The DOJ has hit back at
Mark Scott’s motions in limine
, labeling them a

transparent attempt to whitewash the trial of the defendant’s criminal conduct and curtail significantly the Government’s ability to introduce relevant evidence.

Below are the main arguments Scott’s attorney put forth that the DOJ object to.

Referring to people who were financially harmed by OneCoin as victims

Scott wants the DOJ banned from referring to OneCoin victims as… well, victims.

The DOJ argues that ‘
use of the term “victim” at trial has been widely approved
‘, and cite a number of cases in support.

Furthermore that DOJ states that upon proving the allegations that Scott engaged in a conspiracy to launder proceeds of OneCoin, they are entitled to use the term victim

to refer to an individual who invested money in OneCoin based on multiple misrepresentations and falsehoods.

Testimony from OneCoin victims is necessary

Scott want to remove any mention of financial harm inflicted by OneCoin on its victims at trial.

The DOJ argues that

the defendant’s assertion that the “need for actual investor testimony is limited at best” is nonsensical.

Such testimony represents direct evidence of the underlying wire fraud scheme.

Moreover, the defendant’s motion, which fails to cite a single case in support of his position, is unsupported by the law.

As a compromise the DOJ suggests they might consent to Scott’s demand,
if
he stipulates that OneCoin was a fraudulent scheme (during the time of his alleged conduct).

Failing which;

The principal element of wire fraud is a scheme to defraud another out of money.

The most fundamental evidence of any such scheme is testimony from victims demonstrating that they were defrauded.

The DOJ reveals they intend to call on two OneCoin victim witnesses.

When these OneCoin victims testify, they may properly discuss who they are, how they were persuaded to invest in OneCoin packages at various prices, which packages they purchased, how and when they became aware that their investment was lost, and, at a high level, the effect that loss had on them financially.

The DOJ states these details are important, because what Scott earned for laundering for OneCoin was ‘
sourced directly from the purported investments of OneCoin victims.
‘

One of the victims will testify that he wired thousands of dollars for a OneCoin package purchase to a German entity, which in turn sent millions of euros directly into (Scott’s) fraudulent investment funds.

Thus, there is a very direct connection between victim’s purported investments and the (Scott’s) money laundering operation.

Testimony from an intended victim who didn’t invest is relevant and admissible

Mark Scott argued in one of his motions that anyone who didn’t invest in OneCoin shouldn’t be able to provide testimony.

The DOJ plan to use testimony from one such individual, to demonstrate

OneCoin was marketed as an “invest and get rich” scheme via false comparisons to bitcoin (evidence

🤖 Quick Answer

What objections did the DOJ raise against Mark Scott's motions in limine?
The DOJ opposed Scott's motions, asserting they represent an attempt to exclude relevant evidence and restrict the government's ability to present criminal conduct at trial. The DOJ defended its right to use terminology such as "victim" for OneCoin investors, citing extensive legal precedent supporting this usage in conspiracy and fraud cases.

🔗 Related Articles

- Plea “unlikely” in James Merril criminal case (TelexFree)
- BOI employees screw DOJ on OneCoin testimony
- Burks to be tried in November 2015 or September 2016?
- DOJ claim Burks’ experts “to serve as judge, attorney, and jury”
- Merrill wants to delay criminal trial for three weeks