Both the SEC and defendant Daniel Pacheco have had their motions for summary judgment denied.

Both parties sought to get the upper hand via the filings, made in July 2021.

As per an April 4th order, the court found;

Although the SEC presents a strong case, a showing has not been made that the issues are purely legal and determinable on summary judgment.

Pacheco’s motion was filed on the basis
iPro Network and its Pro Currency investment scheme
wasn’t a securities offering.

Pacheco argued in opposition that PRO Currency was not an investment contract because it was given freely as a reward when customers bought “real products with real value”.

The court disagreed.

Material fact disputes exist as to whether Pro Currency or the I-Pro Network constituted securities.

Looking forward, should the case progress to trial we’ll have the  “bundling a product or service to our Ponzi scheme makes it not a Ponzi scheme” ruse put before a jury.

I honestly don’t see that happening, as it’s practically a guaranteed loss for Pacheco (right).

Whether consumers were motivated by the PRO Currency or the educational materials should be a factual question reserved for a jury.

Pacheco also argued that consumers were motivated by the I Pro Mall, which, though admittedly never actually was accessible to consumers, purportedly was set to include $4 million worth of products that could be exchanged for the “reward” PRO Currency.

Finally, Pacheco asserted that there was a growing list of over 200 vendors that had interest in accepting PRO Currency as tender.

While the SEC has strong and persuasive arguments, the only way to address the material disputes of fact is to delve far into the particular details of the chronology of events and to discount Pacheco’s declarations, both of which do not seem to be questions of law to be addressed on summary judgment.

Put more simply, though the SEC’s case appears well-supported and logical, it does not appear that the triable issues of material fact have crossed the line from factual into legal such that a grant of summary judgment is appropriate here.

While it might not be suitable for summary judgment, Howey Test case law with respect to investment contracts and securities is pretty established.

Pacheco’s arguments about “products and services” are easily demolished by ringing up how many people invested in PROC outside of the MLM opportunity.

The answer is 0%, because PROC wasn’t available through iPro Network outside of the attached Ponzi/pyramid scheme.

As per an
order made back in January
, the iPro Network trial is scheduled for August 9th, 2022.

Update 24th June 2022 – 
Following a Joint Cast Management Statement filed on May 12th, the court rescheduled the August trial for January 17th, 2023.

Update 23rd December 2022 – 
Daniel Pacheco has
settled his iPro Network fraud case
with the SEC.

🤖 Quick Answer

What happened with the summary judgment motions in the iPro Network case?
Both the SEC and defendant Daniel Pacheco had their summary judgment motions denied by the court in April 2021. The court determined that despite the SEC presenting a strong case, material factual disputes existed regarding whether Pro Currency constituted a security, preventing resolution through summary judgment alone.

What was Pacheco's argument regarding Pro Currency's classification?
Pacheco contended that Pro Currency was not an investment contract because it was distributed freely as a reward when customers purchased tangible products with intrinsic value. He argued this distribution mechanism excluded it from securities classification under applicable investment law standards.

Why did the court reject Pacheco's securities classification argument?
The court found material factual disputes existed concerning whether Pro Currency and the iPro Network constituted securities. These unresolved factual questions prevented the court from determining the matter as purely legal issue suitable for

🔗 Related Articles

- De La Rosa & Crosby preliminary injunction granted
- Massachusetts charge TelexFree as “billion dollar Ponzi”
- TelexFree insiders try to cut prelim injunction deals
- USFIA a Ponzi scheme, SEC granted summary judgement
- Luiz Capuci Jr. upset SEC pursuing him in Brazil