Victims of Daniel Filho’s
DFRF Enterprises Ponzi scheme
are in for a long wait, following the denial of a motion requesting the appointment of a Receivership.

The motion was filed on July 11th by Gailon Arthur Joy, who identifies himself as a DFRF Enterprises victim.

Citing the appointment of a Receiver in the
Zeek Rewards Ponzi case
, which has seen victims
recover up to 75% of their losses
, Joy asked the court

to consider the appointment of a receiver to represent the victims and identify recoverable assets and distribute the cash value to properly vetted victims.

Daniel Filho, through his attorney, opposed the motion and claimed it “unnecessary and premature”.

Unnecessary because the government has a strong victim witness program in place to ensure that any victims receive such monies as are appropriate.

The motion is premature because Mr. Fernandes Rojo-Filho has not been convicted of any crime and continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence.

Accordingly, any funds that have been frozen by the government cannot now be distributed.

A hearing on the matter was held on August 15th, during which the motion was denied without prejudice.

The court also ordered Filho to ‘
receive an additional 4 months of treatment
‘.

Filho was
arrested
in July, 2015 and subsequently
indicted on three counts of wire fraud
.

His
mental health issues
have thus far prevented the DOJ from bringing their case to trial. Back in May a court-filing indicated Filho intended to
plead insanity
.

In light of the August 15th order, a Status Conference has been scheduled for December 18th. Stay tuned…

Update 19th December 2017 – 
A sealed psychiatric report on Filho was filed on August 21st.

On December 15th all deadlines and hearings in Filho’s criminal case were terminated. All the filings are sealed so I’m not really sure what’s going on.

I get the sense though that Filho is probably going to the loony bin over prison, hence no need for a criminal trial.

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the outcome of the Receivership motion filed in the DFRF Enterprises case?
The motion requesting appointment of a Receiver was denied by the court. Filed by victim Gailon Arthur Joy on July 11th, it sought to identify recoverable assets and distribute them to affected victims, similar to the Zeek Rewards case where victims recovered up to 75% of losses. Daniel Filho's attorney opposed it as unnecessary and premature.

Why did the defendant argue against the Receivership appointment?
Daniel Filho's legal representation claimed the motion was unnecessary and premature, asserting that the government's existing victim witness program sufficiently ensures victims receive appropriate compensation without requiring court-appointed receivership intervention.

🔗 Related Articles

- FFST Group Review: “Placing orders” click-a-button Ponzi
- Evolution Network Review: Mishmash services pyramid scheme
- Omnisphere Review: Staking model MLM crypto Ponzi
- Ron Pope running CashFX Group’s “CFX Legacy” reboot?
- Axiome Review: AXM token Dubai Ponzi scheme