Caselaw

Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 43510-07-22 Guy Binder vs. Daniel Shmuel Elmaliah - part 2

March 10, 2025
Print

In addition, according to them, in addition to being investors in the new coin, the defendant offered them to assist him for a short period of time in promoting the issuance of the new coin (hereinafter: the "Project"), and the parties agreed that the plaintiffs would deal with the technological, marketing and managerial aspect of the project in exchange for a sum of 350,000 IM each, to be paid on the day of the launch of the new coin, which was scheduled for April 22, 2021.  Regarding this, it was clarified that the plaintiffs agreed to share the risk with the defendants in such a way that if the new coin is not issued, they will not receive any consideration for their investment.

After it was discovered that the American company did not have regulatory approval and therefore it was not possible to issue the coin in the United States, the issuance of the new coin in the United States was canceled.  According to the plaintiffs, in order to save their investment, they located legal advisors who are experts in the field of crypto, on whose advice the issuance of the new coin was transferred to the Gibraltar company.  After receiving the necessary regulatory approvals to carry out an initial public offering of the new coin, a total of 1.2 iM was issued in Gibraltar on 19/8/21.

According to the plaintiffs, in December 2021 they learned that the defendant had emptied the American company's coffers and that the entire investment money had been transferred to the account of a company controlled by the defendant, whose identity is unknown to the plaintiffs.  It also became clear to the plaintiffs that the defendant had ceased the activity of the American company and that he had no intention of establishing any solar farm. 

In light of this, the plaintiffs proposed to the defendant to return to the investors the funds that were illegally raised and to open a new company together that would deal with the development and launch of a new digital currency in accordance with the provisions of the relevant laws.  Alternatively, the plaintiffs asked to return the amount of the investment and to pay them the value of their time invested in the project. 

Previous part12
3...14Next part