Author Avatar



Share post:

Luiz Capuci Jr. went to Brazil after finding out that his Ponzi scheme Mining Capital Coin was being investigated.

Capuci planned this action because he thought that Brazil’s habit of not extraditing its people would shield him from the law.

Sadly, things haven’t quite worked out like that.

The SEC is moving through with its civil lawsuit through alternative service while the DOJ is unable to go forward with its criminal case against Capuci (Capuci is still a wanted fugitive in hiding).

Something about which Capuci is undoubtedly unhappy.

Capuci expressed his disappointment in an intent document filed on September 27.

The law firm Wellman and Warren said in the filing on behalf of Capuci (right);

By proposing to rely on Brazilian law, Wellman & Warren, LLP, which is specifically representing Defendant Capuci in this case, hereby serves notice that it intends to introduce matters of foreign law.

On August 26th, the SEC submitted its request for alternate service. Through the Hague Convention, the regulator aims to serve Capuci and his accomplice in crime Emerson Pires in the motion.

The SEC has also asked for authorization to serve Capuci through email since serving Capuci in person can take some time. specifically via email to the California-based lawyers representing Capuci.

Capuci responds to it by saying, “Brazil does not authorize email service on persons in its nation,” which is supported by a “statement of Brazilian legal authority.”

Because email will take up the most time, Capuci wants the SEC banned from service.

The SEC acknowledges that the Convention is relevant in this case. It also acknowledges that it can carry out service via the Convention. It claims that it will take “eight to twelve months to effect service on the Individual Defendants,” which is the only reason why it is seeking an alternate means of service.

Because it thinks it will take too much time, the SEC does not wish to serve by the Convention.

This is not an acceptable justification for ignoring the explicit provisions of the Convention.

Capuci contends that if the SEC’s request were granted, it would be difficult for him to succeed in his appeal against the injunction against Mining Capital Coin.

The SEC has until October 4th to respond to Capuci’s answer, which we anticipate submitting within the coming 24 hours.

However, about the MCC order, Capuci has also submitted a funny reply to being discovered attempting to sell frozen assets.

The SEC pushed for Capuci to be held in contempt after learning that he had multiple frozen property assets offered for sale.

On September 27, Capuci submitted his rejoinder, arguing;

The SEC hasn’t provided any supporting data for its claim.

The SEC claims to the Court that Capuci sold or otherwise transferred any of the assets protected by the preliminary injunction, but it has provided no evidence to support this claim.

The SEC’s request should be rejected for this reason alone.

Capuci contends that even though the MCC order has effectively frozen his assets, listing them for sale doesn’t mean he intends to sell them.

The SEC has previously acknowledged that this behavior does not violate the asset freeze. More relevant, however, is the fact that the preliminary injunction ruling itself does not forbid such conduct.

In other words, unless the assets that have been blocked are sold, Capuci hasn’t broken the injunction.

The injunction makes no mention of Capuci being forbidden from “trying” or “attempting” to sell his assets.

Capuci is merely forbidden from really “disposing of” or “selling” his possessions, according to the ruling.

The qualifying wording that would have prevented Capuci from trying to sell any of his assets might have been inserted by the SEC, but it was chosen not to.

The SEC must thus live with the phrase it selected.

Capuci’s attempt to wiggle out of being caught is entertaining, but it is unclear if the court will accept his b.s.

Co-defendant Emerson Pires had previously sold a frozen Florida property asset, according to the SEC’s petition.

Pires (right), who is also facing charges of contempt, has so far disregarded all filings in the SEC’s case and has also fled to Brazil.

The same deadline has been set for the SEC to respond to Capuci’s contempt response as it was for the alternative service motion: October 4.

Antares Trade Review Part 3 - Is a Fraud
DreamTrips Review - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

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