Daniel Pacheco’s hilarious fraud lawsuit answers rejected
Daniel Pacheco’s hilarious answers to the SEC’s iPro Network fraud lawsuit have been rejected by the court.
Back in August we covered Pacheco’s hilarious answers to the SEC’s lawsuit.
According to Pacheco (right), the SEC can’t sue him because;
- a statute of limitations applies;
- “the SEC did not suffer any actual damages”; and
- Pacheco “may have additional defenses current unknown to (him)”.
In legal terms, these defenses boil down to a non-affirmative defense, alleged prejudice and misconduct on the SEC’s behalf.
As per an October 31st order;
The SEC argues that Pacheco’s assertions are nothing more than a denial of the SEC’s recitation of facts, which is not an affirmative defense.
Moreover, the SEC argues that Pacheco has not established any prejudice to his defense from the SEC’s purported misconduct, much less a prejudice that rises to a constitutional level.
If it is true that Pacheco’s misappropriation of investor funds had no bearing on IPro’s insolvency, the SEC argues that Pacheco remains free to prove that fact – for example, through IPro’s business and financial records.
The Court agrees with the SEC that Pacheco has not alleged that a purported misconduct from the SEC that resulted in a constitutional prejudice to his defense.
At the hearing, Pacheco argued that his due process would be denied if his affirmative defense were to be stricken because he will be denied the opportunity to present his defense.
However, if Pacheco is correct that he did not misallocate and misappropriate distributor funds, he can still present such a defense.
Indeed, if it is true that the only reason Pacheco was not able to return investor funds was driven by Fintact’s withholding of the funds caused by the SEC’s intervention, again, Defendant is, again, free to present such a defense.
The Court determines that there is no constitutional prejudice that arises from the SEC’s alleged misconduct.
The order grants the SEC’s motion, which challenged Pacheco’s raised defenses.
In related news a November 4th Scheduling conference has been vacated. As of yet a replacement date has not been set.
Another October 31st order has tentatively scheduled a December 15th, 2020 trial date.
If the SEC could tie iPro Scam to things like his customers came from lists provided by OneCoin and that they supposedly met with Ruja, etc.
With the court case going on now finding OneCoin as a pyramid ponzi scam. They could probably bury Pacheco in accusations he would have to defend.
@Ty – Not only did his USA Customers come from Onecoin databases (allegedly at least 27,000 USA OC victims), but many of the iPro LEADERS came directly from there, as well: Jason Richard Mangan (and wife) had allegedly Registered ownership of affiliated entities.
Sal Leto and Maurice Katz (who were amongst USA OC first-movers like Glenn Smith) negotiated the db’s directly with Ruja.
Sarah Keith McGee, Kevin Foster (and wife), along with many others who’s names I’m sure we could easily drum up, were also first Top Leaders/ Promoters of the new scam focused on US soil.
Fun Fact:
Tom McMurrain was also a very early recruited misLeader into iPro, but like Nigel Allan with Onecoin, McMurrain’s serial Ponzi history was so blatant and vile already, that even the iPro scammers booted him (just like Ruja and Seb did to Nigel).
Both were bitter. Nigel, after Onecoin excommunication pursued ________scam(s) and Tom, after iPro excommunication, launched CoinMD scam.
Up in Canada, the top leader/scam promoter was John King and his sidekick Chris Ripatti.
@TimTayshun
I wonder if the SEC is aware of these dubious connections? Seems it would make their case a slam dunk.
Yes the SEC is aware of these connections.
Good to hear that. Thanks.
Coin Market Cap shows no page for worthless Procurrency, today.
coinmarketcap.com/currencies/procurrency/
Oh well. False alarm. Must have been checking during an update or something. I’m glad it’s back though, cause I enjoy checking to see how low it can go.
At this moment: $0.000103, which means that it would take 97 procoins to make one penny!
They also failed to pay several of their small vendors, specifically my Design Agency.
They owed us $40K – and claimed “they were advised not to pay for services rendered….” devastating for a small business.
I’m still wondering if I’m going to get my money back that I invested and have tried to take out for the last 2.5 years??
You might at some point. Unlikely any time soon.