Nicholas Mui, 22, from Grand Haven, Michigan, has pleaded guilty in the 17th Circuit Court in Kent County to conducting a criminal enterprise, involving the theft and sale of Mperks account access information. Mui is required to forfeit his computer tower and approximately $630,000 in frozen cryptocurrency and cash. He compromised Mperks, a loyalty program […]
Source link
The president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, has expressed concern about consumer risk due to “fraud, hype, and confusion” surrounding bitcoin. Moreover, he said the cryptocurrency has been around for more than a decade but “there’s still no legitimate use case in an advanced democracy.” ‘I Am Worried From […]
Source link
A Nigerian court has postponed the tax evasion case of the detained Binance executive to April 19, while the hearing for the cryptocurrency exchange itself is scheduled for April 8. The court also ordered that the executive Tigran Gambaryan be held in the custody of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. Tigran Gambaryan Accused of […]
Source link
A web3 membership designed to empower you with cutting-edge insights and knowledge, powered by Access Protocol. Learn more ›
Welcome! 👋 You are connected to CryptoSlate Alpha. To manage your wallet connection, click the button below.
If you don’t have enough, buy ACS on the following exchanges:
Access Protocol is a web3 monetization paywall. When users stake ACS, they can access paywalled content. Learn more ›
Disclaimer: By choosing to lock your ACS tokens with CryptoSlate, you accept and recognize that you will be bound by the terms and conditions of your third-party digital wallet provider, as well as any applicable terms and conditions of the Access Foundation. CryptoSlate shall have no responsibility or liability with regard to the provision, access, use, locking, security, integrity, value, or legal status of your ACS Tokens or your digital wallet, including any losses associated with your ACS tokens. It is solely your responsibility to assume the risks associated with locking your ACS tokens with CryptoSlate. For more information, visit our terms page.
The old saying that “no one fights like family” is perfectly exemplified by a Los Angeles court case involving several members of the same family feuding over a multibillion-dollar real estate empire.
The case, which took decades to play out, featured more dramatic plot twists than a Hollywood movie before an L.A. jury finally awarded the plaintiffs (four brothers) billions of dollars in damages by ruling against the defendant (who was the plaintiffs’ brother).
It all started when Shashikant “Shashi” Jogani, who was born into a family of diamond traders, moved to Los Angeles in 1969 and began investing in real estate. By 1994, Jogani’s portfolio consisted of thousands of units and had an estimated value of $375 million. It was all going splendidly until the Northridge Earthquake damaged many of his properties and he had 16 tenants in one building die when a floor collapsed beneath them.
The cost of the lawsuits and repairing the damage to his properties hit Jogani while a major recession was plaguing the real estate market. This combination of bad circumstances left Jogani’s empire in dire straits, and he reached out to his brother Haresh Jogani for assistance. The brothers reached a verbal agreement that saw Haresh Jogani inject cash into the business and buy 2,600 of Shashi Jogani’s units.
This is where the plot thickens. According to Haresh Jogani, the deal called for Haresh and three of his brothers to become 50% partners with Shashi Jogani once their original investment plus 12% was recuperated. Shashi Jogani acted as adviser and Haresh Jogani bankrolled the acquisitions. The portfolio continued to grow until it consisted of 17,000 units. Then things got complicated.
In 2001, Shashi Jogani was “fired” from the partnership after he allegedly tried to transfer ownership of an asset into his name without Haresh Jogani’s approval. This led to Shashi Jogani suing Haresh for breaking their partnership up by firing him. Over the next 20 years, the case was characterized by a dizzying array of recanted statements, shifting alliances, and legal maneuvering.
There were multiple case dismissals resulting from various legal wrangling among the plaintiffs and even a verdict cast aside for alleged juror misconduct. Finally, in 2024 the case reached a verdict, and a jury awarded Shashi Jogani and his co-plaintiffs (who were the original brothers Haresh Jogani included in the verbal agreement) $2.5 billion in monetary damages and $4.5 billion worth of equity in the portfolio.
Shashi Jogani and his co-plaintiffs in the case are happy with the verdict. Shashi Jogani was the biggest winner financially, having been awarded the 50% stake in the business that the verbal agreement originally called for, plus $1.8 billion in damages. The remaining amount was split between the other brothers, who received damage awards ranging from $299 million to $570 million and various equity shares based on the jury’s calculations.
The case isn’t over. As the losing defendant, Haresh Jogani has appealed the verdict and filed a motion against the trial judge for racial animus. The punitive damage awards have yet to be made, and it’s almost a guarantee they will be in the hundreds of millions or possibly even billions of dollars.
The real tragedy here is that the Jogani family could have avoided these decades of litigation and millions of dollars in legal fees by taking just a few hours to draw up an actual contract when Haresh Jogani joined the business. There is a lesson to be learned here for all house hackers, real estate investment partnerships and syndication dealers.
Even if it goes bad, it’s always going to end more cleanly with a contract than without one. Take the time to hire lawyers and structure your partnership in such a way that everyone understands what’s expected of them and how things will go in case one partner needs to make an orderly exit. That way, you can all make a clean break and not wind up wasting years of your time and way too much of your money on lawyers, depositions and court cases.
Read Next:
“ACTIVE INVESTORS’ SECRET WEAPON” Supercharge Your Stock Market Game with the #1 “news & everything else” trading tool: Benzinga Pro – Click here to start Your 14-Day Trial Now!
Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga?
This article LA Jury Awards 4 Brothers Billions In A Case That is The Mother Of All Real Estate Disputes originally appeared on Benzinga.com
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
NEW YORK (AP) — Days after former President Donald Trump posted a $175 million bond to block New York state from imminently collecting on a huge civil fraud judgment, state lawyers Thursday called for more information on the bond’s bona fides.
State Attorney General Letitia James’ office filed papers giving Trump’s lawyers or the bond underwriter 10 days to “justify” the bond — essentially, to show that the company can make good on it. That could mean disclosing more about the collateral Trump provided.
A hearing was set for April 22.
One of Trump’s lawyers, Christopher Kise, said James was trying to provoke a “baseless public quarrel in a desperate effort to regain relevance” after an appeals court last month significantly cut the amount of the bond needed to hold off collection.
“Yet another witch hunt!” Kise wrote in an email.
A message seeking comment was left for the underwriter, Knight Specialty Insurance Co.
The bond, posted Monday, at least temporarily stopped the state from potentially seizing Trump’s assets to satisfy the more than $454 million that he owes after losing a lawsuit trial. The case, brought by the Democratic attorney general, alleged that Trump, along with his company and key executives, defrauded bankers and insurers by lying about his wealth.
The ex-president and presumptive Republican nominee denies the claims and is appealing the judgment.
By posting the bond, Trump aimed to stop the clock on enforcement of the judgment during his appeal. But it hasn’t gone entirely smoothly.
First, the court system kicked back Monday’s filing for more paperwork, including a financial statement from Knight Specialty Insurance. That was filed Thursday, showing that the company has over $539 million in assets and related reinsurer Knight Insurance Co. Ltd. has over $2.1 billion.
Then James’ office filed notice that it “takes exception to the sufficiency” of the bond — a move that judgment winners can make to get more information from out-of-state underwriters, in some circumstances.
Knight Specialty Insurance is a Wilmington, Delaware-based part of the Los Angeles-based Knight Insurance Group.
The attorney general’s notice doesn’t request specific information. But “justifying” generally means demonstrating that the underwriter is financially sound and able to pay the bond amount if the judgment is upheld.
A state appeals court also has held, in an unrelated case, that there needed to be a showing that a bond was “sufficiently collateralized by identifiable assets.”
Knight Insurance Group Chairman Don Hankey told The Associated Press Monday that cash and bonds were used as collateral for Trump’s appellate bond.
Eric Trump, a son of the former president and a top executive in his company, said in a social media post Thursday that the bond was backed entirely by cash.
The attorney general’s objection “is just another example of the absurdity and foolishness that have been the underlying theme throughout this circus of a case,” the younger Trump wrote on X, former Twitter.
He and his brother, a fellow Trump Organization executive vice president, Donald Trump Jr. were also defendants in the fraud suit. They were found liable and ordered to pay $4 million apiece.
All told, the judgment against Trump, the sons and other defendants totals more than $467 million, growing daily with interest.
___
Associated Press writers Michael R. Sisak in New York and Brian Slodysko in Washington contributed.
Crypto exchange Binance, currently facing criminal charges in Nigeria, notably lacked legal representation at its April 4 court hearing in the African nation.
Instead, the hearing was only attended by its compliance chief, Tigran Gambaryan, who the Nigerian government has detained since the end of February.
However, despite expectations for the proceedings to advance, the Nigerian High Court postponed the case until April 19.
As of press time, Binance has yet to respond to CryptoSlate’s request for comment.
Last week, CryptoSlate reported that the authorities charged Binance and its executives with failing to register with relevant local agencies and avoiding tax responsibilities.
Additionally, the Nigerian government accused Binance of facilitating users who evade tax payments.
However, the government somehow failed to serve the case charges to the defendants despite having Gambaryan within their custody since February.
Chukwuka Ikwuazo, legal counsel for Gambaryan, argued that the arraignment should not proceed due to this lapse.
In the past two months, Binance has faced ongoing disputes with the Nigerian government regarding its alleged involvement in worsening the country’s foreign exchange issues.
Despite Binance’s consistent denial of any wrongdoing, the Nigerian authorities, including the Federal Inland Revenue Services and Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, have filed criminal complaints against it and its executives—Nadeem Anjarwalla and Gambaryan.
Anjarwalla, a UK citizen, evaded custody in March. He is currently being tried in absentia and the government has enlisted the help of Interpol to aid in his extradition.
Conversely, Binance has called for the release of Gambaryan, emphasizing that he does not make pivotal decisions within the company.
Notably, Gambaryan has also initiated legal actions against the Nigerian authorities, citing a violation of his fundamental human rights.
The post Binance executive remains detained as Nigerian court postpones case appeared first on CryptoSlate.
Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of FTX, was sentenced to 25 years in jail today in a packed courtroom, marking a significant moment in the legal scrutiny of the crypto industry. He will be 57 years old when he is released. The sentencing, as detailed by Inner City Press, comes after a series of legal proceedings that shed light on the complexities and potential vulnerabilities within the digital asset space.
Bankman-Fried, dressed in a light brown jail uniform from MDC-Brooklyn, faced the judgment of Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who, after considering the pre-sentence report and the guidelines disputes, delivered a sentence that reflects the gravity of the crimes committed. The courtroom, filled with prosecutors, defense lawyers, and an FBI agent, bore witness to the culmination of a case that has been closely followed by both the crypto community and the general public.
The legal proceedings highlighted the extensive financial losses incurred by investors, lenders, and customers, with Judge Kaplan rejecting the defense’s argument about the loss amount. The court found that investors lost $1.7 billion, lenders lost $1.3 billion, and customers faced an $8 billion shortfall. These figures underscore the scale of the fraud and the impact on the victims involved.
The defense had previously sought leniency, citing Bankman-Fried’s autism diagnosis and arguing for a reduced sentence of 63 to 78 months. However, the prosecution argued for a substantial prison term of 50 years.
Judge Kaplan’s decision to vary downward from the Guidelines range while still acknowledging the significant number of victims and the use of sophisticated means emphasizes the complexity of sentencing in cases involving emerging technologies and financial structures. The finding of obstruction of justice, including attempted witness tampering and perjury, further emphasized the deliberate actions taken by Bankman-Fried to mislead and defraud.
During the sentencing hearing, a poignant moment unfolded as victims were given the opportunity to address the court. One such victim, Sunil Kavuri, who traveled from London specifically for this purpose, shared his experiences and the impact of the FTX collapse on him and others. Kavuri highlighted the ongoing struggles faced by victims, challenging the narrative that the loss was zero and criticizing the handling of the bankruptcy estate. He pointed out the significant discrepancies in the valuation and sale of assets, including a token that significantly appreciated in value after being sold at a discount and the sale of Solana tokens at a 70% discount.
Kavuri’s testimony underscored the real and continuing harm suffered by those affected, including the tragic note that at least three individuals had committed suicide as a result of the fraud. Judge Kaplan acknowledged Kavuri’s points, reinforcing the gravity of the situation and the inaccuracies in claims that customers would be made whole. This victim’s statement added a deeply personal dimension to the proceedings, emphasizing the human cost of financial crimes and the need for accountability beyond the sentencing of Bankman-Fried.
In a heartfelt defense of his client, Sam Bankman-Fried’s attorney, Mark Mukasey, presented a contrasting image of the former FTX CEO to the court. Mukasey argued that Bankman-Fried’s actions, while resulting in significant financial fallout, were not driven by the same malice or predatory intent that characterized other high-profile financial criminals, such as those who stole from Holocaust survivors. He emphasized that Bankman-Fried was not a “ruthless financial serial killer” but rather someone who made decisions based on mathematical calculations, not with the intention to cause personal pain.
Mukasey also relayed personal insights from Bankman-Fried’s mother, who described her son as misunderstood and not fitting the mold of a “greedy swindler.” According to Mukasey, Bankman-Fried did not abscond with funds but remained engaged until the end, with a genuine desire to see people repaid. This narrative was allowed to be presented in court partly due to Judge Kaplan’s decision to depart from the usual practice of enumerating the papers considered for sentencing, acknowledging the overwhelming volume of last-minute submissions from both the defense and the prosecution.
The defense’s portrayal of Bankman-Fried aimed to humanize him and differentiate his case from other financial frauds, suggesting that while the consequences of his actions were severe, his motivations were not inherently malicious. Mukasey’s statement also served as an acknowledgment of the victims’ suffering, expressing an understanding of their pain and a commitment to appeal, while maintaining respect for the jury’s verdict.
In a plea to the court, speaking directly Bankman-Fried admitted,
“I made a lot of mistakes. But that’s not how the story ended. Customers weren’t paid back. FTX didn’t survive that. Yeah, customers have been given conflicting claims. That’s caused a lot of damage. They could have been paid back.”
In a moment of candor, Sam Bankman-Fried expressed a somber reflection on his future, acknowledging the likelihood that his ability to contribute meaningfully to society may be irreparably diminished. He admitted to the court that his capacity to make an impact is severely limited by incarceration and that the length of his sentence, whether it be 5 or 40 years, is beyond his control. He stated,
“My useful life is probably over. I’ve long since given what I had to give. I can’t do it from prison.”
Bankman-Fried also addressed the perception of his actions, recognizing the stark contrast between his alleged intentions and how prosecutors, the court, and the media interpreted them. He also said he now expects customers to be repaid. He commented, “I think I failed at that. I’m not sure why, but I do think I did.” He also referred to a specific instance involving a text to the general counsel, which he claimed was an attempt to assist, though it was not viewed as such by others. Even on the day of his sentencing, Bankman-Fried continues to assert that he did not steal user funds maliciously.
However, in his judgment, Judge Kaplan asserted that he believed much of Bankman-Fried’s public rhetoric “was an act” designed to obtain power and influence.
According to Inner City Press, before the sentence was issued, the government argued,
“The defendant is not a monster but he committed gravely serious crimes that harmed many people – and he would consider doing it again. So, 40 to 50 years.”
In announcing the sentence, Judge Kaplan proclaimed that Bankman-Fried was nothing short of a “performer.”
“When not lying, he was evasive, hair splitting, trying to get the prosecutors to rephrase questions for him. I’ve been doing this job for close for 30 years. I’ve never seen a performance like that.”
His sentencing was reported by Inner City Press as follows,
“It is the judgment of the court that you are sentenced to 240 months then consecutive 60 [etc] for a total of 300 months [25 years].”
The implications of today’s sentencing extend beyond the immediate legal consequences for Bankman-Fried. They touch on broader questions about the regulation of digital assets, the protection of investors, and the future of digital asset markets. As the industry grapples with these challenges, the outcome of this case will likely influence discussions and decisions on how best to navigate the complex intersection of technology, finance, and law.
This article will be updated with additional details as they become available.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is seeking nearly $2 billion in fines from Ripple Labs in the ongoing XRP lawsuit. “There is absolutely no precedent for this,” exclaimed Ripple’s CEO regarding the $2 billion fine. “We will continue to expose the SEC for what they are when we respond to this.” SEC Wants […]
Source link
In recent times, the cryptocurrency landscape has experienced a widespread decline, yet the digital asset bitcoinsv, known for its associations with Craig Wright, has seen the most significant weekly downturn within the crypto sphere, dropping 18.9% versus the U.S. dollar in seven days. This decline in bitcoinsv’s value closely follows the verdict by U.K. Judge […]
Source link