OneCoin, a cryptocurrency fraud scheme responsible for bilking 25,000 German investors out of an estimated $425 million, spent nearly two years in German courts attempting to silence independent publisher Coinspondent, ultimately failing in its efforts. The Ponzi scheme, which German authorities banned in 2021, targeted Coinspondent despite larger German media outlets also covering the ban.
OneCoin demanded the independent website remove its reporting on the 2021 ban and sought a payment of €1,440.40, effectively a hush money demand. When Coinspondent refused these terms, OneCoin escalated the matter by filing for an injunction. The Berlin District Court rejected this initial request immediately, signaling the weakness of OneCoin's legal position.
Coinspondent decided to counter the intimidation. Supporters rallied, donating over €10,000 to fund the publisher's legal defense and a counterstrike. The independent outlet then filed a "negative declaratory" action, a legal maneuver asking the court to formally declare that OneCoin's lawsuit had no valid legal basis under German law.
The Berlin District Court heard arguments in the case last August. Its ruling, issued in February, largely sided with Coinspondent. OneCoin's claims were almost entirely dismissed.
The court specifically found that a German OneCoin affiliate's assertion of personal harm from Coinspondent's reporting lacked foundation. The affiliate was not even named in the disputed article. The central issue of regulatory details involved Coinspondent's initial report on the ban of IMS International Marketing Services. This entity functioned as a shell company OneCoin used to funnel investor cash. Former OneCoin executive Frank Ricketts owned IMS. Germany's financial regulator, BaFin, which oversees financial markets, imposed its ban on OneCoin itself just days after the IMS action in 2021.
OneCoin argued that IMS was the primary target of regulatory action, not the parent OneCoin entity. The court remained unconvinced by this distinction. Instead of issuing a full judgment for either side, the judge mandated a minor update: Coinspondent had to add a clarification to its original article, noting that IMS was initially banned, with OneCoin's own ban following shortly thereafter.
This single footnote was the sum total of two years of litigation for the global fraud operation. OneCoin is now responsible for paying both sides' legal costs. Coinspondent's editor, however, voiced skepticism about whether that money will actually materialize. The publisher also plans to offer donors the option to request refunds, prepared to absorb any financial shortfall.
The case exposes the desperate tactics of a collapsing fraud operation. OneCoin, known for its global reach and fraudulent cryptocurrency claims, attempted to silence factual reporting. Unable to control its public narrative through legitimate business, OneCoin weaponized the legal system against a small publisher. The attempt at intimidation backfired completely. An independent outlet effectively outmatched one of the world's largest alleged cryptocurrency scams, demonstrating the minimal legal ground the scheme actually held. "Very satisfied," Coinspondent's author stated, despite the lack of an outright victory.