The U.S. District Court has issued a final judgement against two Connecticut-based bitcoin mining companies, ruling that each wasgoed run spil a Ponzi scheme.

GAW Miners and ZenMiner vereiste each pay $Ten.Three million ter disgorgement and prejudgment rente, ter addition to a civil penalty of $1 million.

Both GAW Miners and ZenMiner were founded by Homero Joshua Garza. Through the two businesses, Garza suggested investors shares ter a bitcoin mining operation. However, the actual computing power that wasgoed supposed to be dedicated to bitcoin mining never actually existed, and investors were paid comes back generated from sales to straks investors.

The original complaint, filed by the SEC ter 2015, alleged that the two companies have defrauded overheen Ten,000 investors who believed they were purchasing a share of a legal bitcoin mining operation. GAW Miners and ZenMiner generated $Nineteen million ter the sale of ‘Hashlets’, their term for the portion of hashing power the investors had purchased. Te reality, the companies never possessed the computing power they had sold to investors.

Not only did Garza, and the companies he founded, misrepresent the amount of computing power they possessed, they also knowingly falsified how payouts would be derived, the profitability and life-span of a Hashlet, and the extent of the companies’ mining activities.

On May 29, 2018, the U.S. District Court of Connecticut ruled that the SEC established liability and supported its requests for disgorgement, ease and civil penalties. The amounts were then determined and issued with the final judgement.

According to the litigation release, the SEC is still pursuing litigation against Garza himself.

When the SEC originally began interviewing witnesses associated with GAW Miners, prior to filing suit against the company, they called te Garza’s brother Carlos, who worked spil a salesperson at GAW Miners. When testifying under oath, Carlos Garza refused to reaction questions directed toward him by representatives of the SEC not due to any procedural requirement or rechtsvordering to privilege, but because he wasgoed frightened. Ter fact, during a single questioning period, Garza said that he wasgoed ‘frightened’ or ‘frightened’ a total of sixty-eight times, and therefore could not obey with requests for information. The SEC determined that fear wasgoed not an adequate reason to turn down to conform and successfully petitioned a Massachusetts court to order Garza to reappear and to reaction the questions waterput to him.


No comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>