OneCoin legal opinion lawyer was a company Director
To date OneCoin have had a tough time independently verifying their legitimacy.
The company, through Ponzi points, uses newly invested funds to pay off existing investors. Thus far this has proven to be a hard-sell to anyone they haven’t paid off.
Paid advertorials are of course the videos OneCoin uploads to their YouTube channel, as well as paid advertising in Forbes BrandVoice and Financial IT.
One last bastion of purported independent coverage is a “legal opinion”, published by the German law firm Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte back in 2014.
Now, new information suggests that even this document might have been financially motivated.
Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte’s legal opinion on OneCoin is dated December 11th, 2014. It’s a paper-thin document, obviously not designed to be held up to any scrutiny.
Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte didn’t go over OneCoin’s business model, but in their own words were
asked to assess the legality of cryptocurrency by our client, OneCoin Ltd.
Is cryptocurrency legal? In most jurisdictions, yes.
But compare Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte’s definition of a cryptocurrency with that of OneCoin.
A cryptocurrency is a digital commodity created according to strict mathematical principles by a complex algorithm, thereby granting a finite supply.
Unlike normal currencies, which are printed by central banks, cryptocurrencies are inflation-proof and respond to supply and demand like any other commodity.
I have no problems with that definition of a cryptocurrency.
OneCoin however is generated by OneCoin limited, at a fixed rate daily. There is likely no because the company is the sole issuer of coins.
This makes OneCoin Limited the “central bank” of OneCoin, which is the exact opposite of Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte’s definition of a cryptocurrency.
As for supply and demand, the only value of OneCoin is that which the company assigns it.
You can’t actually do anything with OneCoin other than cash out 1.5% of your balance each week (assuming the withdrawal request isn’t denied, which most are), or use it as a marketing tool to collect recruitment commissions.
That’s not legitimate supply and demand.
Nonetheless, Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte conclude:
As a result, most countries have recognized cryptocurrencies as a bona fide commodity, which may be held and traded by their citizens.
In our opinion the ‘OneCoin’ is a legitimate product, limited to 2.1 billion (coins).
Nevermind the fact that OneCoin cannot be traded publicly, all Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte have done is evaluate cryptocurrencies and apply the conclusion to OneCoin.
That appears to be solely based on the purported claim that OneCoin will stop generating Ponzi points once there are 2.1 million of them.
Like I said, it’s a paper-thin document not meant to be held up to scrutiny.
After Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte published the opinion, it was widely circulated by OneCoin and their affiliates as proof that OneCoin was legitimate.
“Law firm”, “legal opinion” and “legitimate product” were the marketing key words, with OneCoin affiliates expected not to look too closely or ask any followup questions.
Ignoring the actual content of the legal opinion, much of the credibility behind the document rests on Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte being a third-party.
Remember, OneCoin have had trouble getting anyone to support their business model that they haven’t paid copious amounts of money to.
According to incorporation documents sourced from from the Gibraltar Companies House by BehindMLM reader OzDelphi, on April 22nd, 2015, a few months after Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte published their opinion, Martin Rudolf Alexander Breidenbach was appointed an “individual director” of OneCoin Limited.
The document is signed by Adrian Stevenson of AMS Company Management, the firm that manages OneCoin Limited’s corporate registration in Gibraltar.
OneCoin Limited is an offshore company that exists in name only, with AMS Company Management serving as similar role to Mossack Fonseca in the Panama Papers debacle last month.
While offshore business entities are often not illegal, reporters found that some of the Mossack Fonseca shell corporations were used for illegal purposes, including fraud, kleptocracy, tax evasion, and evading international sanctions.
As you’ve probably already guessed, Martin Breidenbach is a named partner at Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte.
According to the law firm’s website, Breidenbach is an admitted attorney in Germany and a member of the Munich Bar Association.
What Breidenbach’s duties were as a Director of OneCoin are not clear. The company has never publicly acknowledged he was part of their management team.
Breidenbach was terminated as a Director of OneCoin Limited on December 24th, 2015.
As an independent law firm, obviously Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte would have had to of been financially compensated for their legal opinion.
Martin Breidenbach’s appointment as a Director of OneCoin wasn’t just something that happened overnight though. And there’s a very real distinction between receiving funds for an independent legal opinion, and providing one when you have a vested financial interest in the subject.
I can’t stress this enough. Breidenbach had a business relationship with OneCoin dating back to at least December, 2014.
To what extent he was involved in the operation of OneCoin prior to April, 2015 is unclear, but it’s obvious Breidenbach and his firm were not just approached for a legal opinion.
Yet that’s exactly how Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte’s legal opinion of OneCoin was marketed to its affiliates and the general public.
As lawyers of OneCoin, Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte should have disclosed that their legal opinion was tied to Martin Breidenbach’s financial interest in the company.
As a matter of transparency, what services Breidenbach provided to OneCoin during his eleven months with the company should be disclosed.
Lest Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte rectract its legal opinion, based on Martin Breidenbach’s obvious conflict of interest.
But hey, when has OneCoin ever been associated with professional integrity?
In hindsight, what’s done is done and Breidenbach, for whatever reason, is no longer a Director of OneCoin Limited.
More importantly, as the last domino falls on independent reputable coverage of OneCoin, all we’re left with are paid advertising campaigns and YouTube astroturfing.
Bit of a problem for an MLM company that professes legitimacy, yet is the sole source of such claims.
Not unlike the value of OneCoin itself…
April 2014 — Breidenbach joined OneCoin as director
December 11, 2014 — Breidenbach lawfirm issued “legal opinion” claiming OneCoin is legal
December 25, 2014 — Breidenbach removed as director of OneCoin
How interesting. This is clearly a conflict of interest. Wonder what does the German Bar have something to say about this?
Any one can write in German? I think this is the right Bar Association that handles Breidenbach…
@K.Chang, The documents show that Breidenbach was a director in 2015. Oz made a typo in his article.
My bad. Was so caught up on not stuffing up the German names I missed that one.
We don’t know when Martin Breidenbach’s relationship with OneCoin began, or to what extent he was involved in the company when the legal opinion was published.
All we know is four months later (quid pro quo?), Braidenbach was appointed a OneCoin company Director.
Breidenbach’s website is in the Internet archive:
The first snapshot was in November 2003.
Approximately 18 snapshots between 2nd May 2010, and 1st August 2015, the site was replaced by a banner page stating that the site was under maintenance, and that a new site was being developed.
However, the old site reappeared in the 12th October 2015 snapshot.
I tried to contact this company twice via email earlier this year, but no response.
I thought that letter was FLAKY as can be, and raised MORE ANTENNAE than it did PACIFY!
I thought: WHY would they choose some OBSCURE German law firm to VALIDATE the Company with?!
GREAT research, Oz!
You got a compliment STRAIGHT UP from me!
And you can take that to the bank!
It’s GOTTA’ be MONETIZABLE!..
Love & Best, Oz!. . .
Onwards & Upwards!
Can’t take much credit on this story, it was all OzDelphi – I just put it together.
Not true again…
how many OneCoins would I need to buy something really simple like a double shot espresso ??
Yeah, like how many one coins do I need to buy a pair of boxer shorts or a cheeseburger?
Yet you can’t name even one exception?
You’re just denying. You’re not arguing.
I would have to agree here as no coins exist to begin with.
You guys are being a bit harsh on our new OneCoin friend from Spain as I believe he was actually trying to tell the truth in his statement.
When he said “Not true again…” in reference to the 1.5% cash out per week, he was simply acknowledging the fact that the company is not allowing the OneCoin Investors to complete those transactions.
We see Investors complaining about this day-in, day-out on the OneCoin Facebook page.
So, give him some credit. But Credibility?….not so much. 🙂
I just meant that there is no limit like that, but it seems to be too difficult for some of you.
On average, what is the amount(s) being withdrawn from cashing in onecoins?
Limit or no limit, OneCoin is worthless, except within OC itself.
But, you just keep on focusing on unimportant details if it keeps you happy.
Keeps me happy if we can discuss on true and well checked facts from the neutral point of view, not hate of faith. For some it is difficult to understand.
What’s with the “hate or faith” nonsense ???
“Hate” or “faith” have nothing to do with the fact OneCoin is useless outside of OneCoin itself.
If you want to invest, fine, go ahead.
Sell the farm, cash in your insurance policy – who cares ???
Just don’t expect to come here pretending to an impartial observer and expect to go unchallenged.
When you are unable to purchase even a cup of coffee with a supposed cryptocurrency, any discussion as to its’ legitimacy or otherwise is pointless.
Why don’t you start? Any thing Ruja or top leader said is NOT neutral. So don’t start there.
This is just a troll.
Yeah that just might be you!
so for you have posted nothing supporting your position.
I will just say you are a confused investor in the scam.
LOL I am just saying that some of the things in the last articles about OneCoin here are not true, thats all. For you doesent matter what is written there, becuase you hate this company already and nothing can change it.
Same with OneCoin lovers, doesent matter how difficult questions you ask them, they will just say that you need to have faith or to ask your leader/support.
I would like to have a discussion (Ozedit: So start discussing. Enough with the cryptic bullshit.)
The actual limit on selling your OneCoins back to the company’s private exchange is 1.5% daily. Many people are reporting that their sell orders are going unfulfilled for many days and getting cancelled.
The problem is, no one is buying OneCoins from the private exchange. The only money being used to “buy” OneCoins on the OneCoin private exchange is from the 40% mandatory accounts being withheld from their bonuses, and from new money coming in.
The supposed demand is from money taken from the rep’s bonus checks. They have no option but to buy tokens or OneCoins. It’s still an internal money game and Ponzi scheme.
The bottom line isn’t whether you can spend a OneCoin at a merchant (which they can’t simply because a merchant could not convert the received OneCoins into fiat currency at a rate of 1.5% daily to pay their bills), but is the OneCoin even real?
A technological review of OneCoin based on the technical details described by Andreas antonopoutos in his book “Mastering Bitcoin” reveals that OneCoin has nothing in common with the fundamental principles of cryptocurrency.
The 2008 Bitcoin white paper titled “A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System” describes solutions to empower the people to completely control their own personal monetary system without needing to trust any single person, company, bank or government.
All OneCoin has done is replace the current central authority with a single private company. Here are their current practices…
1. CENTRALIZATION: Trust OneCoin to verify and clear all transactions.
2. KYC: Require people to register their personal information with OneCoin to comply with “Know Your Customer” government requirements.
3. CONTROLLED USE: Trust OneCoin to protect the best interests of the financial system by placing appropriate limits on the buying, selling and transferring of OneCoins, and by controlling all trading through a single OneCoin exchange.
4. CONTROLLED INFLATION: Trust OneCoin to release OneCoins at a rate of 10,000 coins every 10 minutes.
5. AUDITED LEDGER: Trust OneCoin and its paid auditors to verify and confirm the accuracy of all activity for everyone’s OneCoin transactions.
This is exactly the opposite of what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned 7 years ago.
Cryptocurrency is huge and it will disrupt human culture bigger than ever before, because now we are talking about disrupting the power structure of the current financial and political establishment – YOUR MONEY.
OneCoin is preying on the uninformed about a new emerging technology that most people just don’t understand yet.
The technological foundation of cryptocurrency is the block chain, but OneCoin will not let us see their block chain. Does it really exist? or are OneCoins just fabricated from an Excel spreadsheet? Who knows?
The block chain is the open public ledger for everyone to see to prevent fraud, corruption and manipulation by a central authority or any other bad actor.
That’s a whole lot of trust to place on one single private company, especially one like OneCoin with a track record of deception and distortion.
And you love this company. So what? Your mind ain’t changing.
If you can present enough evidence minds can be persuaded. However, you’ve only fixed a couple typos.
Whereas we’ve shown you fact after fact explaining OneCoin is NOT a cryptocurrency, alleged link with China is bogus, and Ruja don’t know anything. You just keep ignoring them with usual rhetoric of “you are all biased, I don’t believe any of you”.
Fact has no bias. Any perceived bias is from one’s own position relative to the fact, and how that fact affects one’s position.
Then name them, and discuss them, rather than throw around “you are not neutral” accusations.
And please keep in mind that “Because Ruja said…” is not evidence. It’s unverifiable statement that are OFTEN contradicted by news reports.
About contacting the german legal bar about Breidenbachs, I’m sure that you can write in english as it has become quite common that also germans in the business world are able to read and write english.
FIRST: Thank you for coming here to try to find the truth (although the OC Kool-Aid is very potent, you have taken the first step, at least).
SECOND: This Consumer Protection/ Consumer Advocacy website you are reading now has a very good track record for catching and reporting on fraud and crime in the MLM space, and does so by digging up the FACTS of shady dealings and characters very early on.
The Onecoin RESEARCH has been no different, other than Onecoin provides constant fodder to stoke the flames.
Behind MLM had probably 3 dozen stories on Onecoin alone since 2014. If you REALLY wish to know the truth, start here and also READ THE COMMENTS. This will demonstrate some of the in-depth research, journalism and investigation, as well as SOURCE MATERIAL that goes into any story here.
Please address ANY SINGLE POINT of contention from the dumptruck full of evidence, facts and proof which will eventually be turned over to indict Ruja and her minions; and point out a mistake or mistruth.
We will stack a pile of ADDITIONAL evidence on top of anything, ANYTHING you believe you can challenge.
I just hope you are being sincere and the Kool-Aid is beginning to wear off, and you stop using indoctrinated terms like faith, fear, hate/ hater, jealousy, PPP, PCP, etc.
None of these words have anything to do with this conversation or what is being presented here.
Very interesting point!
About their blockchain, from audit raports of Semper Fortis, before they terminated contract with OneCoin we can assume, that they do really have a blockchain (or did have when this comapny was doing technical audits. Now another company is doing them).
They terminated contract because of other reasons, not technical (blockchain).
I told that there is no limit of 1,5% withdrawals per week and that people have no problems at all with withdrawing funds from bonuses, so those informations in this and previous article are not true.
I think its too difficult for you to admit, that something bad about OneCoin may not be true. And you are funny trying to show, that I am just relaying on “Dr Ruja said…”, same as admitting that I am OneCoin lover.
Or that they don’t, hence the contract termination.
Doesn’t really matter, it’s a script set to generate X points each day. Even if there is a blockchain attached to that to track point distribution it’s irrelevant.
As to the new company, it’s pretty much xcoinx but for auditing. Connected to OneCoin through one of their numerous shell companies, because nobody reputable would audit Ponzi points generation.
Right, because what you say negates the posts deleted on OneCoin’s Facebook each day complaining about withdrawals being denied.
You seem to be under the illusion any of this is about “you”.
Seriously, get over yourself.
While you’re here defending the indefensible, OneCoin is continuing to be exposed as the ponzi / pyramid scheme disguised as a cryptocurrency that it is.
There are problems with withdrawing funds from sold coins, not from bonuses. OneCoin wouldnt for now shoot themselves in feet, by making problems with money from bonuses (for their leaders = believers), because this is how they get new people and earn much more money (on new packages and more believers), than they withdraw.
There are few official rapports in PDF on OneCoin website from Semper Fortis (from months before they terminated contract) that OneCoin blockchain is real, consistent and none of the coins are mined outside of it.
You could make as well a short article about this BusinessWoman of the year 2014 event, who is organizer, who is in the jury, is this a commercial event, etc…
I said about 1,5% of limit of weekly withdrawal (which doesent exist) and problems with withdrawals (when there is no problem at all with money from bonuses, only from coins), and K.Chang shown that he is not serious person to discuss, by saying that I only talk about what Dr Ruja said…
Get out the Hip Boots… because this shit just keeps getting deeper!
@OneCoinSpain You are just babbling on about things that have already been covered in great detail and are really showing how you are deeply invested in OneCoin and want it to work out for the better.
Take note in that you do not address any of the negatives with reason why they are false.
yet you are so neutral.
At this point it should be clear that you may want to read up on all things OneCoin before you continue your postings.
You are only making it worse on yourself. No one is taking you serious at all.
That’s the Ponzi side of the business. The pyramid recruitment isn’t as important.
All this means is no OneCoins are generated outside of Ruja’s laptop script.
I said don’t reply with Ruja said or OneCoin said. You *did* reply with “Ruja said” at least once. Should I conclude you are not serious because you are twisting my words?
You’re just repeating yourself from 3 days ago. We know already. Message received. ( NOLINK://behindmlm.com/companies/onecoin/ignatova-has-spent-35-million-on-bulgarian-property/#comment-359678)
The problem is you are repeated OneCoin STATEMENTS that are NOT proven to be facts… as if they are facts.
You previously wrote:
When I ask about the tokens, your reply was
It’s clear that tokens are packages are sold TOGETHER. So you are just repeating OneCoin statements as if they are facts.
Which is clear in your next reply
You are REPEATING OneCoin UNPROVEN STATEMENTS. They are not facts UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
And you referred DIRECTLY to a Ruja statement that claim they are working on “several licenses” when I pointed out China does NOT allow cybercurrencies in its financial market. You can’t get a license for something that’s NOT ALLOWED.
There is no other logical interpretation. Your continued insistence in repeating OneCoin statements as facts is the issue here. Again, THEY ARE NOT FACTS UNTIL PROVEN.
Can someone copy or screenshot the Facebook comments before they get deleted?
Hey K. Chang and Oz,
I do speak German (born & raised here) …
Could you please upload the whole Breidenbach document pls?
Since I studied business law here, I’m quite interested in how the legitimize the so called N-On(e) Coin.
The Breidenbach document is in English.
Thank you very much for publishing the link.
I just read it and I have to admit that the so called “legal-opinion” which was made by the “Breidenbach” does not include any information regarding the true legitimacy of “N-On(e) Coin.
It just states in which countries it is considered to be legal.
That is definitely not a document that matches the requirements for a real “legal opinion”.
… doesn’t say anything. If it would be a well made “opinion” due to German standards of how to write a paper “legal-opinion”, there should be detailed information on it …
Why is it considered to be legal?
What makes the OneCoin system legal (MLM System etc.)?
Yeah it’s pretty weak coming from a legal perspective.
That it was written by an individual who was later promoted to a Director of the company he was giving a legal opinion on is all the more eyebrow raising.
I just read somewhere that the law firm “RA Schulenberg & Schenk” came up with a legal opinion which is more detailed.
Can someone provide a link for this document?
However … After examining the distribution system of OC – according to Germans Laws -, I have to admit (even if I don’t want) that N-ON(E)COIN is really legal here in Germany => See § 16 II UWG; 3 UWG. According to these laws, a distribution system like theirs stays not in contrast to the “Fair-Trade-Law”.
In case of that this company might go broke (as one might expect), then § 263 STGB (Fraud) could be considered.
So, the presumption of innocence applies to everybody.
Everybody, who knows something about those who are staying behind that company should be really warned !!!
Haven’t seen or heard of that claim myself.
From the way OneHeads fabricate “truthiness” out of thin air and pass them on as if they are fact, there probably is no such detailed legal opinion.
Ken Labine tried to publish a comment with this link but it got picked up as spam.
I nuked the spam list before I caught the comment so couldn’t undo and allow the comment (apologies).
Apparently that’s the “detailed” decision, although to me it looks about as vague and worthless as the Breidenbach Rechtsanwalte opinion.
Typically legal opinions aren’t a paragraph. Also there’s nothing there about the legal status of using newly invested funds to pay off existing investors as far as I can see.
Gerry Nehra is probably the only MLM lawyer on the planet you could get to sign off on OneCoin.
Sadly he’s already got 99 problems but OneCoin ain’t one.
Just to let you know … I was working on the following question:
Can OC be a legal “MLM” company or am I dealing here with a so called “Ponzi-Scheme”?
I personally came up with the result that OC might be a legal MLM company (according to German Laws – as I already stated it above).
Now to the link that you added:
It’s remarkable that you can’t get an insight view of that document. They just mention that a part of it can be seen in a “protocol”.
That’s absolutely not what I expected to see. At least, I’m glad that I came up with the same paragraphs.
There is one point that causes me sleepless nights:
OC says that you buy “educational-packages” (right?) and that you get those “tokens” as an additional product that enables you to get coins mined (right?).
So, I’m wondering what would happen if the company might collapse for some reason (and someone might come up with a law suit) … They could simply say: We only offered “educational-packages” but no coins (in first instance).
There is a massive inadequacy and it’s contradictory as well. As far as I understand it, it’s the companies “goal” to introduce a kind of digital currency on the market (someday).
Their “general terms and conditions of trade” are also quite unsatisfactory to me.
I’m afraid to say, but as long as they are really on the market their claim to be legitimate is not false.
Even, if there is no detailed legal opinion available, I think that we are dealing here with a company that knows every trick in the book.
I’m not a friend of conspiracy theories, but I think that I have the right to be sceptical …
By the way, I found something that might be interesting for you:
That guy received a “cease and desist warning” from a lawyer of OC.
It seems to me as OC is trying to avoid bad publicity.
Last but not least:
I would like to apologize that I just said – I read “somewhere” etc. … I know, I could have told you where I read it but I’m new to this and I’m only trying to get a real impression of the OC company.
Peace out to K. Chang and Oz!
I guess that it is not illegal if you use already existing or even new raised funds to pay out investors – as long as there is enough money of course -. That’s why you usually set up a Ltd. company.
You are totally right, when you say that:
” … legal opinions aren’t a paragraph.”
That’s exactly what I meant to say as well.
This is pseudo-compliance, and doesn’t hold up in US court (see Zeek Rewards and penny auction bids and TelexFree and VOIP packages).
Basically people are invested in the points, which have an artificial value within the scheme.
If OneCoin tomorrow told everyone to delete their education PDFs, nobody would care.
If OneCoin tomorrow announced they were deleting everyone’s Ponzi points, there’d be riots.
That’s pretty much what it comes down to, with the points why people are investing funds. The pseudo-compliance claim that people are paying tens of thousands of dollars for rehashed Wikipedia articles is beyond weak.
That’s right Oz. Same here (as far as I could see).
Here is something that might be helpful for you. It’s an article from a Swiss newspaper, called “Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ)- Digitale Währung OneCoin Lockruf des schnellen Geldes, von Ronny Nicolussi 29.4.2016, 13:58 Uhr”.
The headline: “Konsumentenschutz warnt” is the mostinteresting one I guess.
It’s in German as you can see …
Digital Currency Onecoin – Call of the Fast Money by Ronny Nicolussi etc.
The British newspaper – the Mirror – wrote an article which is called: Who wants to be a OneCoin millionaire? YOU don’t – here’s why hyped-up web currency is virtually worthless. It was written by Andrew Penman
The German online newspaper all-in.de – das allgäu online – reported (April 13. 2016), regarding the “Walthofener Gusswerk” case, that Ignatova received a “suspended sentence” (1 Year, 2 month + 18 T EUR).
Link: “More Then Three Years After the Bankrupt: Supended Sentence for the former CEO of the Walthofener Gusswerk”
The prologue of this story can be found on a “IG Metall – Kempten” homepage.
Link: Gusswerk Waltenhofen: IG Metall und Betriebsrat fordern Firmengeld zurück (IG Metall and the “Works Council” Wants Companies Money Back)
The famous German news-magazine “Der Spiegel” also wrote an article about OC and her CEO. It’s called “Faktor Fünf (Factor Five)” and it was written by Anne Seith (Published on April 17. 2016 on . p 88).
It confirms the Suspended Sentence and it relates to foreign media reports and warns through the “German Consumer Protection (Dorothea Mohn)”. In this article, Ignatova claims – via statement – , that the company went broke because of the economic crises an that her lawyers will go on “appeal” regarding the above mentioned verdict.
There is no direct link for this article available but another homepage uploaded a scan of it:
The Austrian television network “ORF – Steiermark ORF” wrote an article where the Austrian “official representation of employees” is warning the “public” against frauds regarding digital currencies in general and OC. (April 11. 2016)
Furthermore, the article states that the OC homepage is not available at present due to “construction works” (as OC states). It is also mentioned there that OC aroused the suspicion that they might be using a “Ponzi-Scheme”. For more information: