BTC / USD
22,837.00
3.71%
(-880.04)
ETH / USD
1,569.11
4.12%
(-67.37)
XRP / USD
0.39
5.27%
(-0.02)
LTC / USD
95.75
0.68%
(+0.65)
EOS / USD
1.05
6%
(-0.07)
BCH / USD
134.00
1.46%
(-1.98)
ADA / USD
0.37
5.12%
(-0.02)
XLM / USD
0.09
3.61%
(-0)
NEO / USD
8.03
3.8%
(-0.32)
XEM / USD
0.04
8.73%
(-0)
DASH / USD
61.57
7.41%
(+4.25)
USDT / USD
1.00
0%
(0)
BNB / USD
311.66
1.19%
(-3.75)
QTUM / USD
2.64
4.46%
(-0.12)
XVG / USD
0.00
5.03%
(-0)
ONT / USD
0.21
6.46%
(-0.01)
ZEC / USD
44.78
3.91%
(-1.82)
STEEM / USD
0.19
7.56%
(-0.02)

iGenius’ NDAU & Investview – Scam Review

0

One of Joseph Cammarata’s goals as CEO of Investview was to integrate it with a genius multi-level marketing opportunity.

In this regard, the organization issued a press statement in June 2021; Investview… is refocusing its efforts on ndau. The firm, whose monthly gross revenues and net profits reached record heights in the first quarter of 2021, is banking on ndau to drive its continuing expansion.

“Ndau enables individuals to engage in the long-term ownership of a digital currency without worrying about a large range of volatility,” said Mario Romano, director of finance at Investview.

Late in 2019, Investview’s newly appointed CEO Joseph Cammarata stated, “I am certain that Investview, LevelX, and Prodigio will prove to be a successful combination for Investview and our clients due to our shared client-centric beliefs and enthusiasm for innovation and growth.”

Cammarata petitioned a court for permission to sell his NDAU interests after being arrested on allegations of fraud.

Contrary to the marketing claims made by Investview and iGenius to its distributors, Cammarata informed the court that NDAU is too volatile to hold.

iGenius conducts securities fraud by offering up to 15% yearly profits on NDAU investments.

As CEO of Investview at the time, Cammarata (right) personally invested an unknown sum to buy 5809 NDAU.

Rather than hang onto the eventually worthless shitcoin, Cammarata petitioned the court for permission to liquidate on September 20.

Defendant owns and controls NDAU in NDAU Wallet, which has an account with the suffix -know.

Defendant asserts that the -known account (and NDAU in general) is a volatile asset and that the value of his shares has varied between $40,000 and $120,000.

Defendant desires to sell all of the approximately 5,809 NDAU in account -know (now worth around $90,000, but subject to market fluctuations).

Plaintiff does not object to the sale of all NDAU in account -know to protect its value, with the profits kept as cash in a new escrow account managed by Defendant’s lawyers, where they shall stay frozen, by the conditions of the Preliminary Injunction.

The assets of Cammarata have been blocked by an order issued in simultaneous SEC civil fraud investigations.

The motion of Cammarata was approved later that day.

Within 24 hours of Cammarata receiving approval to liquidate, NDAU fell from $14.49 to $11.40.

NDAU rebounded to the $14.50 to $15.50 range within the next twenty-four hours, allegedly due to washing trade manipulation.

In related events, Cammarata filed a request to dissolve the order freezing his assets on September 8.

In his request, Cammarata asserts that he was “originally unconcerned” about the court-ordered asset freeze because he believed he could comply.

recognized, based on incontestable case law and familiarity with SEC regulations, that the SEC’s lawsuit was nothing more than a hostile prosecution aimed at obtaining a similarly bogus TRO.

Cammarata’s opinion on the granted injunction evolved when he discovered the case against him was very genuine and his “indisputable case law” response was, in fact, disputable.

Now Cammarata asserts that the temporary restraining order has resulted in a “constitutional breach” against him.

This court has sufficient evidence and case law to indicate that AlphaPlus statutorily did not and could not have participated in any securities transactions, hence the SEC failed to raise a cause for relief in its Complaint.

On September 28th, the SEC submitted its answer to Cammarata’s motion.

The request of Cammarata is denied since he has previously consented to the entry of the Preliminary Injunction and, before that, to the continuation of the relief given by the Temporary Restraining Order.

Cammarata was represented by competent counsel, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, and had unrestricted access to his counsel at the time the parties consented to the Preliminary Injunction.

Instead of focusing on his case after being released from detention, Cammarata planned to flee the United States with his fiancée.

The DOJ presented a text message from June 2022 as evidence in Cammarata’s criminal prosecution.

Cammarata appeared to confess that he could escape Florida and the Bahamas border security.

This is the method by which Cammarata repeatedly transported his girlfriend into the United States unnoticed.

Cammarata’s aim upon being released on bail last year was plain to flee the United States to Colombia and live off illicit profits.

The SEC asserts that Cammarata has “access to maritime vessels, private aircraft, and offshore assets.” Among these assets are a Bahamas island and a Colombian condo.

Unfortunately for Cammarata, his escape preparations failed, and thus we are here.

According to the SEC, Cammarata and his co-defendants committed securities fraud.

include disgorgement of the more than $40 million they stole plus prejudgment interest on the disgorgement, as well as civil penalties of up to $775,000 per violation for the defendant corporations and $160,000 per violation for the Individual Defendants, or equal to their gross pecuniary gain.

Because the Defendants’ known assets are insufficient to cover their potential liability, the Court has appropriately frozen the Defendants’ assets and the assets of entities they own or control to maintain the status quo and preserve the opportunity to collect on a judgment in this case, including civil penalties.

Due to Cammarata’s financial sophistication, international connections, and transgressions while on bail in the Criminal Action, there has always been and remains a substantial risk that if the asset freeze is not imposed, Cammarata will attempt to conceal assets or move them abroad, beyond the reach of this court.

To maintain the status quo awaiting the conclusion of this lawsuit, it is necessary to freeze Cammarata’s assets, as they pose the same flight risk as he.

The ruling on Cammarata’s motion is still pending.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.