The National Court has rejected the petitions to annul the prosecution of seven directors of the cryptocurrencies based in Tenerife Arbistar and the companies that supplied the software, which he considers responsible for diverting “huge amounts of other people’s money” to the former with the bait that they had an “infallible” computer application.
In several orders, the Criminal Chamber of the Court rejects the appeals raised against the measures adopted by the investigating judge of this alleged million-dollar scam against cryptocurrency investors; specifically, those of the alleged ringleader of the plot, Santiago Fuentes, and six other investigators, four of them from the companies that supplied the software, Venus and Moonshuttle.
In them, Fuentes requested that his provisional detention order be revoked and the rest requested that the precautionary measures that require them to appear in court every fifteen days be lifted.
The National Court has opened a process for alleged fraud and membership in a criminal organization against Arbistar, whose headquarters were located in the south of Tenerife, and the other companies, considering them responsible for appropriating 60 million from 32,000 investors, crimes that could add up to up to 18 years in prison.
The joint administrator of Venus alleged that he was unaware of an alleged plan to defraud clients and that his prosecution is based on “mere conjectures”, to which the Court responds that they have decided to investigate him for appearing in several videos in which he praised “the goodness ” of the product.
The dates coincide with the statements of Santiago Fuentes in which he assured that the problems withdrawing the funds were due to a computer error, for which Venus would be responsible.
“So none of the members of this company are left out of the situation,” reasons the Court, which agrees with the Prosecutor’s Office in this assessment.
Another Venus executive claimed the absence of evidence of criminality and flight risk, but the court considers him responsible for offering a false cryptocurrency arbitration system that was supposedly automated.
The software was promoted as a secure tool capable of detecting the exact moment when it was most favorable to buy or sell bitcoins and the platform on which it could be done, but in reality it never worked, according to the Court.
Another of those responsible for Venus requested that his prosecution be annulled for having already deposited 1.5 million euros of the 123 million euros of solidarity bond that is required and maintained that he had limited himself to advising clients.
This manager said that investors always had access to deposits and that they charged a commission of between 2 and 4%. He also assured that, at the beginning, they only earned about 700 euros at least, that later a remuneration of between 150,000 and 250,000 a year was agreed upon in exchange for providing the software and that they then separated themselves from this business and Arbistar became “a more customer.”
The Criminal Court rejects all of these arguments.
Another of the defendants who, according to the instructor, owned 33% of the capital of Arbistar and was a founding partner, also stressed that the cryptocurrency company was just one of the entities they worked with from Moonshuttle, to which he claimed to belong.
In his appeals, he defended that his participation in the events was “minimal” and that it was limited to computer “aspects”, in addition to alleging that the indictment has been “hasty”.
The Court responds that he worked as a main developer, used his involvement to pretend the technical solvency and authenticity of services that were actually “fictitious” and participated in videos praising the benefits of the business.
An Arbistar board of directors, also prosecuted, appealed to ignorance about what was happening and to never having made decisions, since their functions were limited to the workplace, arguments that the Court describes as “mere allegations.”
The Court believes that the director of operations and coordination of departments of Arbistar occupied a relevant role as a person who was aware of and managed an important part of the business and considers appropriate the measures adopted by the instructor in order to guarantee his full availability by the of Justice.
In the case of Fuentes, his appeal is rejected given that he acted as sole administrator of Arbistar 2.0, which is why he is currently charged with belonging to a criminal organization, a continuing crime of falsification of commercial documents and aggravated fraud. with a high number of victims.
In the investigation of the case, Santiago Fuentes is identified as the main person responsible for the scheme by promising high returns, encouraging the recruitment of new investors “until the system collapsed, alleging a computer failure”, and not having proceeded to return the amounts. disappointed
His appeal to be released focuses on procedural aspects, such as the fact that it has not been specified who the supposed scammers were or the volume of the transfer of assets or the possible breakdown of the chain of custody in the manipulation of electronic devices without the presence of the Lawyer of the Administration of Justice.
