We aren’t a Ponzi or pyramid scheme. We are a legitimate firm that conducts all the required anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) programs. These are some of the claims made by OneCoin, in response to recent accusations that it’s a Ponzi scheme.
The company was responding to the most recent accusations from the Central Bank of Samoa (CBS). In a press release on April 25, the CBS described OneCoin as a ‘hybrid Ponzi-Pyramid Scheme.’ This was because the company “contained ingredients of both types of scams.” The CBS based its allegations on a report by the New Zealand Financial Intelligence Unit (NZFIU). The regulator further accused the company of using several Samoans in its illegal operations.
In its comprehensive response letter to the Samoan Observer, OneCoin vehemently denied any links to Samoa and New Zealand stating that “no one has authority to act or make statements on the company’s behalf in Samoa and New Zealand.”
OneCoin also sought to dissociate its name from its links to Ponzi schemes. It stated:
“Why is OneCoin NOT a Ponzi scheme? OneCoin is a centralized, closed source cryptocurrency. The closed system has strict AML and CFT (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism) policies as well as KYC (Know-Your-Customer) implementation and, as in our case, prevents anonymous transactions. Based on that it, is much more compliant than decentralized ones.”
OneCoin also clarified on its association with the OneLife Network. The network is “a growing global network, where the IMAs’ (Independent Marketing Associates) success depends entirely on their personal commitment, abilities and effort,” the statement explained. Based on this, the current legislation on pyramid sales doesn’t apply to them, OneCoin believes. It stated:
“The current legislation on pyramid sales, its origin and its express purpose is consumer protection. The users which are part of the OneLife Network are NOT consumers. They are IMAs, meaning they are self-employed business owners.”
Earlier this month, an aggrieved investor sued the company over the loss of her $130,000 investment. The investor, Christine Grablis, accused the firm of breaching a contract, civil conspiracy and fraudulent misrepresentation among others. She also sought a class action lawsuit against the firm to represent the aggrieved investors.
Source: Read Full Article