The case involving Oasis, a $78 million Ponzi Scheme that masqueraded as a forex exchange investment fund, took a new turn after the US court of appeals reversed the dismissal of a complaint against ATC Brokers.

Legal Confrontation

Burton Wiand, acting as the receiver for Oasis International Group, sued the forex and Contract for Difference broker ATC Brokers Ltd, and the firm’s Co-Founder, David Manoukian. Wiand alleged that they were involved in fraudulent transfers. The district court initially dismissed Wiand's claims, citing a lack of standing.

According to the latest court documents, Oasis International Group presented itself as a lucrative opportunity for investors, promising high returns through currency futures trading.

However, the venture reportedly turned out to be a sophisticated Ponzi scheme, which caused investors losses through misappropriation of funds. Oasis operated as a foreign currency investment fund, promising investors high returns. According to the court’s decision, the operators of the firm concealed losses, misappropriated funds, and paid out fictitious returns.

Citing the appeal filed before the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the court document mentioned: "We conclude that the district court erred in dismissing the fraudulent-transfer claims for lack of standing."

Legal Standing and Allegations

The court added: "As a registered forex broker, ATC Brokers was required to conduct due diligence before onboarding potential traders. ATC Brokers’ services allow licensed and approved foreign investment entities to trade on London markets on behalf of their underlying investor clients."

ATC Brokers' approval of Oasis' forex trading accounts and its provision of liquidity reportedly enabled Oasis to engage in high-risk trading activities. With leverage of 100:1, Oasis made substantial bets, ultimately leading to significant losses, the court mentioned.

The receiver Wiand also sued Tech provider Spotex. In originally covering this decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, we incorrectly stated that the dismissal as to Spotex had been reversed. That was not accurate. Following the 11th Circuit’s decision, Spotex remains dismissed from this lawsuit. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals expressly determined that the Receiver lacked standing to assert tort claims against Spotex, a mere passive technology provider.