Finland’s NBI to continue monitoring OneCoin
Back in June BehindMLM reported that OneCoin was under police investigation in Finland.
The investigation, headed up by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), sought to establish whether or not OneCoin was operating in Finland as a pyramid scheme.
After months of quiet it was announced last week that the results of the NBI investigation were to be made public this Wednesday.
The report has since been published sometime in the last few hours, with the NBI not taking further action against OneCoin at this time.
The NBI’s investigation into OneCoin established that
OneCoin’s operations are managed from Bulgaria.
Considerable sums of money (from Finland) are paid into the company’s bank accounts for training packages.
The NBI do not elaborate further on what OneCoin do with funds invested, suggesting they weren’t able to obtain that information.
That in itself is not surprising, considering OneCoin likely use banking channels in Asia.
Upon the NBI completing their preliminary investigation, further action now appears to be in the hands of the Prosecutor’s Office.
The Finnish Prosecutor’s Office has examined the National Bureau of Investigation’s report.
As per Chapter 3 of the Criminal Investigations Act, § 3. and on the basis of (the NBI’s) investigative material, (the Prosecutor’s Office) will look into wheither it (OneCoin) is associated with criminal activity.
(This) can be reliably estimated after publication (of OneCoin’s source-code), which is likely to happen by the end of 2016.
The last sentence of the translation above suggests that criminal activity is present, but further investigation is required.
As to the crypto-currency source code. It has no bearing on ROIs paid out by OneCoin. A cryptocurrency script in and of itself does not generate ROI funds.
In OneCoin, those funds are sourced from newly invested affiliate funds – making OneCoin a Ponzi scheme.
The NBI meanwhile explain that, based on their own preliminary investigation, they currently don’t have enough to take the case further.
Accordingly, the NBI (KRP) will continue to monitor OneCoin’s activities.
KRP will continue with relevant information gathering utilizing the domestic and international intelligence channels. Should the situation change, the matter will be reviewed.
National Bureau of Investigation calls for the utmost caution with the participation of these types of opportunity because they are associated with difficult to anticipate economic and criminal risks.
(In the) National Bureau of Investigation’s view, the promise or expectation of an oversize yield are not realistic.
Realistic or not, the implied promise of “oversized yields” is exactly why purportedly thousands of OneCoin investors have dumped millions of dollars into the scheme.
I suspect a large factor in the NBI’s decision is the fact that OneCoin has no formal business or banking operations in Finland.
As they state, the company is based out of Bulgaria. The exact nature of OneCoin’s banking operations is unclear, but we do know murky banking channels in China play a significant role (owing to the region being a primary source of new investment into the scheme).
Owing to these murky banking channels, complaints about lengthy withdrawal times are a staple on OneCoin’s Facebook page:
Dr Ruja madam now with draw is taking so much time. from last one month withdraw is not taking place.. no response is getting from support. plz look into matter seriously. (October 29th)
Other comments discussing OneCoin withdrawal problems that were published last I checked OneCoin’s Facebook page, have since been deleted.
If the NBI pressed the matter further at this time, it is unlikely to have an effect on OneCoin’s global business operations. Of note is the mention of “international intelligence channels”, which suggests OneCoin is already be on the regulatory radar of other countries.
Owing to the secretive nature of regulatory investigations however, obviously no further specifics are available at this time.
In any event, from the sounds of it Finnish Public Prosecutors suspect criminal activity and their own investigation continues. I imagine whatever comes of that will be limited to prosecution of local Finnish promoters of OneCoin when the time comes.
For now, OneCoin’s gobal Ponzi fraud continues…
That is your assumption not stated in the NBI report.
Correct translated Prosecutors found that IF (not it), OneCoin is associated with criminal activity, it will be reliably estimated until the time of publication which is likely to happen at the end of 2016. So in other words wait until the end of 2016 and then you will now.
You might want to look up the word “suggesting” in a dictionary.
As per auto-translate –
A Public Prosecutors Office prosecutes people. They wouldn’t be further investigating the NBI’s findings if they didn’t think there was a case (or cases).
PS. Use the same alias you started with.
Suggesting – you are pointing people to your personal opinion. Why not letting people read the NBI result and make their own conclusions ?
We all know that Google Translate doesn’t do a perfect job.
But reading the whole sentence you can understand that if it would be that it said the OneCoin is associated with criminal activity they would have been prosecuted.
Hence it says IF and pointing to the end of 2016. So at the end of 2016 we will know if it is a criminal acitivity or not. Happy to help. 🙂
Owner of blog shares opinion on blog. More news at 6…
Now who’s assuming…
The only people Public Prosecutors in Finland can bring charges about are local promoters. That obviously requires additional investigation on the Public Prosecutors behalf (NBI only investigated OneCoin).
Whether they do or not remains to be seen, with a timeframe of 12-13 months given.
Personally I think OneCoin will reach Ponzi critical mass long before then. 2 years or so it the standard for online schemes before the ROIs spiral well and truly out of control.
One statement is that Ruja can do whatever she wants with the money and the onecoin site. Probably right there.
The same goes for you blog. You have total control and can remove any comments that don’t suite your agenda as well.
If you are correct then we will have our answer soon enough. It’s like christmas. Can’t wait 🙂
I moderate offtopic spam and derail attempts, within the context of the article being commented on.
Anything further offtopic will be marked as such. This isn’t Facebook.
The main conclusion was that NBI National Bureau of Investigation had found enough reason to continue with a criminal investigation.
It’s not a preliminary investigation anymore, but a normal criminal one. The investigation has been upgraded rather than downgraded.
It also found reason to warn consumers / investors against it.
The way I see it is that this is good news. This pressures the OneCoin leaders to actually deliver what they have said.
Either way it will either crash in a near future or be a success.
From the article …
Most of the Chinese affiliates are probably fake ones.
OneCoin’s main banking channels have been listed in marketing material.
* A bank in Sofia, Bulgaria. “DSK Bank” or something.
* A bank in Dubai.
* Onepay.eu as payment processor.
* UnionPay in China has been on and off as an “upcoming solution”.
* Hermes Bank seemed to be familiar with OneCoin as a company.
Which article so we can read it?
Here’s the bank in Dubai:
Those two banks, DSK Bank in Bulgaria and Mashreq Bank in UAE, have been listed on multiple websites as the official methods for wire transfer of funds IN to OneCoin. Mashreq was removed in September.
The idea that “murky banking channels in China play a significant role” can be useful as unverified, secondary information. It’s based on the theory that “the region being a primary source of new investment into the scheme”.
I’m pretty sure at some point the fund that are deposited in are then transferred to Asia. These are the accounts that will be attached to outgoing transfer methods (payment processors).
M_Norway was quoting from the BehindMLM article itself.
Payment processors for OneCoin back office were … as listed in a training video:
* OnePay (onepay.eu)
* Perfect Money (perfectmoney.is / perfectmoney.com)
* China Union Pay (chinaunionpay.com)
FAKE ACCOUNTS FROM CHINA
User names like that are generated by a software or a script.
I’m a native finnish speaker and I want to clear some obvious translation errors that seem to create some confusion. These are quite quick translations where I try to paraphrase the contents of these paragraphs to somewhat understandable english.
Most of the time google translate and other similar tools are quite unreliable when it comes to translating anything to finnish or from finnish to some other language.
Some parts of that police bulletin is written using such grammar structures that will certainly create a hell of a mess in any translation tool…
What is said here (leaving out some unnecessary references to Finnish law):
**This “publication” refers to the previous paragraph where it is stated that the onecoin source code can be expected to be published earliest by the end of 2016.
This does not refer to any report by prosecutors office or by police…….. In other words, right now it seems the police and the prosecutor will be waiting until the pyramid collapses, because it’s quite obvious that there won’t be any publication of (non-existent) source code….
What is said here:
So….there is no ongoing criminal investigation because they didn’t find enough reason to start one at this time. They will be following the matter.
This last paragraph makes me believe that none of the participants in this scheme (in Finland that is) feel like they have been scammed (at this moment). And even if they feel so, they have not reported this to the police.
If the cops had even one crime report by someone who though they had lost their money, there would be much stonger case….and they could more easily start an actual criminal investigation. But it seems we will have to wait for that….
For now, the police is in a situation where they feel they don’t have even a strong enough suspicion that somebody would have been subjected to some sort of a crime.
I think that a factor here is that onecoin has officially only declared that they are selling training material and that’s what folks are supposedly getting from them in exchange of their money…
Thanks for the clarifications Mr_Finland. I’ve updated the article to better reflect the source-text.
I do believe a source-code is running somewhere to generate the coins, but this is neither here nor there. Instead of creating the Ponzi points manually for distribution they just have an algorithm do it.
The problem is and always has been the ROI value attached to the points, which is pegged to and paid out of newly invested affiliate funds.
Sadly victims of Ponzi schemes don’t report they’ve been scammed until the ROIs collapse completely, by which time it’s far too late.
Well that’s disingenuous at best.
OneCoin no more sell “education packages” than Zeek Rewards were selling penny auction bids.
It’s the Ponzi points being invested in, that much should be obvious to anyone researching OneCoin.
As an information type for a fact oriented blog, that should be seen as “secondary information”.
Ben or some others with OneCoin accounts can probably fill in some accurate information about transaction methods for money IN and money OUT. I used third party sources, e.g. I checked a video rather than an actual account.
“Murky banking channels in China” have very little substance as information. It doesn’t point to any specific type of source, e.g. “several OneCoin affiliates have reported being paid through murky banking channels in China”, or “OneCoin’s T&C lists some murky banking channels in China among its withdrawal options”.
You will either need to add some substance to it or you will need to classify it as “vague theory, not yet verified”. 🙂
There was a bunch of comments on the OneCoin Facebook page complaining about China UnionPay withdrawal problems. Might have something to do with this:
I also some about not being allowed to talk about OneCoin China but nothing concrete.
It is secondary information till we read a regulatory complaint. You can’t expect money launderers to hang all their washing out to dry…
I mentioned it here because it’s reasonable to expect NBI investigators from Finland aren’t going to get very far chasing up money trails in Asia (or anywhere outside of the EU for that matter).
Their investigation can only go so far on what they currently have available to them.
Thank you for clarifying the details.
We try to avoid using too many translated sources because they will usually cause a lot of confusion. We prefer to have some native ones telling about the main content.
From that part of the message, it sounds like someone has sent them the wrong type of information, or that they have entered the case from the wrong perspective — as some type of “cyber crime” or something rather than as “investment fraud”.
OneCoin is primarily an investment fraud, a Ponzi scheme type of investment fraud. It’s also a pyramid scheme type of fraud. Any cyber crime component will be secondary or tertiary, but OneCoin clearly has some potential for that too. It also has some potential for money laundering and tax fraud.
I have used a rather broad definition of “investment” there in the “investment fraud”, focused on how OneCoin operates in reality rather than on specific laws. A prosecutor or an enforcement agency will need to find the correct laws themselves.
That’s why we should focus on identifiable information properly backed up by sources rather than on “vague theories”.
China Union Pay is one of the listed withdrawal options. It can clearly be identified by name rather than as “murky payment processor in China”.
One problem is that I used third party sources, e.g. back office training videos and “payment instructions”. And I didn’t focus on any details, I just tried to get a quick overview. I haven’t specifically tried to identify “active payment channels in and out of the OneCoin program”.
China UnionPay isn’t a bank though. It’s the bank accounts attached to China UnionPay that are murky :).
I figure there’s something going on there, just not privy to the specifics of it. It’ll come out one day.
Anyway point taken, let’s focus on the knowns for now.
You have probably interpreted it correctly. “The case is currently too vague for any specific criminal investigation, but we will continue to monitor the case”.
The prosecutor will need to find some identifiable substance, something that can be identified clearly, something he can build a case on. And it will need to be about criminal activities.
I will try to look into the report for how THEY see it.
I will simply ignore “translation defects” here.
1. The case itself, what they have looked into and the type of sources.
* They have consulted OneCoin representatives and some vaguely identified “experts in the field”. That indicates that they have focused on crypto-currencies as a main factor.
2. The company itself and how it operates / claims to operate.
* Managed from Bulgaria.
* People pay for training packages.
3. A focus on the mining process?
* From that perspective, the case is clearly too vague for any further criminal investigation, so the decision is actually correct enough.
4. A conclusion that some required information first will be available later, sometime in late 2016. The case as it currently is doesn’t meet some requirements in Criminal Investigation Act, Chapter 3, §3.
* That’s about WHY they have made that decision. There’s not enough identifiable “substance” to support an investigation.
5. “The case will be monitored”, etc.
* The decision isn’t final. The decision will be reviewed if relevant new information becomes available.
6. General consumer / investor warning.
7. “File a complaint if you feel you have been defrauded”.
Another way to look at it is to look at the type of “substance” they have tried to identify.
* The company itself, and where the company is located.
* Products or services offered.
* Payment methods.
* Local participants / customers / investors / victims.
* How the company operates in reality, primarily based on its own description?
* Crypto-currencies and mining process.
The main focus seems to have been on crypto-currencies and the mining process, in how the case has been identified.
A third way to look at it is to look at what a “preliminary investigation” is about, e.g. purpose of the investigation, steps and procedures, etc.
I have some problems with translated sources, so I decided to look at an English description from the Swedish public prosecutor. That’s “close enough”.
* A potential crime will first need to be reported.
* They will need to identify a suspect, the type of crime, potential victims, etc. — all the relevant elements.
You seem to have interpreted it quite correctly.
The case itself is currently too vague for any criminal investigation.
The focus in the report on crypto-currencies and mining doesn’t mean that they haven’t looked into it as a potential investment fraud or as a pyramid scheme. It only means that crypto-currency, mining and educational packages were the parts they most clearly could identify.
Nice work. Finally some real facts.
Mr_Finland helps out a lot to clarify thing. The important thing are facts and not personal statement.
The part: The last sentence of the translation above suggests that criminal activity is present, but further investigation is required.
According to Mr_Finlands native finnish translation that is wrong. It should say that criminal activity can’t be proven at this time until the source code is public and the mining process is released.
Other then that great job.
The source-code of the crypto algorithm has nothing to with using newly invested funds to pay out existing investors, so the above sentence is false.
Taken from Mr_Finland: I assume he knows his own language better then we do.
What is said here (leaving out some unnecessary references to Finnish law):
Central Finlands prosecutors office has reviewed the report by Central Criminal Police (KRP) and has concluded that possible illegality of this scheme can be reliably evaluated only when publication** takes place, which probably happens near the end of year 2016.
**This “publication” refers to the previous paragraph where it is stated that the onecoin source code can be expected to be published earliest by the end of 2016.
Yeah… and I’m saying the publishing of a crypto algorithm source-code has nothing to do with establishing Ponzi fraud.
Using newly invested funds to pay off existing investors makes OneCoin a Ponzi scheme, it has nothing to do with a crypto script.
But it is all connected. You guys have stated several times that coin is fake that there probably is a script running showing some fake numbers and so on. Now there could actually be a real cryptocurrency.
You are taking stuff out of context from your own statements.
Putting out a lot of statements and when one of them seems to possible be wrong you say. Well that doesn’t matter because I mentioned another one. If that one fails then you have a third one and so on. Stay true to your own statement that is all the readers ask.
These arguments are relevant to the article just in case.
There, fixed it for ya.
As a matter of interest, Mrno, when you’re playing an online PC, XBox or PS4 type game, how do you decide which parts are “real” and which parts are clever scripting and programming made to look as “real” as possible ???
I think someone wants this to be really a real currency.
I wonder how much you have invested in this scheme at this point.
With all the mining of these coins and no where to spend them where is the value being created for them all again?
Maybe it is in the source code.
littleroundman: Well my point is that whatever statement you put you have to either admit your where wrong or stick to it.
It’s like me hanging you out as a pedofile and a thief. Turns out you may not be a thief, but hey he’s still a pedofile. Even if I can’t prove it.
Adding phrases like PONZI APOLOGISTS doesn’t make your statement the right one. FACTS matter nothing else. Seems to be quite hard for some people to understand the difference between facts and personal statements.
Terrence B : I went in with a starter package. Already tripled my money. Doing this just for test. Doesn’t matter to me if you guys are right and I’m wrong. What matters are facts. How hard can that be.
Tell me something. When bitcoin started and you had your first 100 000 coins. Could you spend them? Could you use them to buy somewhere? If so please share the information because I must have missed that part.
They didn’t have enough evidence to initiate actions against anyone.
That’s the standards in the United States. Finland doesn’t need to have exactly the same standards, but at least it has some types of standards.
NBI / KRP can’t investigate “investment fraud” theories, e.g. it will be unable to get an search warrant from a court if the case is based primarily on theories.
They had enough information to initiate a preliminary investigation, but not enough evidence to proceed with an investigation.
I bet there was not much use for Bitcoins in the early days of cryptocurrency. Then again did anyone have to buy a pdf file for 5000 euros or more to start mining bitcoins?
Are you talking about withdrawals there?
Money in a back office isn’t worth much out in the real world.
No you didn’t have to buy videos, pdf for 130, 500, 1000 euros and so on. But you did have to have your own hardware working around the clock to mine.
Having an electrical bill as high as a skyscraper. Anyone that did try to mine bitcoins know this for a fact.
So it all comes down to different solutions to try to mine these coins.
Now I understand the danger of it possibly being a scam but if there aren’t any real facts it is impossible to state that it is like that.
Innocent until proven guilty it is said or am I wrong?
I have cashed out 3 times more then I have spent. Withdrawals Yes
Thumbs up for facts that people post here. If the facts state that its a criminal activity then I will fight for that cause but that can’t be done without facts.
(Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed)
Actually, what is said is: “Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW”
So, yes, you are wrong.
Happily for victims and potential victims, bloggers don’t have to “prove” anything to the standards required in a court when it comes to exposing internet fraud.
Victims and potential victims have a choice, believe or don’t believe.
You don’t believe.
It’s your money to do with as you will.
Your decision doesn’t affect anyone here one bit.
Having said that, you, on the other hand NEED people to believe, because, without their money, the fraud in which you have chosen to participate will come tumbling down in double quick time.
Your demands for “proof” are nothing more than a red herring to cover the fact without new money from those joining OneCoin after you, OneCoin will collapse as all ponzis do, taking your so called “earnings” along with it.
Starter pack = €100 (paid in)
3×100 = €300 (withdrawn)
net profit = €200
I have the feeling that I’m missing something here, e.g. an additional package or something.
The decision from NBI / KRP wasn’t a question of fact. It was about what the law said. The public prosecutor simply had too weak evidence to go forward with an investigation. But they had enough information to publish a general warning to investors.
The public prosecutor is currently unable to exclude that OneCoin can be a legitimate business, and unable to prove that it isn’t. So the case will be monitored but not investigated.
The facts are unchanged = OneCoin can still be a Ponzi/pyramid hybrid.
I understand and I know that it can still be a ponzi. Having the police monitoring it is good the way I see it. If they aren’t doing things outside of the law then it’s all good. If they are then this will surely cause problems. Win win for everyone who has joined already.
littleroundman: Well by your response you admit that everything you write are purely statements without facts. To be fair this blog actually helps OneCoin because people do read the comments and that turns out to give them more information then the actual article. 🙂
Without writing statements that aren’t backed up with facts you won’t have any visitors to this blog. And without them you won’t get any advertisement money. So how is that different?
Let’s say you are completely correct and this is a Ponzi scheme. The police will be all over them and some people may or may not get their money back. Not a single person I’ve heard of have joined using a fortune. Just ask around and you will find out.
Now let’s say you are completely wrong. What then? You will then have misled people in believing your truth is the ultimate truth and resulting in a missed opportunity. It will probably hurt the credibility of this blog in the future to come then.
So the future will be really interesting to follow.
IMHO, it’s more like OneCoin is probably a Ponzi/Pyramid hybrid, but there’s enough doubt under local law.
Some nations publish warnings immediately (such as Spain about USFIA), while others do an investigation first. Some even announce investigation on Twitter (like Colombia on WCM777).
So THAT’S why you do it.
Whip: Do what ?
Here’s the relevant law — Criminal Investigation Act, Chapter 3, §3 — English version (unofficial translation).
It’s generally not a good idea to read law rules out of context with other rules, but the main point there seems to be about protecting people from being unjustifiable deemed a suspect.
Now you’re comparing pdf files as much as equal to having hardware. So how exactly do you use the pdf-files to mine coins? The pdf files aren’t a solution to mine coins. They are only a bad excuse to collect ponzi money.
Why do you need to mine onecoins? There’s no actual need of complex mathematical algorithms taking years of time for massive server rooms to compute. That would just be complete madness.
Howcome Onecoin does not accept onecoins as a payment method for example purchasing Onecloud? Shouldn’t they be pioneers with accepting onecoins as a payment method?
Maybe you can clear up something for me since you are a major believer and promoter of OneCoin.
On the 13th of October the website “OneCoin-Finland” Tommi Vuorinen, country manager, wrote, and I quote:
Someone who was wanting to confirm if this was true, on the 14th of October sent this email was sent to Hermes Bank customer service:
To which the bank replied very quickly with the following answer and again I quote:
This is not the first lie that has been told by the good Dr and OneCoin, so why doesn’t Finland’s country manager know what he posted was a total lie?
(Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed)
Not comparing pdf to hardware. Pointing out the main difference in the mining procedure.
You do know that mining the last bitcoins for instance take longer then the first ones. Same goes for any cryptocurrency. Not everyone has the knowledge or money to be mining the traditional way. This is another way of solving the same problem.
I understand that it bothers you OZ that it’s education they sell and not just tokens or onecoins. But if thousands of people don’t have a problem with it why spend so much energy on something that doesn’t bother people.
(Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed)
When it comes to the statement from some person in Finland it’s quite difficult for me to have any opinions on that. None of the members I have contact with know anything about Hermes bank. Not official information as far as I know.
I go by the official information not rumors or statements from some upline. If it would come from HQ then I would have had the same question as you have.
I will ask and try to get an official answer. I’ll be back
If you really need this explained to you, read up on how how relevant penny auction bids were in the Zeek Rewards regulatory litigation.
What you attach to a Ponzi scheme is irrelevant.
Here are some undeniable facts:
Ruja & onecoin lied about Forbes Cover & the so called withdraws are little less than a percentage of the monies that these leaders are convincing their friends & family members out of.
You end up with 20% of their money & Ruja Mama gets the other 80%.
When the collapse comes, not only are you broke… You are also am outcast, lose all your friends & family will never trust you again… Just not worth it.
When you are dealing with pyramids, ponzis, pseudo MLMs and fake cryptocurrencies, NOTHING is undeniable
Your Canadian Prof. Moriarty has an interesting disposition judging from his video rants.
He claims to have gone to a police academy; there is NO way he would have passed a psych exam to get on the force.
I have a question about your claim about “tripled your money”. I posted something in post #43.
Did I interpret it correctly in that post?
* one “Starter pack” €100 as initial investment
* withdrawals €300
* net profit €200
The reason why I have to ask is because you were rather vague about it.
You mean he is out of prison? That is if we are talking about the same Prof Moriarty.
Mrno: I don’t get how you call Tommi Vuorinen some person in Finland. He is the country manager for God’s sake.
But as I said, OneCoin and Dr Ruja have lied so many times, one can hardly keep up with them all. This woman has no clue what she is talking about when it comes to e-currency. It is all psycho-babble.
This will be lucky to last until March of next year let alone till the end of 2016.
Country manager doesn’t mean that he is part of the company board. He is a chosen leader. The same goes for any other country.
He is not the manager where I live. So why do you expect me to know every manager of all the different countries where OneCoin is present?
Doesn’t require rocket science to figure out that it’s impossible to know all the managers that exist within OneCoin. You are typing it like Finland is the center of the universe.
All I know is that the information you are talking about is something that came out of Finland and not from HQ or any other manager from where I live or any other country.
This is exactly the problem here. If I tell you being a onecoin member that NASA is accepting OneCoin to finance their space exploration.
You would probably write that stating it as fact. Instead of really trying to see if what I’m saying is true or not or going by the actual fact coming from HQ.
Of all the HQ information that has come out what do you really have to criticize ?
(Ozedit: Offtopic spam removed)
Finland manager is not my manager. Impossible to keep track on all managers around the world. Like I said that’s not official information. Facts are what count.
Stating that 20% can be withdrawn in itself is more then what you guys said before. According to your crews comments you couldn’t withdraw at all. So it increases over time now?
Well I don’t think anyone will be an outcast but if that makes you feel better to think that I can go with that.
Still since your own statements and blog text is changed over time busting a hole in one after one of your beliefs. What would happen if Dr Ruja really delivers what she has set out to do.
You will be seen as idiots for scaring people and friends and causing them to miss an opportunity.
Like I said before. Interesting future.
Can you be more specific about it?
OneCoin affiliates could normally withdraw 60% of commission until late August or early September (60% to “Cash Account”, 40% to “mandatory account”).
Have they made any changes to that?
Like Tommi Vuorinen has said: Onecoin is marketed by professional network marketers. Lying about Forbes cover and Onecoin acquiring a bank just shows such professionalism.
Tommi has also said: “You should not invest in Onecoin more than you are ready to lose with a smile on your face.” – What a cheerful future aspect to all Onecoin investors.
That’s probably correct. OneCoin had multiple withdrawal problems in September. It was first reported on September 1st 2015 from a OneCoin member. It was confirmed by multiple other sources.
We have most likely correctly reported the payment problem in most of its details (failed withdrawals, change of bank, new KYC requiring passport ID for withdrawals, etc.).
Forgive me, but when someone says they are a “country” manager, I take it to mean for the whole country and would be the only one. So surprised that there are more than one country manager.
One of the real big problems that OneCoin has is we are now coming into Black December, and starting the middle of November people start taking money out for Christmas presents. If OneCoin puts a limit on withdrawals to keep money in the system, kiss this bye.