Four defendants in a lawsuit targeting a number of individuals associated with fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme OneCoin remain unserved.
About a month after the New York Southern District Court denied a motion by the victims of fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme OneCoin for alternative service to a number of defendants in the case, the plaintiffs have now renewed their motion. This becomes clear from a Letter filed with the Court on December 2, 2019, and seen by FinanceFeeds.
Let’s recall that the plaintiffs in this case represent all individuals and entities who transferred to the OneCoin Defendants, directly or indirectly, any fiat currency or cryptocurrency to invest in OneCoin Trader Packages or OneCoins from April 2014 through to and including March 2018 and who suffered financial injury as a result thereof.
On August 23, 2019, in response to defendant Mark S. Scott’s letter motion to stay the instant Action during the pendency of the criminal trial against Scott, the Court issued an Order staying all proceedings in this Action until the plaintiffs accomplished service upon the remaining defendants. Scott’s criminal trial has since concluded and, on November 21, 2019, a Manhattan federal jury found Scott guilty on Count One: Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering and Count Two: Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud.
Additionally, during Scott’s criminal trial it was revealed that Konstantin Ignatov – the brother of “crypto queen” Ruja Ignatova and one of the leaders of OneCoin, has pleaded guilty to the criminal charges issued against him.
In the Letter filed with the Court on December 2, 2019, Lead Plaintiff Donald Berdeaux and Plaintiff Christine Grablis confirm that four defendants remain unserved: (1) OneCoin Ltd ; (2) Ruja Ignatova; (3) Sebastian Greenwood; and (4) Irina Andreeva Dilinska.
On November 1, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Alternative Service without prejudice and suggested that the plaintiffs address the concerns it raised in a renewed application.
On December 2, 2019, the plaintiffs said they were filing a renewed motion for Leave to Effect Alternative Service on the Unserved Defendants. The plaintiffs believe that the Renewed Motion addresses and cures the deficiencies in their first motion.
In their original motion, the plaintiffs proposed service on defendant OneCoin via both Federal Express to OneCoin’s Dubai office, email to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org, and through social media.
The plaintiffs said back they had been unable to locate any addresses where service could ultimately be effectuated on defendants Ignatova, Greenwood, or Dilinska by traditional means under Rule 4(f)(1) and (2). Each of these individual defendants are, or until recently were, high-level executives employed by defendant OneCoin and are believed to be located in Europe; however, their exact whereabouts remain unknown. Accordingly, so as not to delay the prosecution of the Action, the plaintiffs proposed service on defendants Ignatova, Greenwood and Dilinska via Federal Express to OneCoin’s Dubai office and email to each of their last known email addresses.