Randy Crosby and Santiago De La Rosa, two top promoters for the TelexFree Ponzi scheme, recently filed motions to dismiss the civil case against them, asserting they "knew nothing" of the fraud. This defense comes two years after the scheme's collapse, which saw thousands lose money.

Feigned ignorance often surfaces as a defense in Ponzi cases. Those at the top, who profited most, frequently claim innocence despite their active involvement in promoting such schemes. They often portray themselves as mere affiliates, not managers, unaware of the underlying deception.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, in a significant shift for Ponzi scheme enforcement, named four of TelexFree's primary promoters as defendants in its civil case. Crosby and De La Rosa, along with Faith Sloan and Sanderley Rodrigues, face accountability for their collective role in convincing thousands to invest in TelexFree.

Attorneys for De La Rosa and Crosby filed nearly identical motions to dismiss. They argue there is no clear reason why these specific promoters were singled out from thousands of others. Crosby's motion suggests he should be considered a victim himself, a role it claims more accurately describes his position.

Such a "we knew nothing" defense prompts questions about due diligence. A top investor, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions in Rodrigues's case, might reasonably be expected to inquire about the source of their returns. This argument stretches thin after one or two years of consistent payouts.

The defense becomes even less credible when an investor has a documented history of participating in mechanically identical Ponzi schemes. Their repeated migration from one fraudulent scheme to another suggests more than pure coincidence. At worst, this defense reveals a willingness to mislead in order to shed personal liability.

Promoters were singled out because they were the most visible figures. De La Rosa and Crosby regularly hosted calls and webinars to encourage their downline investors to recruit new participants. They also frequently spoke at and organized TelexFree promotional events. Their active promotion of an illegal scheme contradicts any claim of victimhood.

The argument that any of TelexFree's top promoters knew nothing is further undermined by the fact that none of them had any significant number of their own personal funds invested in the scheme.