-die-Sicherheit-von-Europas-Grenze-auf-dem-Spiel.html

PS: The entire article is only readable for subscribers.