OneCoin Lawyer Fights Back Again Against Conviction Arguments

A letter filed with the court reveals Mark Scott's legal team continues to push back against the government's arguments against the former lawyer of the crypto pyramid scheme OneCoin.

In a motion submitted to the court on May 1, Scott lawyers argued that there was insufficient evidence presented to the court and petitioned for his conviction to be quashed. But this time they apparently try to lay a glove on Scott's fellow money launderer, Gilbert Armenta.

Last year a jury found Scott guilty of laundering $400 million for the crypto scam and was said to have personally profited to the tune of $50 million. He was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commit Money Laundering Money Laundering Money laundering is a blanket term to describe the process by which criminals disguise the original ownership and proceeds of criminal conduct by making such proceeds appear to be derived from a legitimate source.Money laundering is an issue that traverses countless industries and sectors, which includes the financial services space. Though criminal money may be successfully laundered without the assistance of the financial sector, billions of dollars’ worth of criminally derived money are laund Money laundering is a blanket term to describe the process by which criminals disguise the original ownership and proceeds of criminal conduct by making such proceeds appear to be derived from a legitimate source.Money laundering is an issue that traverses countless industries and sectors, which includes the financial services space. Though criminal money may be successfully laundered without the assistance of the financial sector, billions of dollars’ worth of criminally derived money are laund Read this Term, charges he continues to deny despite the guilty verdict.

Scott was alleged to have been involved in setting up investment funds to process money from OneCoin. However, his legal team said the government's opposition on the bank fraud count is peppered with generalized statements.

"The government fails to address Mr. Scott's key arguments, ignoring many of them entirely. Instead, it devotes considerable time to highlighting evidence that OneCoin was not a "real" cryptocurrency, and numerous other points not contested by the defense. Mr. Scott's arguments were far more targeted than that, and are left unanswered in the government's indiscriminate response," the filing says.

Lawyers tried to refute the two theories of conspiracy to defraud FDIC-insured banks – one involving Gilbert Armenta and the second a transfer through a correspondent bank. Specifically, they said the government failed to prove that these transactions were, in fact, constituting bank fraud or that Scott had any involvement in making the false statements.

With respect to the money laundering conspiracy count, the legal notice continues, the government failed to prove the commission that Scott charged or that the monies deposited into the Fenero Funds accounts were proceeds of wire fraud.

Court to consider Scott's appeal

Scott was alleged to have been involved in setting up investment funds to launder money from OneCoin, moving funds to Fenero Funds through various accounts and jurisdictions.

His lawyers, however, further claim that Armenta's transfer of funds from his own bank accounts to the Fenero Funds wasn't a bank fraud because a person cannot commit this misconduct by transferring money from his own account. And even if Armenta's misstatements to his banks in transferring funds were legally considered a bank fraud, there is no evidence that Scott was involved in or aware of such misrepresentations.

Mark Scott was already convicted back in November 2019 after the court found him guilty on two counts — conspiracy to commit bank fraud and the conspiracy to commit money laundering. The co-conspirator has also asked the court earlier to acquit him of the charges in one of the largest crypto scams. Scott cited insufficient evidence and questioned the integrity of the witnesses against him.

The court will now consider Scott's new appeal, as well as the U.S. government's arguments in support of the evidence, before reaching its conclusion.