Author Avatar

editor

0

Share post:

One of Joseph Cammarata’s goals as CEO of Investview was to include it within the MLM opportunity offered by iGenius.

The business issued a press statement in June 2021 to that effect;

Investview is now concentrating on ndau. The business is counting on ndau to support further growth as Q1 2021 saw new highs in monthly gross revenues and net profitability.

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

Joseph Cammarata, CEO of Investview since late 2019, said, “I am convinced that with our shared client-centric beliefs and drive for innovation and growth, Investview, LevelX, and Prodigio will prove to be a successful combination for Investview and our clients.”

After being detained on suspicion of fraud, Cammarata begged the court to allow him to sell his NDAU shares.

Contrary to what Investview and iGenius said in their marketing materials to its distributors, Cammarata testified before the court that NDAU is too volatile to hold.

iGenius offers yearly profits of up to 15% while engaging in securities fraud through NDAU investments.

To do this, Cammarata (right), who was then the CEO of Investview, personally invested an unknown sum to purchase 5809 NDAU.

On September 20th, Cammarata requested a court’s approval to liquidate rather than hang onto the eventually useless shitcoin.

The defendant possesses and is in charge of the cryptocurrency asset NDAU, which is stored in an account with the suffix “-know” in a program called NDAU Wallet.

Defendant asserts that the value of his ownership has varied between $40,000 and $120,000 and that he views the -know account (and NDAU in general) as a volatile asset.

To sell all of the approximately 5,809 NDAU in the account (now worth about $90,000, but the amount varies with the market), the defendant is seeking to do so.

The sale of all NDAU in an account -known to protect its value is not opposed by the plaintiff, and the sale profits will be kept as cash in a new escrow account managed by the legal counsel for the defendant, where they will stay frozen by the provisions of the preliminary injunction.

An order imposed in related SEC civil fraud cases has blocked Cammarata’s assets.

Later the same day, Cammarata’s request was approved.

Within 24 hours of receiving approval to liquidate, Cammarata’s NDAU fell from $14.49 to $11.47.

Over the next 24 hours, NDAU returned to the $14.50 to $15.50 range through what is thought to be controlled wash trading.

In related developments, Cammarata filed a motion on September 8th asking for the injunction blocking his assets to be lifted.

Cammarata argues in the motion that he wasn’t “originally worried” about the ordered asset freeze because he believed he would be able to comply with it.

recognized from conclusive case law and familiarity with SEC regulations that the SEC’s lawsuit was nothing more than a targeted, hostile investigation brought forward to get a similarly flimsy TRO.

Cammarata’s stance on the granted injunction altered as reality set in, or as he realized the case against him was quite real and his “indisputable case law” response was, in fact, contestable.

Cammarata now asserts that the TRO has violated the constitution against him.

The SEC did not make any claim for remedy in the Complaint because there is enough evidence and case law to convince the court that AlphaPlus was not and could not have legally participated in any securities transactions.

On September 28th, the SEC submitted a response to Cammarata’s motion.

Cammarata’s application is denied since he previously gave his assent for the Preliminary Injunction to be entered and, earlier, for the Temporary Restraining Order’s relief to continue.

Cammarata was represented by capable counsel, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, at the time the parties agreed to the Preliminary Injunction and had unrestricted access to that counsel because he was out on bail.

After being released from detention, Cammarata naturally focused on planning his departure from the US with his girlfriend rather than keeping track of his case.

The DOJ provided a text message from June 2022 as proof of Cammarata’s criminal prosecution.

Cammarata gave the impression of acknowledging his capacity to elude the Bahamas-to-Florida border patrol.

Cammarata repeatedly used this method to transport his girlfriend undetected into the US.

Cammarata intended to leave the US for Colombia and live off of illegal riches after being released on bond last year.

According to the SEC, Cammarata has “access to seagoing vessels, private aircraft, and offshore properties.” These possessions include a condo in Colombia and an island in the Bahamas.

Sadly for Cammarata, his attempts to flee were unsuccessful, and so here we are.

Cammarata and his co-defendants, according to the SEC

are subject to severe liability, which could include disgorgement of the more than $40 million they stole along with prejudgment interest on the disgorgement, as well as civil penalties of up to $775,000 for the defendant entities and $160,000 for the individual defendants per violation, or equal to their gross pecuniary gain.

The Court has appropriately frozen the assets of the defendants and the assets of entities they own or control to preserve the status quo and the possibility of recovering any judgment in this case, including civil penalties because the defendants’ known assets are significantly less than their potential liabilities.

Given Cammarata’s financial acumen, global connections, and transgressions while out on bail for Criminal Action, there has always been and continues to be a sizable risk that, in the absence of an asset freeze, Cammarata will try to hide assets or relocate them overseas, out of the jurisdiction of this Court.

Since Cammarata’s assets pose an equal flight risk to him, the asset freeze is required to preserve the status quo while waiting for the result of this lawsuit.

Cammarata’s motion is still awaiting a ruling.

Vyvo Review - Is a Fraud
Investview & Joseph Cammarata Review – Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

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