Author Avatar

editor

0

Share post:

The civil EminiFX fraud procedures of the CFTC have been put on hold thanks to the DOJ.

On July 25th, the DOJ filed a motion to halt the CFTC’s EminiFX lawsuit.

Although the DOJ must still request a stay in each case, it is usual practice to postpone the conclusion of civil regulatory actions awaiting the conclusion of concurrent criminal proceedings.

This is done primarily to stop defendants from misusing civil discovery to get around the laws governing criminal proceedings.

To that purpose, Eddy Alexandre, the owner of EminiFX and the defendant, opposed the stay, contending that civil discovery outside of depositions should be allowed.

On September 6th, the court agreed to the DOJ’s request for a stay. As a result, the CFTC action and the EminiFX receivership are both put on hold.

Both motions are granted by the court, and all discovery in this matter stays.

The criminal trial in the case against Defendant Alexandre is slated to take place on March 27, 2023, as the Government announced.

Therefore, this stay is only in effect for a short time and will not negatively affect any of the parties involved in the civil case; if there is any potential harm, it is outweighed by judicial efficiency considerations.

Alexandre’s EminiFX criminal case can end up being delayed interminably. Unfortunately, criminal MLM cases have been on the rise in recent years (OneCoin is perhaps the best example of this).

Alexandre has the choice to request for a lift on discovery if the court delays the EminiFX criminal trial past March 2023. The exception to the order is that Alexandre is not to blame for the trial’s postponement.

On December 1st, the DOJ has been ordered to report to the court on the progress of the criminal proceedings.

A brief update is also provided on Christopher and Maureen Beil’s efforts to recover the $535,000 deposit that Alexandre gave them.

The Beils wanted to offer Alexandre a house for sale. Alexandre used fraudulently obtained EminiFX investor funds to pay the deposit, which the Receiver was able to recover.

The Bells tried to compel the EminiFX Receivership into arbitration after being denied special treatment on two different occasions by the court.

Although sympathetic to “the circumstances that the Bells find themselves in,” the court refused to allow their arbitration suit to go forward on September 2.

Once a claim procedure is in place, the Bells will be able to submit a claim to the EminiFX Receiver. There is no deadline for this procedure as of now.

QNet Review Part 3 - Is a Fraud
ViaVeta Review - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

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