DOJ seeks access to potentially privileged OneCoin evidence

9 Comments on “DOJ seeks access to potentially privileged OneCoin evidence”

#1

Melanie from Germany

Sep 26th, 2019 at 4:26 pm  Melanie from Germany(Q)

Communications between Ruja Ignatova, Frank Ricketts, Manon Hubenthal, Irina Dilkinska, International Marketing Services GmBH

Manon Hubenthal is correctly named Manon Hübenthal. Excerpt from the German Commercial Register:

share-your-photo.com/d2396ad5cd

A photo with Manon Hübenthal:

share-your-photo.com/5ec4d8ad1e

Why is Manon Hübenthal constantly correcting the balance sheets of her fraudulent company? Does she have something to hide? 😮

share-your-photo.com/d8cec854d1

In the past, Manon Hübenthal was also called Manon Wißmann. She probably married a man called Hübenthal.

The IMS managing director Manon Hübenthal (formerly Wißmann) from Greven has come up with some theories in the net.

She is said to be in contact with a certain Frank Ricketts, who is also in Greven.

He should have taken over 400,000 members from the OPN Sitetalks network, a network marketing company. As motivation there was a free OneCoin account.

share-your-photo.com/9e9a592227

pressebox.de/pressemitteilung/deutscher-finanzmarktschutz-ev/Aus-fuer-OneCoin-Geschaefte-in-Deutschland/boxid/855485



#2

Semjon

Sep 26th, 2019 at 8:11 pm  Semjon(Q)

What we don’t know at this stage is what evidence the DOJ has collected and from where.

Mark S Scott’s Search Warrant document and court transcripts provide at least some overview of the nature of the evidence they got. They even wiretapped people:

The information contained in this affidavit is based on, among other sources of information:

(i) my personal knowledge;

(ii) information provided by law enforcement officers at the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and the New York County District Attorney’s Office participating in the same investigation;

(iii) my review of publicly available OneCoin promotional materials;

(iv) information that I have obtained from international law enforcement authorities pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (“MLAT”) requests and other requests to foreign authorities;

(v) my review of OneCoin’s publicly available website and materials available on that website;

(vi) open source research that I have conducted on the Internet; (vii) my review of digital videos posted on youtube.com (“YouTube”) by OneCoin Ltd. and its members;

(Viii) my participation in various witness interviews;

(ix) my review of e-mail evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas, MLAT requests, judicially authorized search warrants, and a judicially authorized wiretap;

(x) the review and analysis of various bank account records, including financial records obtained from international law enforcement authorities pursuant to MLAT requests and other requests to foreign authorities, conducted by myself, a paralegal I work with in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, an IRS law enforcement agent, and officials at the New York County District Attorney’s Office; and

(xi) my training and experience concerning the commission of financial crimes, the use of computers in criminal activity, and the forensic analysis of electronically stored information (“ESI”).

(Mark Scott Search warrant p.1-2)

That was in August 2018, even before Scott’s treasure trove. In February 2019 they implied that new material was constatnly coming to them, including from Germany that required translating:

With respect to discovery, since the last time we were here, we have produced a substantial additional amount of discovery materials, including numerous MLAT responses containing bank records, emails and other materials relevant to the case; U.S. bank records, email correspondence.

The defendant, I think, by the last conference, already had a copy of his postarrest statement.

A number of OneCoin-related materials, including screenshots of the website and back-office environment and videos showing claims made by OneCoin promoters, and audit reports and legal opinions that have been obtained by OneCoin in the course of the scheme; seizure warrants; search warrants, inventories related to those warrants, and substantial amount of ESI and hard-copy records recovered from both the defendant’s Florida and Massachusetts residences.

(…)

There are a few things that, for various reasons, we are still in the process of producing. One example is materials from a Germany mutual legal assistance treaty request.

We have produced a bunch of materials received from Germany, but there are some emails and other documents that are in German that are still being translated in an effort to determine whether those items are, in fact, discoverable or even relevant.

(courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287.48.0.pdf)



#3

Otto

Sep 27th, 2019 at 12:39 am  Otto(Q)

The IMS managing director?

That’s one position that will make you wish to turn into invisible!



#4

Semjon

Sep 27th, 2019 at 3:18 am  Semjon(Q)

DOJ press release on the issue out:

justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/district-court-issues-order-directing-onecoin-related-parties-show-cause-regarding-any



#5

Semjon

Sep 27th, 2019 at 4:17 am  Semjon(Q)

With the press release, DOJ published the July 23 sealed document, which happens to be a court order that sides with the Prosecution.

justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1205246/download

The Court believes that the Prosecution can easily show probably cause that money laundering and wire fraud crimes happened, OneCoin is “illegal pyramid farud scheme”, etc., and thus the Court agrees to crime-fraud exception to attorney client-privlilege applies.

By extenstion OneCoin, Onelife, OneAcademy, to name just a few of the Receiving Entitities of the order, “facilitated transcation furthering money laundering scheme”.

The judge doesn’t find Scott’s objections to the process credible, and therefore sides with the Prosection.

There are some new company names in the category 3. And btw, I don’t what we should make of the fact that Konstantin Ignatov’s name is missing from the list of names — he accused in the case after all. Perhaps he did indeed join the jail canary choir with Sebastian Greenwood? 😉



#6

Oz

Sep 27th, 2019 at 8:49 am  Oz(Q)

You’re doing my job for me before I’ve even woke up 😀

Yay for community!

Konstantin might not have been named if he wasn’t part of the money laundering side of the business.

Ruja and her Sofia squad might have been laying low but they were still able to run the money side of the business.



#7

Semjon

Sep 27th, 2019 at 4:19 pm  Semjon(Q)

Oz:

Konstantin might not have been named if he wasn’t part of the money laundering side of the business.

Ruja and her Sofia squad might have been laying low but they were still able to run the money side of the business.

I think he was involved in the money laundering side of business, and the evidence shows it.

In the bail motion proceedings, the Government told that Konstantin was facing additional charges, including money laundering charges:

Moreover, as it has already informed the defendant, the Government will very likely supersede the Information with additional charges, including one or more money laundering offenses, resulting in a significantly higher applicable Guidelines sentence.

Thus, the defendant has every reason to take advantage of the massive OneCoin-generated wealth at his disposal to violate any conditions set by the Court in order to flee prosecution to Germany, the UAE, or elsewhere, where he will be safe from extradition.

(p.9 ; courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.516497/gov.uscourts.nysd.516497.90.0.pdf)

Konsantin’s Criminal Complaint document also describes, based on the evidence found from his phone, a money laundering scheme he and Simon Le were devicing. (page 29 of that document)

I think Mark Scott’s OneCoin money laundering is alleged to have continued up until his arrest in late 2018.

Konstantin’s position along with the POA for Ruja indicates that he was some kind of vice-Ruja, so it’s not unimaginable that he was also was in touch with Scott. In fact, I think it’s quite likely.



#8

Timothy Curry

Sep 27th, 2019 at 11:40 pm  Timothy Curry(Q)

I wanna know when MoonLearning affiliates and partners who laundered money and committed wire fraud will face justice!!! Haven’t seen any indication of this SO FAR.

I bet those well known characters and criminals walk around with a bit of poop threatening to breach at any moment.



#9

Semjon

Oct 10th, 2019 at 12:20 am  Semjon(Q)

It appears that nobody came to assert attorney-client privilege:

ORDER as to Ruja Ignatova. It is hereby ORDERED that Any attorney-client privilege held by the Affected Parties in connection with the communications described below (collectively, the Subject Communications) is deemed waived: Communications between OneCoin Ltd., OnePayments Ltd., OneNetwork Services Ltd., OneAcademy, OneLife, and RavenR Capital Limited, and attorneys for those entities; and Communications between Ruja Ignatova, Frank Ricketts, Manon Hubenthal, Irina Dilkinska, International Marketing Services GmBH, International Marketing Services Singapore Pte, International Marketing Strategies Ltd., and B&N Consult EOOD, and attorneys for those individuals and entities, regarding OneCoin-related financial transactions and the continued operation of the OneCoin scheme.

The Subject Communications fall within crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, and are therefore non-privileged not withstanding the waiver described above. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/9/2019)(jw)

and

In connection with the above-captioned case, the entities and individuals set forth below (collectively, the “Affected Parties”), having failed to show cause, pursuant to this Court’s Order to Show Cause dated September 25, 2019, why any privilege the Affected Parties may have in communications with counsel does not fall within the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, or has not otherwise been waived for failure to assert or defend such privilege, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.Any attorney-client privilege held by the Affected Parties in connection with the communications described below (collectively, the “Subject Communications”) is deemed waived:

(courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.511619/gov.uscourts.nysd.511619.142.0.pdf )