OneCoin Fraud Victim Claims: How to File for DOJ Compensation Before the June 2026 Deadline
OneCoin Fraud Victim Claims: How to File for DOJ Compensation Before the June 2026 Deadline
On April 13, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the opening of a remission compensation process for victims of OneCoin, the cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of more than $4 billion between 2014 and 2019. More than $40 million in forfeited assets are now available for distribution. Victims have until June 30, 2026, to file a petition through the official claims portal at onecoinremission.com.
The announcement follows years of federal prosecution in the Southern District of New York. Co-founder Karl Sebastian Greenwood was sentenced to 20 years in prison in September 2023. Mark Scott, a former partner at an international law firm, was sentenced to 10 years in January 2024 for laundering approximately $400 million of OneCoin proceeds. Co-founder Ruja Ignatova remains on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.
The compensation process represents the first formal recovery opportunity for OneCoin victims. It is free to participate. The DOJ has stated that no payment is required to file a claim. But the process is governed by federal regulations that impose strict eligibility requirements, documentation standards, and deadlines. Understanding those requirements is the difference between a successful petition and a denied one.
All petitions for remission must be filed by June 30, 2026. Kroll Settlement Administration LLC is administering the process on behalf of the DOJ.
Why This Matters Now
OneCoin is one of the largest cryptocurrency fraud cases ever prosecuted. The DOJ has called it one of the largest global fraud schemes in history. Between 2014 and 2019, OneCoin marketed a fraudulent cryptocurrency through a multi-level marketing network based in Sofia, Bulgaria. There was no blockchain. There was no real cryptocurrency. The value of OneCoin was fabricated internally by the scheme’s operators.
Federal law enforcement has spent years dismantling the operation. The FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York conducted the investigation. The prosecutions resulted in guilty pleas, convictions, and the forfeiture of assets derived from the fraud proceeds.
The opening of the remission process converts those forfeiture proceeds into compensation for victims. This is a significant development. For millions of investors who lost money in OneCoin, it is the first and potentially only mechanism for recovering any portion of their losses through the federal government.
But $40 million against $4 billion in losses means the available fund represents approximately one cent for every dollar stolen. The math is stark. The process matters anyway. For individual victims, any recovery is meaningful. The process also establishes a record that may be relevant in future forfeiture actions if additional OneCoin assets are seized.
The Legal Framework: DOJ Remission Under 28 C.F.R. Part 9
The OneCoin compensation process is a federal remission proceeding. It is not a civil lawsuit. It is not a class action settlement. It is not a bankruptcy distribution. It is a process governed by 28 C.F.R. Part 9, the federal regulations that govern the remission or mitigation of forfeited property. Understanding this legal framework is essential for anyone considering filing a petition.
Statutory Authority and the Delegation Chain
The Attorney General’s authority to grant remission in criminal forfeiture cases derives from several statutes. In money laundering cases, 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1) provides that criminal forfeiture proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853. Subsection 853(i)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to grant petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, restore forfeited property to victims, or take other actions to protect the rights of innocent persons. That authority is delegated under 28 C.F.R. § 9.1(b)(2) to the Chief of the Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section (MNF) within DOJ’s Criminal Division. See Attorney General Order No. 2088-97.
The Justice Manual at § 9-121.000 further explains the operational framework. It establishes a priority order for distribution of forfeited assets: valid owners first, then lienholders, then federal financial regulatory agencies, then victims. The Justice Manual states that this priority order is implemented in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the Attorney General’s authority. Only after those categories are satisfied may remaining proceeds be shared with state and local law enforcement agencies.
Since 2000, MNF has returned more than $12.5 billion in forfeited assets to victims of crime nationwide through its victim compensation program. The program is staffed by attorneys, accountants, auditors, and claims analysts who coordinate with U.S. Attorney’s Offices, federal law enforcement, and regulatory agencies. In the OneCoin case, the DOJ press release identifies MNF Attorney Advisor Drew Halter as leading the remission process.
Remission vs. Restitution vs. Restoration
These three terms describe distinct legal mechanisms. They are not interchangeable.
Restitution is imposed by the sentencing court under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. It creates a direct obligation from the defendant to the victim. The defendant owes the money. The government collects it.
Restoration is a separate process under which the Attorney General transfers forfeited property to satisfy a court-ordered restitution obligation. The Justice Manual describes the procedures for restoration in Forfeiture Policy Directive 02-1. Restoration uses forfeited assets to pay restitution that has already been ordered by a court.
Remission is different from both. In remission, the property has already been forfeited to the United States. The government owns it. The victim is petitioning the government to return a portion of those assets. The ruling official within MNF exercises discretion in deciding whether and how much to distribute. There is no court order requiring distribution. The entire process is administrative.
The OneCoin case uses the remission track. The more than $40 million in available assets has already been forfeited through criminal proceedings in the Southern District of New York. Victims are now petitioning MNF for a share of those forfeited funds under the procedures set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 9.8.
The Five Eligibility Requirements Under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8
Section 9.8 applies specifically to victims who do not have a present ownership interest in the forfeited property. Under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b), a victim seeking remission must satisfy five elements.
First, the victim must demonstrate a pecuniary loss of a specific amount directly caused by the criminal offense underlying the forfeiture. The loss must be supported by documentary evidence, including invoices and receipts. 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)(1).
Second, the loss must be the direct result of illegal acts, not the result of otherwise lawful acts committed during the course of the criminal offense. 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)(2).
Third, the victim must not have knowingly contributed to, participated in, benefited from, or acted in a willfully blind manner toward the offense that was the underlying basis of the forfeiture. 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)(3). This is the element most likely to be contested in OneCoin petitions, given the multi-level marketing structure of the scheme.
Fourth, the victim must not have already been compensated for the loss by the perpetrator or others. 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)(4).
Fifth, the victim must not have reasonably available recourse to other assets from which to obtain compensation. 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)(5).
Each element matters. A petition that fails to address any one of them is subject to denial.
Pecuniary Loss Calculation
Under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(c), pecuniary loss is limited to the fair market value of the property of which the victim was deprived, measured as of the date the loss occurred. The regulation is explicit. No allowance is made for interest forgone. No allowance is made for collateral expenses incurred in trying to recover lost property or seek other compensation.
For OneCoin victims, this means the recoverable amount is limited to the net amount invested. A victim who invested $50,000 and withdrew $10,000 before the scheme collapsed has a pecuniary loss of $40,000. Promised returns that were never paid are not recoverable. The loss is measured by what actually left the victim’s pocket, minus what came back.
Pro Rata Distribution and the Assets Forfeiture Fund
Under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(f), the ruling official generally grants remission to multiple victims on a pro rata basis. Each recognized victim receives a proportional share of the available fund based on the size of their verified loss relative to total verified losses. The regulation further provides, under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(i), that the amount of remission cannot exceed the victim’s share of the net proceeds of the forfeitures, consistent with the Assets Forfeiture Fund statute, 28 U.S.C. § 524(c). The calculation of net proceeds includes the deduction of allowable government expenses and valid third-party claims.
In the OneCoin case, the practical result is straightforward. Total losses exceed $4 billion. The available fund is approximately $40 million. If all victims with verified losses filed claims, each claimant would receive roughly one percent of their loss. But not all victims will file. Not all claims will be verified. The actual per-claimant recovery may be higher or lower depending on the total number of approved petitions.
Grounds for Denial
The regulations give the ruling official discretion to deny petitions even where the eligibility requirements are met. Under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(e), the ruling official may decline to grant remission where there is substantial difficulty in calculating the pecuniary loss, where the amount of remission would be small compared to the government’s expenses in processing the petition, or where the total number of victims is large and the monetary amount of the remission so small as to make its granting impractical. These discretionary denial grounds are important to understand. They mean that meeting the five eligibility elements does not guarantee compensation. The quality and completeness of the documentation submitted with the petition can be the decisive factor.
How to Navigate the Petition Process
The petition process is administrative. It does not require a court appearance. It does not require a lawyer. But it does require precision. The quality of the documentation submitted with the petition directly affects whether the claim is approved and the amount of compensation awarded.
Step 1: Obtain and Complete the Petition Form
The petition form is available at onecoinremission.com. Victims may also request a form by calling Kroll Settlement Administration LLC at 1-833-421-9748, or by writing to OneCoin Remission, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391.
Step 2: Document the Loss
The petition requires documentation of all claimed losses. This is where most petitions succeed or fail. The regulations require that the pecuniary loss be supported by documentary evidence including invoices and receipts. For OneCoin victims, relevant documentation includes bank statements showing wire transfers or payments to OneCoin or its affiliates, email confirmations from OneCoin, order documents for OneCoin packages, screenshots of OneCoin account balances, and records of any withdrawals or payments received from OneCoin.
The documentation must establish both the amount invested and any amounts recovered. The net loss figure is what matters. Victims who can produce clear records of their investment timeline and amounts are in the strongest position.
Step 3: Submit Before the Deadline
The deadline is June 30, 2026. This is a hard deadline. The petition can be submitted online through the claims portal or by mail. Victims submitting by mail should send materials well in advance of the deadline and retain proof of mailing.
The documentation submitted with the petition is the single most important factor in whether a claim is approved.
Common Pitfalls in Remission Petitions
Understanding the regulatory framework is one thing. Executing the petition is another. Several recurring errors cause petitions to fail.
Insufficient Documentation
A petition that asserts a loss amount without supporting records is unlikely to be approved. The regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)(1) requires documentary evidence of the specific pecuniary loss. Bank statements, wire receipts, and email confirmations are the strongest evidence. Victims who no longer have access to their original records may need to obtain copies from their banks or financial institutions. The time to do that is now, not in late June.
Failure to Account for Withdrawals
The regulations require a net loss calculation. A victim who invested $100,000 but withdrew $60,000 has a net loss of $40,000. A petition that claims the full $100,000 without disclosing the withdrawals is inaccurate. It may also undermine the petitioner’s credibility with the ruling official.
Participation in the Scheme
The regulations exclude victims who knowingly contributed to, participated in, or acted in a willfully blind manner toward the offense. OneCoin operated through a multi-level marketing network. Some investors also recruited others and earned commissions. That dual role creates a potential eligibility issue. Investors who received commissions for recruiting others into OneCoin face scrutiny on this element. The question is whether their participation crossed the line from victim to knowing participant. That line is fact-specific. It depends on what the individual knew, when they knew it, and what they did with that knowledge.
Secondary Scams
The DOJ has specifically warned victims to be cautious of secondary scams. Neither the government nor Kroll will ever request payment to participate in the remission process. Anyone claiming they can expedite a claim for a fee is committing a fraud. The process is free.
The Biggest Issue: Valuation, In-Kind Distribution, and What a Successful Claim Is Actually Worth
The single most consequential issue for OneCoin claimants is not eligibility. It is valuation. Specifically, the question is whether victims will be compensated based on the value of their investment at the time of the loss, or whether they can receive in-kind distributions that reflect the current value of the forfeited assets. The answer determines whether a successful claim returns pennies or something closer to dollars.
The Current Rule: Loss-Date Valuation Under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(c)
Under the existing regulation, the amount of pecuniary loss for which remission may be granted is limited to the fair market value of the property of which the victim was deprived “as of the date of the occurrence of the loss.” 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(c). That language fixes the recovery amount at the value of the investment when the fraud occurred. Not when the claim is filed. Not when the distribution is made.
For OneCoin, this creates a distinct problem. OneCoin had no real value. It never existed on a blockchain. Its price was internally fabricated. Victims invested fiat currency or, in some cases, cryptocurrency that did have real value at the time. The loss-date valuation rule means the recovery is capped at what the victim put in, not what the forfeited assets are now worth.
But the problem extends beyond OneCoin. In cryptocurrency fraud cases generally, the government often seizes digital assets that appreciate significantly while in government custody. If the government seized Bitcoin in 2019 and it is worth multiples of its 2019 value today, the loss-date rule means the victim recovers based on the 2019 value. The appreciation inures to the Assets Forfeiture Fund, not to the victims.
The Blanche Memo: DOJ Acknowledges the Problem but Has Not Solved It
On April 7, 2025, then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum titled “Ending Regulation by Prosecution,” which addressed digital asset enforcement policy across DOJ. Among other directives, the Blanche Memo specifically identified the victim compensation problem. The memo acknowledged that existing regulations limit victims to recovering the amounts at which their assets were valued at the time of the fraud. The memo stated that this approach prevents victims from benefiting from corresponding gains that occurred during or after the fraud.
The Blanche Memo directed the Office of Legal Policy and the Office of Legislative Affairs to evaluate and propose legislative and regulatory reforms to address this problem and improve asset forfeiture efforts in cases involving digital assets.
That directive was issued over a year ago. No legislative or regulatory change has followed. The regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(c) remains in effect, unchanged. The OneCoin remission process is being administered under the existing rule.
The Blanche Memo acknowledged that loss-date valuation shortchanges cryptocurrency fraud victims. But no regulatory or legislative reform has been enacted. The OneCoin remission process operates under the same rule that the memo identified as problematic.
Why This Matters for OneCoin Claimants
The practical effect is significant. The more than $40 million in forfeited assets available for distribution includes assets that were seized at various points during the prosecution. If any of those assets were held in cryptocurrency that appreciated after seizure, the appreciation does not flow to victims under the current rule. Victims recover based on the dollar amount they invested, not the current value of the seized fund.
This also means that the form of distribution matters. If the government distributes in fiat currency, the claimant receives a dollar amount based on the loss-date calculation. If the government were to distribute in kind, meaning returning cryptocurrency directly to victims, the victim would receive the asset itself and benefit from any appreciation. Under the current regulatory framework, in-kind distribution to victims in remission proceedings is not standard practice. The Justice Manual and 28 C.F.R. Part 9 contemplate monetary payments or the return of specific forfeited property to owners and lienholders, but the victim remission track under § 9.8 generally results in cash distributions from the Assets Forfeiture Fund.
The result is a structural gap. The government seizes assets. Those assets may appreciate. The government liquidates them or holds them. The victim is compensated based on a valuation that may be years old. The difference between the loss-date value and the current value stays in the fund.
The Uncertainty Ahead
The Blanche Memo created an expectation of reform. That reform has not materialized. Whether it will materialize before the OneCoin claims are adjudicated is uncertain. Blanche was elevated to Acting Attorney General in April 2026, which could accelerate or stall the process depending on DOJ’s priorities. Any change would require either a regulatory amendment to 28 C.F.R. Part 9 through notice-and-comment rulemaking, or legislation from Congress. Neither is imminent.
For OneCoin claimants, the takeaway is practical. The value of a successful claim under the current framework is determined by the loss-date rule, not by the current value of the forfeited fund. Claimants should calculate their expected recovery accordingly and understand that the $40 million fund, divided pro rata among approved claimants, may yield a recovery that represents a small fraction of the original investment. The form in which that recovery is paid, whether in fiat, USDC, or some other medium, is within the ruling official’s discretion and has not been publicly announced for the OneCoin proceeding.
The Parallel Criminal Investigation Remains Active
The remission process is a victim compensation mechanism. It does not resolve the criminal case. The investigation is ongoing. Ruja Ignatova remains a fugitive. The FBI is actively seeking information about her whereabouts. The U.S. State Department has raised the reward for information leading to her arrest to $5 million.
For individuals who had any operational, promotional, or financial role in OneCoin, the active criminal investigation creates risks that extend beyond the remission process. Statements made in a remission petition are not privileged. Information provided to the claims administrator could be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. Any individual who promoted OneCoin, recruited investors, or handled OneCoin funds in any capacity faces potential criminal exposure that a remission petition does not resolve.
That exposure is separate from and more serious than the compensation process. Individuals in that position need to evaluate their criminal exposure before engaging with any government process, including a remission petition.
The OneCoin criminal investigation is not closed. Individuals who played any promotional or financial role in OneCoin face potential criminal exposure that requires separate legal analysis before engaging with the remission process.
The Broader Context: Cryptocurrency Fraud Enforcement in 2026
The OneCoin remission process is not an isolated event. It reflects a broader trend of federal law enforcement prioritizing victim recovery in cryptocurrency fraud cases. The FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Report documented more than $11 billion in cryptocurrency-related losses reported by American victims in a single year. The DOJ’s newly established National Fraud Enforcement Division consolidates the government’s fraud prosecution resources under a single division, signaling an intensification of enforcement activity.
The FTX Recovery Trust has separately distributed billions of dollars to creditors under its Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. The OneCoin remission process runs through a different legal track, but it reflects the same priority: returning seized assets to defrauded investors.
For victims and for individuals with potential exposure, the pattern is clear. The government is pursuing cryptocurrency fraud aggressively. It is recovering assets where possible. And it is establishing formal processes to distribute those assets to victims.
Scott Armstrong and Drew Bradylyons have extensive experience on both sides of cryptocurrency fraud enforcement. The firm has represented clients in DOJ remission proceedings in other cryptocurrency fraud cases, navigating the eligibility requirements, documentation standards, and strategic considerations that determine whether a petition succeeds or fails. That experience includes advising clients on the intersection of remission petitions and parallel criminal investigations, where the wrong submission can create exposure that far exceeds the value of the claim.
Scott is a former Assistant Chief at DOJ’s Fraud Section, where he tried Ponzi scheme and cryptocurrency fraud cases involving hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. He understands the forfeiture and remission process from the government side because he worked within the system that generates forfeiture orders and victim compensation decisions. Drew served as Chief of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he supervised crypto Ponzi scheme cases with hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Together, the firm’s attorneys have over 25 years of combined DOJ experience and 25 complex federal jury trials. Their digital assets practice covers the full spectrum of cryptocurrency-related legal matters, from criminal defense to victim recovery proceedings like the OneCoin remission.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the OneCoin remission process and how does it work?
The OneCoin remission process is the federal government’s mechanism for distributing forfeited assets to fraud victims. The DOJ seized assets from convicted OneCoin co-conspirators, including Karl Sebastian Greenwood, who was sentenced to 20 years in the Southern District of New York. Those assets, totaling more than $40 million, were forfeited through criminal proceedings and are now held by the DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program. Victims petition the government for a share of the forfeited funds under 28 C.F.R. Part 9. The process is administrative. It is distinct from court-ordered restitution, civil litigation, and bankruptcy proceedings like the FTX distribution. Kroll Settlement Administration LLC is administering the process on behalf of the DOJ.
What is the deadline to file a OneCoin victim claim?
The deadline to file a petition for remission in the OneCoin case is June 30, 2026. Petitions can be submitted online at onecoinremission.com or by mail to OneCoin Remission, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391. Victims may also request a petition form by calling 1-833-421-9748. Filing is free. Neither the DOJ nor Kroll will request payment to participate. Any person or organization that asks for payment to file a claim or expedite the process is committing a fraud.
Who is eligible to file a OneCoin remission claim?
Eligibility is defined by 28 C.F.R. § 9.8. To qualify, a petitioner must demonstrate five elements: a specific pecuniary loss directly caused by the OneCoin fraud, supported by documentary evidence; that the loss resulted from illegal acts, not otherwise lawful conduct; that the petitioner did not knowingly contribute to, participate in, or act in a willfully blind manner toward the fraud; that the petitioner has not already been compensated; and that the petitioner does not have reasonably available recourse to other assets. In practical terms, investors who purchased OneCoin between 2014 and 2019 and suffered a net loss after accounting for any withdrawals or commissions received are the primary eligible class. The process is open to victims worldwide.
How much money can OneCoin victims expect to recover?
Recovery amounts depend on the total number of approved claims and verified losses. The available fund exceeds $40 million. Total alleged losses from the OneCoin scheme exceed $4 billion. Compensation is distributed on a pro rata basis under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(f), meaning each approved petitioner receives a proportional share based on verified net losses. The current ratio of available funds to total losses means recovery could be approximately one percent of each victim’s loss if all eligible victims file. Fewer approved claims would increase each claimant’s share. The actual amount also depends on whether the government deducts expenses from the fund before distribution, as permitted under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(i) and the Assets Forfeiture Fund statute, 28 U.S.C. § 524(c).
What documents are needed to file a OneCoin victim claim?
The regulations at 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)(1) require documentary evidence of the specific pecuniary loss. For OneCoin victims, the strongest supporting records include bank statements showing payments to OneCoin or its affiliates, wire transfer confirmations, email receipts from OneCoin, purchase records for OneCoin educational or cryptocurrency packages, account screenshots showing balances or transaction history, and records of any withdrawals or commissions received. The petition must establish both the total amount invested and any amounts recovered. The net loss is the recoverable figure. Victims who no longer have original records may need to request copies from banks or financial institutions before the June 30, 2026 deadline.
Will OneCoin claims be paid in cryptocurrency or in cash?
Under the current regulatory framework, victim remission under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8 generally results in cash distributions from the Assets Forfeiture Fund, not in-kind returns of seized cryptocurrency. The regulation at § 9.8(c) caps recoverable loss at the fair market value of the property at the time the loss occurred, not at its current value. The April 2025 Blanche Memo directed DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy to evaluate reforms that would allow victims to benefit from post-fraud appreciation of seized digital assets. No regulatory or legislative change has been enacted. The form of distribution in the OneCoin proceeding has not been publicly announced. This is the most consequential open question for claimants because it directly determines the monetary value of any successful claim.
Can OneCoin promoters who earned commissions still file a claim?
Potentially, but the analysis is fact-specific. The regulations at 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)(3) exclude individuals who knowingly contributed to, participated in, or acted in a willfully blind manner toward the offense. OneCoin operated through a multi-level marketing structure where promoters earned commissions for recruiting new investors. A promoter who genuinely believed OneCoin was a legitimate cryptocurrency and only later learned of the fraud may still qualify as a victim under the regulations. A promoter who knew OneCoin had no blockchain and continued recruiting investors has a materially different profile. The determination depends on what the individual knew, when they knew it, and the extent of their promotional activity relative to their investment losses.
Does filing a OneCoin claim create risk of criminal prosecution?
The remission petition is an administrative filing. But the OneCoin criminal investigation is ongoing. Ruja Ignatova remains on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. The DOJ continues to pursue additional assets and potential co-conspirators. Information provided in a remission petition is not privileged. For a pure investor who lost money and had no role in promoting or operating OneCoin, the risk of criminal exposure from filing a petition is generally minimal. For individuals who recruited investors, earned commissions, handled OneCoin funds, or had any operational or promotional role, the calculus is different. Statements made in a petition could be relevant to the ongoing investigation. Individuals with potential exposure need to evaluate the criminal dimension before engaging with the remission process.
How is the OneCoin remission different from the FTX creditor payout?
The two processes operate under entirely different legal frameworks and produce different outcomes. The FTX Recovery Trust distributes assets under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, supervised by the bankruptcy court, with creditor claims processed through a court-approved plan of reorganization. The FTX distribution has returned billions of dollars. The OneCoin remission process distributes criminally forfeited assets under 28 C.F.R. Part 9, administered by DOJ’s Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section. There is no bankruptcy estate. There is no court-supervised claims process. The ruling official within DOJ decides which petitions to approve and how to distribute the available fund. The OneCoin fund holds approximately $40 million against more than $4 billion in total losses.
What experience does Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC bring to OneCoin and cryptocurrency fraud cases?
The firm has represented clients in DOJ remission proceedings arising from cryptocurrency fraud prosecutions, including navigating the eligibility requirements under 28 C.F.R. § 9.8 and advising on the risks created by parallel criminal investigations. Scott Armstrong is a former Assistant Chief at DOJ’s Fraud Section, where he tried Ponzi scheme and cryptocurrency fraud cases involving hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. He has successfully negotiated the complete dismissal of a clawback demand from a federal receiver seeking over $1 million from his client. Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he supervised crypto Ponzi scheme cases with hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Together, the firm’s attorneys have over 25 years of combined DOJ experience and 25 complex federal jury trials. Their digital assets practice covers cryptocurrency fraud defense, victim recovery proceedings, and related civil and criminal matters nationwide.
Navigating the OneCoin Remission Process or Facing Criminal Exposure?
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC represents individuals in cryptocurrency fraud investigations, remission proceedings, and related civil and criminal matters nationwide.
