A sixth lawsuit has been filed against BitConnect and its top promoters.

Patrick Argiro presents himself as a plaintiff in the February 22nd Florida complaint.

In the complaint Argiro alleges

BitConnect scammed thousands of Floridians and hundreds of thousands of Americans out of millions and millions of dollars.

Named defendants in the suit are BitConnect, Glenn Arcaro, Trevon Brown (aka Trevon James), Ryan Hildreth, Craig Grant, Crypto Nick and Ryan Maasen.

In line with
BitConnect’s business model
Argiro alleges

Bitconnect was both a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme.

That is, it relied on new money from new users, who were in turn expected to get m ore new users to produce more new money, while not actually engaging in any real activity that would

produce income, profits or benefit to investors.

When the money ran out,

Bitconnect shut down its platform , took aIl of Plaintiff and the Class’s money, and left them with BCC which is either entirely worthless or has significantly less value than Bitconnect promised.

Across thirteen counts, Patrick Argiro accuses BitConnect and the named defendants of

tortious interference with contract

breach of contract

misappropriation

conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity

unfair business practices

breach of covenant of good faith

intentional infliction of emotional distress

fraud

using a false record or statement to get false claim paid material to a false claim

violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act

civil conspiracy

forgery and

mail fraud

Argiro’s complaint filing was quickly followed by a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.

For those unfamiliar with the term, “in forma pauperis” is ‘
given by both state and federal courts to someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or a criminal defense
‘.

In support of his motion Argiro declared he

is currently not earning income (wages)

has $13,000 in savings and $15,000 in assets

is spending $1000 a month on transport assistance and

is $30,000 in debt

Oh his $30,000 debt Argiro claims $15,000 is a direct result of his participation in BitConnect.

On the same day Argiro’s in forma pauperis motion was filed it was denied. I suspect due to him having almost $30,000 in combined savings and assets.

That said it’s pretty clear that Argiro’s complaint was not filed by a lawyer.

Among other thing;

the complaint is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors

defendants are not clearly identified in the party

the complaint references Connecticut law for some reason

sections of the lawsuit (particularly those pertaining to RICO) are clearly copy and pasted from other lawsuits, as different plaintiffs and defendants are mentioned

Argiro has been given until March 5th to pay the required $400 filing fee.

Although I’m not a lawyer, personally even if he did pay the filing fee I can’t see the complaint getting very far in its current state.

Update 8th March 20

🤖 Quick Answer

What is the sixth BitConnect lawsuit filed in Florida about?
Patrick Argiro filed a complaint on February 22nd alleging that BitConnect defrauded thousands of Floridians and hundreds of thousands of Americans. The lawsuit names BitConnect and seven promoters as defendants, claiming the company operated as both a pyramid and Ponzi scheme that relied on new user investments without generating legitimate income or profits.

Who are the defendants named in the BitConnect lawsuit?
The defendants include BitConnect, Glenn Arcaro, Trevon Brown (also known as Trevon James), Ryan Hildreth, Craig Grant, Crypto Nick, and Ryan Maasen. These individuals are accused of participating in the fraudulent scheme that victimized investors across multiple states.

🔗 Related Articles

- Seventh BitConnect class-action voluntarily dismissed (California)
- Seventh BitConnect lawsuit filed in California ($110,000 in losses)
- Michael Noble also likely facing BitConnect criminal charges
- BitConnect class-action lawsuit filed over $771,000 in losses
- Bitconnect Florida trial date set, prelim injunction sought in Kentucky