Daniel Pacheco’s hilarious answer to SEC’s iPro Network fraud lawsuit

Daniel Pacheco has filed a hilarious answer to the SEC’s lawsuit against him and his company iPro Network.

He’s also going after the regulator through equally amusing counterclaims.

Daniel Pacheco (right) launched iPro Network back in early 2017. The scheme was quick to exit-scam via public listing of its PROC shitcoin, after which PROC went nowhere and inevitably dumped.

Today PROC is “worth” $0.00074.

In a lawsuit filed in May, the SEC accused Daniel Pacheco of
running a $26 million dollar securities fraud pyramid scheme
.

Pacheco filed his response to the lawsuit on August 13th. And it reads much as you’d expect, mostly denials, until you get to affirmative defenses.

In his response, Pacheco asserts the SEC can’t sue him because;

a statute of limitations applies;

“the SEC did not suffer any actual damages”; and

Pacheco “may have additional defenses current unknown to (him)”.

Pacheco doesn’t state what statute of limitations he’s referring to. Nor am I aware of any that apply to securities fraud and/or pyramid scheme regulatory lawsuits.

It kind of sounds like Pacheco is trying to “terms and conditions” the SEC, which is bonkers hilarious.

Equally bonkers hilarious is Pacheco putting forth that the SEC can’t sue him, because he didn’t specifically scam the regulator itself.

Cuz y’know, that’s how the law works. Steal from whoever you want… as long as you don’t steal from the SEC, they can’t come after you.

Bear in mind at this stage Pacheco is merely filing a required response to the SEC’s lawsuit. What he puts in his answer doesn’t have to make sense, but hilarious nonsense isn’t a good look.

As part of his answer, Pacheco is also countersuing the SEC.

According to Pacheco, in early 2017 iPro Network discovered “numerous accounting discrepancies” with its processing merchant Fintact.

Fintact Payment Solutions LLC and Fintact Solutions Group LLC, both run by Matthew Lopez, are also defendants in the SEC’s iPro Network lawsuit.

Pacheco claims review by a forensic accountant revealed discrepancies in Fintact’s records, as well as a 2% overcharge on processing fees.

After several weeks, and after much expense by iPro, the forensic accountant successfully corrected the discrepancies created by Fintact.

However, due to the damage that had been caused by Fintact’s negligence, iPro no longer desired to utilize Fintact’s services.

Therefore iPro decided to directly process all payments itself.

By the October 2017, iPro Network was processing its payments internally.

In November 2017 iPro Network

verbally terminated the relationship with Fintact and requested that it return the balance of all monies that was held in trust.

This amount is believed to be in excess of $5,000,000, which includes both iPro’s profits, and monies that were to be dispersed to iPro’s distributors as commissions.

Fintact refused the request, prompting iPro to file a Texas District lawsuit against them in January 2018.

Durign the course of their Texas l

🤖 Quick Answer

What accusations did the SEC bring against Daniel Pacheco and iPro Network?

How did Pacheco respond to the SEC's fraud allegations?
Pacheco filed his response on August 13th, containing primarily denials along with affirmative defenses claiming statute of limitations applicability and other legal grounds to challenge the SEC's authority to pursue the case against him.

What happened to iPro Network's PROC cryptocurrency token?
PROC went nowhere after the public listing and inevitably dumped in value, currently trading at approximately $0.00074 per token, reflecting the scheme's collapse following its exit-scam strategy.

🔗 Related Articles

- Neora moves to dismiss or transfer, FTC opposes
- WeWe Global’s Oceania marketing tour was a disaster
- Mining City lying about Philippine SEC registration?
- Mirror Trading International an illegal company in Canada
- OneCoin investors arrested in Bangladesh