InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DOJ charges six with crypto fraud
On June 30, the DOJ charged six individuals in four separate cases for allegedly playing a role in several cryptocurrency-related fraud schemes. In its press release announcing the indictments, the DOJ said these schemes include “the largest known Non-Fungible Token (NFT) scheme charged to date, a fraudulent investment fund that purportedly traded on cryptocurrency exchanges, a global Ponzi scheme involving the sale of unregistered crypto securities, and a fraudulent initial coin offering.”
- Crypto NFT Scheme: The DOJ charged a Vietnamese national with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit international money laundering related to his involvement in an NFT project, in which the individual and his co-conspirators allegedly engaged in a “rug pull” that ended the investment project and stole roughly $2.6 million from investors. Shortly after the rug pull, the DOJ said in its announcement that the individuals allegedly “laundered investors’ funds through ‘chain-hopping,’ a form of money laundering in which one type of coin is converted to another type and funds are moved across multiple cryptocurrency blockchains.” The individuals also allegedly used decentralized cryptocurrency swap services to hide the trail of investors’ stolen funds.
- Crypto Ponzi and Unregistered Securities Scheme: The DOJ charged two Brazilian nationals and a Florida resident with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in connection with a global cryptocurrency-based Ponzi scheme that generated approximately $100 million from investors. The Brazilian nationals were also charged with conspiracy to commit international money laundering. According to the DOJ, the individuals fraudulently promoted a cryptocurrency investment platform and unregistered securities offering by misrepresenting a purported proprietary trading bot and falsely guaranteeing returns to investors. The Brazilian nationals allegedly laundered investors’ funds through a foreign-based cryptocurrency exchange and paid earlier platform investors with money obtained from later investors, the DOJ said. The SEC also filed a lawsuit against all three individuals and their company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- Crypto Initial Coin Offering Scheme: A California resident who founded a cryptocurrency investment platform was charged by the DOJ with one count of securities fraud for his role in a cryptocurrency fraud scheme involving the platform’s initial coin offering (ICO), which raised roughly $21 million from investors globally. According to the DOJ, the individual falsified information in company white papers for prospective investors, promoted fake testimonials, and fabricated purported business relationships with the Federal Reserve Board and dozens of major companies to appear legitimate.
- Crypto Commodities Scheme: The DOJ charged the owner of a cryptocurrency investment platform with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, four counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, and one count of obstruction of justice. The Nevada resident allegedly raised approximately $12 million from investors by using the platform to solicit investors’ participation in an unregistered commodity pool (“a fund that combines investors’ contributions to trade on the futures and commodity markets”), told investors that he used a trading bot that “could execute over 17,000 transactions per hour on various cryptocurrency exchanges” to earn profits, and falsely represented that this trading bot would generate between 500 to 600 percent returns on the amount invested.
“Our office is committed to protecting investors from sophisticated scammers seeking to capitalize on the relative novelty of digital currency,” U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez for the Southern District of Florida stated. “As with any emerging technology, those who invest in cryptocurrency must beware of profit-making opportunities that appear too good to be true.”
OFAC sanctions Iranians for attempting to influence 2020 U.S. presidential election
On November 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13848 against six Iranian individuals and one Iranian entity for allegedly attempting to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election. According to OFAC, “state-sponsored Iranian cyber actors executed an online operation to intimidate and influence American voters, and to undermine voter confidence and sow discord” by obtaining or attempting to obtain U.S. voter information, sending threatening and intimidating emails to voters, crafting and disseminating “disinformation pertaining to the election and election security,” and illicitly accessing “content management accounts of several online U.S. media entities, which resulted in their ability to edit and create fraudulent content.” As a result, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, as well as any entities owned 50 percent or more by such persons. U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from entering into transactions with the sanctioned persons. Additionally, OFAC warned that “financial institutions and other persons that engage in certain transactions or activities with the sanctioned entity and individuals may expose themselves to sanctions or be subject to an enforcement action.”
The sanctions are part of a collective effort with the U.S. Department of State and the FBI. Concurrent with the designations, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against two of the sanctioned individuals. The DOJ charged the Iranian nationals with (i) conspiracy to commit computer fraud and abuse, voter intimidation, and transmission of interstate threats, (ii) voter intimidation, and (iii) transmission of interstate threats. One of the individuals was additionally charged with unauthorized computer intrusion and computer fraud.
DOJ charges payment processing executives involved in $150 million scheme
On August 26, the DOJ unsealed an indictment in the District of Massachusetts against four individuals, charging them with “conspiring to deceive banks and credit card companies into processing more than $150 million in credit and debit card payments on behalf of merchants involved in prohibited and high-risk businesses, including online gambling, debt collection, debt reduction, prescription drugs, and payday lending.” According to the announcement, executives of a Los Angeles-based payment processing company secured payment processing for these high-risk businesses through fraudulent misrepresentations about merchant clients. As a payment processor, the company “enabl[ed] merchant clients to accept debit and credit card payments over global electronic payment networks run by major card brands” and “served as an intermediary between its merchant clients and financial institution members of the card brand networks.” Two of the individuals were charged with conspiring to commit wire fraud, and two others were charged with conspiring to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Among other things, the DOJ asserts that the individuals and their co-conspirators allegedly made fraudulent misrepresentations to financial institutions, card brands, and others about the type of transactions that were being processed along with the true identities of the merchant clients, created shell companies and fake websites to make it appear that they were selling low-risk goods, and “miscategorized the true nature of the transactions” by using industry-standard codes.
Custody bank to pay $115 million to end overbilling investigation
On May 13, a Massachusetts-based custody bank entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (agreement) with the DOJ related to a criminal indictment for a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. According to the DOJ’s press release, the bank acknowledged that, from at least 1998 through 2015, it, along with eight co-conspirator bank executives (collectively, “defendants”), defrauded clients of more than $290 million by charging hidden markups to out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses “on top of fees that the clients had agreed to pay the bank, and despite written agreements that caused clients to believe the expenses would be passed through to them without a markup.”
Under the terms of the agreement, the bank agreed to (i) pay a $115 million monetary penalty; (ii) continue to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office; (iii) enhance its compliance practices; and (iv) hire an independent compliance and business ethics monitor for two years. The DOJ credited the bank for (i) voluntarily disclosing its misconduct; (ii) cooperating with the DOJ’s investigation; (iii) undertaking remedial measures to enhance its compliance program and to ensure consequences for individuals and business units involved in the misconduct; (iv) reimbursing affected clients for the overbilled amounts; and (v) previously paying $88 million in civil money penalties to the SEC and $8.575 million in civil penalties to state regulators.
DOJ unveils charges against Maduro, Venezuelan government officials
On March 26, the DOJ announced criminal charges against numerous current and former Venezuelan government officials, including “Former President” Nicolás Maduro Moros and two Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) leaders. The charges include allegedly engaging in drug trafficking, laundering drug proceeds using Florida real estate and luxury goods, corruption, and bribery. According to an unsealed four-count superseding indictment filed in the Southern District of New York, Maduro, along with five other high-ranking officials, participated in a “narco-terrorism conspiracy,” conspired to import large-scale cocaine shipments into the U.S., and used—or conspired to use—“machine guns and destructive devices” to further the narco-terrorism conspiracies. The charges also allege that Maduro and the officials negotiated and facilitated FARC-produced cocaine shipments, coordinated “foreign affairs with Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking,” and solicited assistance from FARC leadership with respect to militia training.
A separate indictment unsealed in the District of Columbia charges the current Venezuelan Minister of Defense with conspiracy to distribute cocaine on a U.S.-registered aircraft. That individual was previously sanctioned in 2018 by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
A criminal complaint was also filed in the Southern District of Florida charging the current Chief Justice of the Venezuelan Supreme Court with accepting “tens of millions of dollars and bribes to illegally fix dozens of civil and criminal cases,” including a case in which the defendant authorized the dismissal of charges brought against a Venezuelan who was “charged in a multibillion-dollar fraud scheme against the Venezuelan state-owned oil company.” According to the complaint, the defendant laundered the proceeds through U.S. bank accounts, and spent approximately $3 million in South Florida on a private aircraft and luxury goods.
Another unsealed indictment in the Southern District of New York charges three additional Venezuelans with evading OFAC sanctions by working “with U.S. persons and U.S.-based entities to provide private flight services for the benefit of Maduro’s 2018 presidential campaign.”
Additional separate indictments accuse various former Venezuelan officials of drug trafficking and military aircraft smuggling. In addition, several individuals were charged with FCPA violations, including: (i) two individuals for allegedly receiving bribes to award business to U.S.-based companies; and (ii) several individuals for allegedly participating in an international money laundering scheme and conspiring to solicit Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) vendors “for bribes and kickbacks in exchange for providing assistance to those vendors in connection with their PDVSA business.” According to the DOJ’s press release, the scheme involved “bribes paid by the owners of U.S.-based companies to Venezuelan government officials to corruptly secure energy contracts and payment priority on outstanding invoices.”
OFAC Imposes Additional Iranian Sanctions, List Includes Entities Involved in DDoS Attacks Against U.S. Financial Institutions
On September 14, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced it was imposing sanctions on 11 entities and individuals for supporting designated Iranian actors or for conducting malicious cyberattacks, including engaging in a series of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against approximately 46 U.S. financial institutions. As reported in an indictment delivered by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York (see March 24, 2016 DOJ press release), the DDoS attacks—allegedly conducted by seven Iranian individuals between December 2011 and mid-2013—denied customers access to online bank accounts and collectively cost the affected financial institutions “tens of millions of dollars in remediation costs as they worked to neutralize and mitigate the attacks on their [computer] servers.” During a DDoS attack, a “malicious actor” gains remote control of a server through the installation of malicious software. Once compromised, the “malicious actor” can collect hundreds or thousands of these compromised devices (collectively known as a “botnet”), and, once control is achieved, will “direct the computers or servers comprising the botnet to carry out computer network attack[s] and computer network exploitation activity.” Three of the seven sanctioned individuals worked for a company that was added to OFAC’s updated SDN list on September 14 and oversaw a network of compromised computers that powered DDoS attacks. The other four individuals operated a second DDoS botnet on behalf of a different company listed on OFAC’s non-SDN list. Both Iranian-based private computer security companies perform work on behalf of the Iranian Government, including Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Pursuant to E.O. 13694, U.S. persons are prohibited from dealing with the designated entities and individuals, and “foreign financial institutions that facilitate significant transactions for, or persons that provide material or certain other support to, the entities and individuals designated today risk exposure to sanctions that could sever their access to the U.S. financial system or block their property and interests in property under U.S. jurisdiction.”
In addition, pursuant to E.O. 13382, OFAC sanctioned an Iranian-based engineering company for engaging in activities related to Iran’s ballistic missile program, which include providing “ financial, material, technological, or other support for, or goods or services in support of, the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps].” Two Ukrainian-based companies were also sanctioned pursuant to E.O. 13224 for assisting previously sanctioned Iranian and Iraqi airlines in obtaining U.S.-origin aircraft, as well as crew and services.Ukrainian Billionaire Files Motion to Dismiss Indictment
A Ukrainian billionaire indicted in 2013 for his alleged role in a conspiracy to bribe government officials in India to permit the mining of titanium minerals filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on May 9 in a federal district court in Illinois. The billionaire also faces money laundering and RICO charges along with five alleged coconspirators. In 2015, an Austrian court denied the United States’ extradition request, but that decision was eventually reversed and the billionaire was extradited earlier this year. See previous Scorecard coverage here.
The billionaire’s motion to dismiss focuses on the lack of jurisdictional contact between the charged conduct and the United States. It vigorously challenges the jurisdictional basis alleged in the indictment, which was that the billionaire’s coconspirators, but not the billionaire himself, transferred money through United States correspondent banks, traveled to the United states, and used email accounts and cellular phones hosted on servers in the United States. However, the billionaire claims that the indictment fails to allege that any of these contacts have any connection to the alleged bribery scheme and that he never entered the United States in connection with the charged conduct, and never made or received any phone calls or sent or received any emails regarding the allegations in the indictment.
The amount and quality of contacts with the United States required to support jurisdiction under the FCPA is a frequently contested issue. The United States has repeatedly taken the position that jurisdiction is proper even where the wrongful conduct took place outside the United States and did not involve any United States companies or citizens, so long as there was some contact with the United States. For example, in the recent Hungarian telecommunications company cases, emails sent through servers hosted in the United States were held to be sufficient to support jurisdiction. See previous Scorecard coverage here. The outcome of the billionaire’s motion to dismiss will shed further light on the jurisdictional standard.