Fabio Wanzeler’s request that he not be recognized as a TelexFree net-winner, i.e. someone who scammed TelexFree victims out of money, has come to an end.

On December 21st the US Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts denied Wanzeler’s motion.

To add context, Fabio Wanzeler is the brother of TelexFree co-owner Carlos Wanzeler.

TelexFree was a $3 billion+ Ponzi scheme launched in 2012. It was shut down by the SEC in 2014.

BehindMLM covered Fabio Wanzeler’s settlement with the TelexFree Trustee in late 2018. The settlement revealed Wanzeler, a TelexFree net-winner, received $633,578.

The settlement was part of clawback litigation aimed at recovering funds stolen from TelexFree victims by net-winners.

Wanzeler’s settlement saw him give up a property purchased with stolen TelexFree investor funds, and take out a $250,000 mortgage on another property, which would then be transferred to the Trustee.

Within hours of article going live, Wanzeler threatened BehindMLM with defamation.

Despite the settlement document Wanzeler signed being publicly available, Wanzeler asserted it wasn’t the full settlement.

Of course when prompted, Wanzeler wasn’t able to provide an alternative “full” settlement agreement.

If you read through he comments of our coverage you can see the back and forth between myself and Wanzeler.

What it boils down to is Wanzeler objecting to being labelled a net-winner who stole $633,578 from TelexFree victims, and then used that money to purchase properties.

Wanzeler’s requests that we remove coverage of the settlement because we didn’t seek his consent were denied.

I pointed out that’s what was in the settlement he signed, and that if he had an issue with the settlement he should take it up with the Trustee.

This prompted Wanzeler to file a motion with the court, claiming the Trustee secretly added an addendum to the filed settlement agreement.

The Trustee denied the accusation and the motion doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere.

Wanzeler’s next attempt to clear his name was a waffle read of a motion filed in July 2020.

In the motion Wanzeler pulls out the “I knew nothing!” defense, arguing that he didn’t personally recruit “many people” and that somehow made any difference.

The motion was dismissed by the court two days after it was filed.

Wanzeler’s third motion was more of the same, arguing that him being labelled a net-winner was “false”.

The Trustee and his legal team should re-evaluate the terms of the settlements and how they are being applied to TelexFree cases because such settlements are adversely affecting many people who, if precedent is followed fairly, should not be being adversely affected.

In denying Wanzeler’s motion, the court wrote

Mr. Wanzeler indicates that he is seeking only to strike statements about him from the fee applications filed by the trustee and the trustee’s professionals.

Having reviewed those fee applications, the Court finds that the statements therein about Mr. Wanzeler are not demeaning and are not prohibited, including by any prior order of this Court. Accordingly, Mr. Wanzeler’s request to strike such statements is denied.

To the extent that Mr. Wanzeler is seeking other relief, his motion is denied as it generally does not request relief of a kind that the Court has the authority to provide and, to the extent that any relief requested is within the Court’s authority to provide, good cause has not been shown for granting such relief.

In summary, the court reaffirmed Fabio Wanzeler was a Ponzi net-winner who stole $633,578 from TelexFree victims. The money Wanzeler stole was used to enrich himself by buying properties.

Wanzeler was subsequently sued as a TelexFree net-winner by the Trustee. A settlement reached between the parties saw Wanzeler give up one property and $250,000, satisfying the amount stolen.

The moral of this two years in the making story?

If you object to being called out as a Ponzi scammer, don’t be a Ponzi scammer.


Update 5th January 2020 – Fabio Wanzerler has filed a motion for reconsideration on December 31st.

In his motion Wanzeler argues

the Trustee and his professionals should not continue using judicial techniques with judicial key words to strike Wanzeler’s motions.

If not a judicial approach, how the Trustee should respond to Wanzeler’s motions is unclear.

A decision on Wanzeler’s reconsideration motion remains pending.