Author Avatar

editor

0

Share post:

Vladimir “Lado” Okhotnikov, the proprietor of Forsage, says in a new MetaForce video from August 17th;

I’ll discuss the steps MetaForce is taking to defend its stance in relation to the SEC in this video.

I pulled to the court docket thinking Okhotnikov had answered to the SEC’s securities fraud Complaint from August 1.

Nope.

What is Okhotnikov ranting about, then?

Okhotnikov asserts that the SEC’s complaint is full of “unfounded assertions” that are “not based on anything,” despite the fact that it is supported by pages and pages of proof.

Okhotnikov asserts that the SEC is ignorant of “how the blockchain works.”

It should be mentioned that the SEC has filed a lawsuit against Forsage and Okhotnikov for running a Ponzi scheme and committing securities fraud. It doesn’t matter how “the blockchain” functions or doesn’t.

Regarding Forsage’s alleged response to the Philippine SEC’s 2020 investigation and warning regarding securities fraud, Okhotnikov said;

In order to prevent anyone from conflating Forsage with any investment initiative, we replaced the word “reinvestment” so that there would be no word “invest”, “investment”, etc.

In order to prevent misunderstandings, we have also updated numerous other terminology on the website and in our publications.

This is referred to as pseudo-compliance, which is comparable to when a fraudster on YouTube claims that their con is not financial advice.

Regulators look at marketing but mostly analyze the business strategy when they look into alleged scams. Hiding investing terms is meaningless if your investment strategy is fake.

Okhotnikov goes on;

Even though “reinvest” is a well-known and generally accepted term in network marketing, it in no way implies that we are discussing an investment program.

I must not be understanding some strange Russian reasoning.

Okhotnikov continues by explaining how the securities fraud should stop. Forsage was “puzzled” by the information Montana sent him. He doesn’t appear to understand that securities fraud is prohibited in both the US and the Philippines.

Instead of even doing a cursory study of Forsage, he (Montana) simply copied everything from the Philippines SEC.

For some reason, Montana believes that I and everyone else must abide by the advice on his website. Furthermore, it’s not entirely apparent what the necessity to cease entailed.

Okhotnikov asserts that the Philippine SEC and Montana CSI are “incompetent” because they both regulate Forsage for securities fraud.

The claims were first made public in August by the US SEC. They have demonstrated the same amount of ignorance of blockchain, network marketing, and the dispute in general.

In addition to responding to them, I am also thinking about how we should approach everything.

Once more, BehindMLM can attest that Okhotnikov has not yet submitted a response to the SEC’s complaint against him as of the time of publication.

Okhotnikov is moving on with MetaForce rather than responding to the accusation and presenting evidence in court that Forsage wasn’t a $300 million Ponzi scheme.

The most recent reboot of Forsage is called MetaForce.

We are improving our position and reorganizing the system. It’s a true revolution in our industry.

Not only clear but also indirect depictions of a financial pyramid are absent from MetaForce.

Products are the basis of marketing. We are putting together many product series. These are tokenized items that exist in the metaverse and are both real.

It goes without saying that a Ponzi scheme’s business strategy is unaffected by the addition of products. Like old-fashioned adcredits, MetaForce’s metaverse products won’t alter the company’s cash flow.

The SEC has already filed a case, thus it makes no difference what Okhotnikov does or doesn’t do with MetaForce. It is impossible to rectify the financial deception that cost $300 million over 2.5 years.

We’ll keep you updated until Okhotnikov actually files a response or until more meltdown footage surface.

MineBase Review Part 2 – Is a Fraud
Nimbus Review - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

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