OneCoin wastes almost 2 yrs chasing Coinspondent, achieves nothing.
The “bitcoin vs. OneCoin” lawsuit that has been playing out in Germany has come to an end.
The final judgement wasn’t an outright win for the defendants, but equally not an outcome OneCoin was hoping for.
Coming off OneCoin’s ban in Germany, the Ponzi scheme decided that factual reporting of the ban was a legal matter.
Instead of targeting major German publications that covered the ban however, OneCoin decided to pick on Coinspondent, an independent publisher.
To that end OneCoin demanded Coinspondent remove coverage of their German ban and pay the company a €1440.40 EUR extortion fee.
Coinspondent decided not to pay the fee and so OneCoin filed for an injunction against the website.
The injunction was denied.
In the meantime Coinspondent raised over €10,000 EUR and filed a “negative declatory” action against OneCoin and a German investor.
As I understand it Coinspondent’s lawsuit is or is similar to filing of a counterclaim.
The aim of the filing was to legally clarify that OneCoin’s and its investor’s lawsuit against Coinspondent was baseless.
In a February 4th update, Coinspondent reveals that last August their “negative declaratory action” was heard before the Berlin District Court.
As summarized by Coinspondent, the court found as follows;
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.
Seriously, that’s what almost two years in court got OneCoin.
Both parties legal costs are to be covered by OneCoin, although Coinspondent is doubtful he’ll be reimbursed.
Even then, Coinspondent’s author states he’s
very satisfied with this result of the dispute, even if there has been no real judgment.
As to the donated funds, donors will be given the option to request a refund – even if that means Coinspondent will have to cover the balance.
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 collapsed in January 2017. Only the pyramid recruitment side of the business still operates, and barely at that.
BaFin, Germany’s top financial regulator, has stated the Ponzi scheme is “one of the most dangerous money games of recent years”.
As at the time of publication, OneCoin remains banned in Germany.