Glenn Arcaro equates BitConnect to gambling, argues not a security

Glenn Arcaro has moved to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by BitConnect victims.

Arcaro, who
went into hiding
 just before 
BitConnect collapsed
earlier this year, dismisses victims of the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme as “disappointed gamblers”.

In a Motion to Dismiss filed on August 17th, Arcaro challenges allegations that BitConnect was a “scheme to defraud cryptocurrency speculators”.

Bearing in mind he’s BitConnect’s top US net-winner, Arcaro argues that laws cited in the class-action “do not apply to him” and that he has “no colorable legal responsibility” for his conduct.

Through promotion of BitConnect, Arcaro is believed to have made off with millions upon millions of dollars of fraudulently obtained investor funds.

Not surprisingly, arguments raised by Arcaro hold little legal weight. In fact his motion to dismiss is probably one of the most legally ignorant filings I’ve seen from a scammer’s attorney yet.

Defenses raised by Arcaro include

lack of personal jurisdiction

BitConnect’s BCC altcoin not being a security

Arcaro didn’t personally sell BitConnect

failure to establish ‘
the “who, what, where, when, and how” of
‘ BitConnect

no specific reliance on statements made by Arcaro

any efforts to promote BitConnect on YouTube by Arcaro are cancelled out because ‘
BitConnect was being widely and loudly denounced as a fraud on the very same platform
‘

fatal defects in several claims

BitConnect followed the typical “
set up a shell company in the UK
” Ponzi route.

Why scammers flock to register bogus companies through the essentially unregulated UK Companies House is evidenced in Arcaro’s motion.

All of the BitConnect entities are registered in the United Kingdom.

Arcaro argues he is being unfairly targeted because

there is no evidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel ever attempted service on any BitConnect entity, despite knowing where they are and presumably knowing about the well-recognized and widely used tools for serving process in the United Kingdom.

What Arcaro fails to address is that any address created for BitConnect related shell companies in the UK are as bogus as the incorporations themselves.

You can’t serve a non-existent address (to clarify, any address provided on BitConnect’s UK entities might exist but have nothing to do with the company).

Not withstanding BitConnect doesn’t even exist anymore outside of an abandoned website that will probably go offline once the current hosting expires.

Arcaro himself is in hiding and is believed to be avoiding US authorities.

Thus if victims of BitConnect want to sue top promoters who lead them down the garden path, they have no choice but to sue them.

What jurisdiction they choose shouldn’t matter, because BitConnect itself was set up on a corporate level to make it difficult to execute service.

Again, not withstanding Arcaro’s personal efforts to avoid litigation by going on the run just before BitConnect collapsed.

Which makes arguments like this entirely

🤖 Quick Answer

Who is Glenn Arcaro and what is his connection to BitConnect?

What arguments does Arcaro present in his dismissal motion?
In his August 17th Motion to Dismiss, Arcaro contends that securities fraud laws do not apply to him and that he bears no legal responsibility for his conduct. He argues BitConnect constituted gambling rather than an illegal investment scheme subject to regulatory oversight.

How much money is BitConnect estimated to have defrauded?
BitConnect is classified as a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme. Arcaro alone is believed to have obtained millions of dollars in fraudulently obtained

🔗 Related Articles

- BitConnect’s Glenn Arcaro wants to change his name
- Seventh BitConnect lawsuit filed in California ($110,000 in losses)
- Glenn Arcaro’s BitConnect sentencing pushed to 2022
- BitConnect class-action lawsuit filed over $771,000 in losses
- Sixth BitConnect lawsuit filed in Florida