Author Avatar

editor

0

Share post:

Frank Schneider’s plea for extradition was denied two days earlier.

It sheds light on Schneider’s US indictment that the Nancy Appeals Court’s judgment was rendered.

Schneider (right) has been charged with an undetermined number of offenses.

Conspiracy to perpetrate electronic fraud as well as money-laundering conspiracy.

The Nancy ruling cites the following specific actions:

Schneider helped OneCoin and its principals by offering “industrial espionage and money laundering services,” giving sensitive police information to OneCoin’s principals, which helped Ruja Ignatova avoid capture, and supporting OneCoin’s operations through a UAE shell company registered in Schneider’s name.

For each count of fraud, Schneider faces a 20-year jail sentence.

I’m not sure when Schneider was first charged. What is known is that a superseding indictment, which is valid as of June 4, 2021, was filed at some time.

The indictment describes actions that occurred between 2014 and 2019 involving OneCoin.

Given that OneCoin debuted in 2014, it is assumed that Schneider became involved during or immediately after OneCoin’s introduction.

Schneider was previously believed to have been hired later to serve as founder Ruja Ignatova’s right-hand man.

It should be noted that Schneider is not listed among OneCoin’s founders by US authorities.

Schneider’s statement was taken directly from the Nancy Court of Appeals ruling.

According to the definition of conspiracy to commit electronic fraud, “Franck Schneider, the accused, (…) and other known and unknown individuals plotted, confederated, and agreed together and with each other, willfully and knowingly to violate Title 18 of the United States Code item 1343 since approximately 2014 and until approximately 2019, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.”

Fraud committed by wire, radio, or television is covered by Title 18, Section 1343 of the US Code.

The Ponzi scheme used by OneCoin would constitute wire fraud.

The goal of the conspiracy was for Franck Schneider and other known and unnamed individuals to intentionally and knowingly devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and obtain money and goods under pretenses, fraudulent representations, and promises. They are also accused of having transmitted and caused to transmit through electronic, radio, or television broadcasting in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, and other forms of communication.

In particular, Schneider aided in the operation of an international fraud scheme involving the sale of a purported cryptocurrency called OneCoin, managing the scheme’s proceeds and avoiding police inquiries into it, in connection with which several false statements and representations were made to entice people around the world, including in the region south of New York, to invest in OneCoin, causing people to send interstate and international money transfers.

In violation of Title 18 of the United States Code Section 1956(a)(1)(B), Franck Schneider and other known and unidentified parties have collaborated, conspired, and agreed to jointly and severally conduct the felony of money laundering (i).

The accused, Mr. Franck Schneider, and others would have made and attempted to carry out these financial transactions, which involved the earnings of a specific illegal activity, namely the proceeds of the electronics fraud conspiracy charged in the first count of this indictment, had they known that the property involved in certain transactions financial institutions represented the proceeds of a form of illegal activity.

In addition, Franck Schneider and other people, known and unknown, are accused of transporting, transmitting, transferring, and attempting to transport a monetary instrument and funds from a location inside the United States to and through a location outside the United States while being aware of the monetary instrument and funds involved in this transport.

This transmission and this transfer were the results of criminal activity that was done with the knowledge that this transit was taking place. The purpose of this transmission and transfer was to partially or completely hide the kind, location, source, ownership, and control of the profits of a specific illicit action, specifically the proceeds of wire fraud, which are the subject of the first count of the indictment.

The charges describe behavior that occurred in New York, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Cayman Islands, the island of Jersey, Georgia (the nation), the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Bulgaria, Germany, and Tanzania.

Schneider’s money laundering for OneCoin is allegedly connected to all of the listed nations, except Luxembourg.

Schneider’s base of operations for his “strategic intelligence” is listed as Luxembourg.

Surprisingly, Schneider’s impending arrest was announced to Luxembourg by both the US and France.

In both cases, Luxembourgish officials did not ask for more details. Furthermore, there was no sign that they would pursue Schneider’s extradition to Luxembourg or issue their arrest warrant.

It seems Luxembourg was ready to hide one of the accused masterminds of the $4 billion Ponzi scheme in plain sight if the US had not pursued Schneider.

It’s unclear if Schneider’s prior experience as a Luxembourgish spymaster has anything to do with this.

In the future, Schneider is anticipated to challenge the Nancy Court of Appeal’s judgment. This seems to be a formality that will be ignored.

The decision to approve Schneider’s extradition is then up to the French authorities. There shouldn’t be any issues given their up-to-date collaboration with US officials.

Schneider is likely to cooperate with US authorities after being extradited, as opposed to potentially serving the next 40+ years behind bars.

There’s a potential he can provide information on Ruja Ignatova’s whereabouts given that he collaborated with her and was probably responsible for her disappearance.

Sadly, we don’t know when any of this will happen. Watch this space for developments from France.

Mirror Trading International Review Part 3 - Is a Fraud
VCCP Review - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

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