简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
The Court Responds To ROFX Victims' Default Judgment Motion
Abstract:Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman made recommendations in response to requests for default judgment submitted by victims of the fraudulent Forex operation ROFX.net.

Plaintiffs assert a slew of claims against 42 defendants in this nine-count civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) complaint originating from the design and operation of RoFx, an allegedly fraudulent investing business.
A Clerk's default has been recorded against 26 Defendants, seven Defendants have not yet been served, three Defendants are in settlement negotiations with Plaintiffs, and six Defendants have been dismissed, according to a Court-Ordered administrative status report.
Since that administrative status report, the Court has dismissed six further Defendants without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs have filed a notice of voluntary dismissal against three other Defendants.
Plaintiffs urge that the Court grant a default judgment against the following Defendants in their motions: Dmytro Fokin; Ivan Hrechaniuk; Manuchar Daraselia; Brass Marker s.r.o.; Sergiy Prokopenko; Profit Media Group LP; Auro Advantages, LLC; Borys Konovalenko; Mayon Holding Ltd.; Marina Garda; Mayon Solutions Ltd. (“Mayon UK”); Olga Tielly; Notus, LLC; Global E-Advantages, LLC;
Both motions were submitted to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendations by United States District Court Judge Robert N. Scola. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court allow the motions in part and reject them in part.
In summary, the Magistrate Judge recommended the following for each count/Defendant:
RICO Count I: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment be refused by the District Court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment in Count II (RICO Conspiracy).
Count III (Common Law Fraud): The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court approved the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment on Count III against Defendants Mohylny and The Investing Online in its entirety. Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court approve Plaintiffs Leonov, Zarley, and Parent's motion for default judgment against Defendant Ester Holdings while denying Plaintiffs Birmingham and Hansen's request.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment in Count IV (Conspiracy to Commit Fraud).
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment in Count V (Aiding and Abetting Fraud).
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment in Count VII (Conspiracy to Commit Conversion).
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment on Count VIII (Aiding and Abetting Conversion).
Count IX (Unjust Enrichment): The Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the District Court grant Wealthy Developments, Notus, Global E-Advantages, Easy Com, ShopoStar, Grovee, Trans-Konsalt, Art Sea Group, VDD, Brass Marker, Profit Medica Group, and Auro Advantages' request for default judgment. Furthermore, he suggests that the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion with regard to all other Defendants.
The parties will have 14 days from the day they are served with a copy of this Report and Recommendations to submit written objections with the District Judge if any. Within 14 days, each party may submit a response to the other party's objection.
You can find out more of ROFX news here: https://www.wikifx.com/en/dealer/5451844975.html

Stay tuned for more Forex News.
Download the WikiFX App from the App Store or Google Play Store to stay updated on the latest news.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
Read more

Charles Schwab Review: Traders Claim Illegitimate Profit Cancellation, Trade Manipulation & More
Have you been lured into the Charles Schwab app for trading on the back of outrageous profit claims by the broker? Did you fail to receive any of these? Does the broker deny withdrawals every time you request and cancel your forex trading account? Have you been victimized financially by its trade manipulation? Act before you are left with a NIL balance in your account. Many traders have questioned Charles Schwab customer service and many other operational executives for the aforementioned illegitimate trading activities. In this Charles Schwab review article, we have shared some of their comments. Read on!

AMP Futures Exposed: Traders Raise Alarms Over Illegitimate Account Blocks & Bad Customer Service
Has AMP Futures blocked your forex trading account? Does it fail to provide any explanation for this act? Do you face issues concerning deposits to your AMP Futures account? Is the customer service non-existent for any trading query you raise with it? You are not alone! Many traders have been facing these issues upon AMP Futures login. Some of them have commented on AMP Futures review platforms. In this article, we have shared some reviews that you can look at. Read on!

FXGlory Review: Vanishing Profits, Capital Scams & Withdrawal Charges Keep Annoying Traders
Does FXGlory remove all your forex trading account balances upon fund withdrawal requests? Or do you witness incorrect trading account balances after fund withdrawals? Does the Saint Lucia-based forex broker charge you for fund withdrawals? All these and many more scam-related complaints have been filed against the forex broker. In this FXGlory review article, we will discuss several complaints. Read on!

PINAKINE Broker Review: A Complete Look at Its Services and Risks
Finding a trustworthy broker from the huge and often confusing world of online trading options is one of the biggest challenges a trader faces. In this competitive market, PINAKINE Liquidity Limited has appeared, getting attention with promises of high leverage and zero-commission trading. However, a closer look shows important factors that every potential client must think about before investing. The most important thing to consider with PINAKINE is that it has no regulation. This fact completely changes how risky the broker is and has major effects on how safe your investments will be. This review gives a complete and fair examination based on information available to the public. We will break down its services, trading conditions, platform technology, and the possible risks involved, helping you make a fully informed decision.

