Every other day, a new fraud aimed at bitcoin investors emerges. Bitcoin frauds are frequently talked about online on various social media sites, and once a large quantity of money is poured in, they vanish just as fast. After committing a theft, the fraudsters are always pursued by the appropriate authorities. A recent verdict, however, may potentially hold internet marketers of similar schemes equally responsible.
Bitconnect Class Action Decision Has Been Reversed
The BitConnect fraud was addressed in 2018 by the lawsuit, which might lead to a widespread practice throughout the world. The Ponzi fraud stole about $2 billion from investors by operating a pyramid scheme that promised exponential returns on investments, as well as bonuses for referrals and other activities.
Those who were victims of the fraud launched a class-action lawsuit in 2018 against BitConnect and its notable proponents. Glenn Arcaro, former director and promoter of BitConnect, who claimed to be the “number one promoter” of the cryptocurrency, stood out among the charges. Allegations against Glenn, on the other hand, were dismissed earlier by a district court, which stated that Arcaro did not aggressively push the victims to invest.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit admits in a recent statement that the district court’s original rejection of the accusations against the BitConnect proponents will be reversed. The court also explains why this is true.
According to the court’s new notice, which was spotted by The Verge on Friday, the defenders (Glenn Arcaro and Ryan Maasen) had previously insisted that they could not be held liable for BitConnect’s promotion because “the Securities Act covers sales pitches to specific people, not communications directed to the general public at large.” Arcaro’s “major participation” in BitConnect’s pyramid-on-Ponzi scheme is also highlighted by the court. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that victims of the Bitconnect Ponzi scam can file a class-action lawsuit, overturning a prior order that barred such a proceeding.
