Connect with us

News

Belgian regulator flags potentially fraudulent crypto-trading platforms after blacklisting 120 websites

Avatar

Published

on

Belgian regulator flags potentially fraudulent crypto-trading platforms after blacklisting 120 websites
Source: Pixabay

The Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority [FSMA] identified seven new cryptocurrency trading websites in Belgium which could potentially be fraudulent. The financial authority admitted to receiving complaints from Belgian consumers who had invested in digital assets through these platforms.

The regulator stated,

“The cryptocurrency fraud continues making victims in Belgium. Hence, the FSMA repeats its warning against the fraudsters behind those platforms who are using cryptocurrencies to swindle consumers.”

One hundred twenty websites, including many new ones, were deemed as malicious entities in an official statement released by the FSMA. The following were the newly identified suspicious websites cited by the watchdogs,

  • www.bearsmarkets.com
  • www.btckingdom.com
  • www.directco-invest.com
  • www.maisonducoins.net
  • www.novoplacement.com
  • www.ripae-homine.com
  • www.tribelylimited.com

According to the findings of the FSMA, these platforms offer its customers investments which are “secure, easy and very lucrative.” The report said that these malicious sites lured customers by posing as specialists in managing their investments. Following this, the users on such platforms were assured that their funds can be withdrawn at any time and that they were “guaranteed.” In the end however, the victims were left in a position where they were unable to recover the invested amount in any manner.



The regulator also clarified that the warning list did not contain crypto-platforms operating unlawfully in the country.

As new complaints continued to pour in, the list was updated to list 120 websites over the previous 113 that the watchdogs had previously revealed. In December 2018, FSMA outlined 133 potential scamming trading portals. Additionally, the FPS Economy, in collaboration with the FSMA, launched a website to create awareness about the risks associated with cryptocurrency trading in June 2018.





Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter


Altcoins

FLiK case: Utility tokens take another hit in case allegedly involving Rapper TI, claims prominent lawyer

Priya

Published

on

By

Source: Unsplash

Stephen Palley, a prominent lawyer at Anderson Kill, spoke out about the FLiK token case via his official Twitter handle. Notably, unlike most tokens in the space, FLiK made headlines because of its celebrity backing.

Towards the end of last year, it was reported that the US Rapper Clifford Joseph Harris Jr., who goes by the stage name T.I. and T.I.P., was sued for $5 million over the alleged failure of the token promoted by him and his partner, Ray Felton. The rapper was being sued by a group of 25 individuals who claimed that that they invested around $1.3 million in the tokens.

Additionally, there were allegations that the rapper used the raised money to increase the token’s value, following which the duo sold their holdings after the coin crashed. Other well-renowned celebrities such as Kevin Hart and Mark Cuban were also reportedly associated with this project.

On the recent developments surrounding the case, Stephen Palley stated,



“Utility tokens” take another hit in case allegedly involving rapper TI. Court says FLiK ICO tokens = securities under Howey Test, for motion to dismiss purposes. That they offered some functionality ≠ relevant given buyers’ expect of profits solely from efforts of others. 1/4″

Source: Twitter

Source: Twitter

Source: Twitter
The lawyer further stated that,”use of funds” was already determined by the defendants, “per the FLiK token whitepaper.” He went on to state that there was a time problem, adding that Federal Law rules that “unregistered sale” of security tokens were supposed to be reported within 12 months after the violation.

The lawyer concluded by tweeting,

“ps — form was never going to be exalted over substance, so none of this is a huge surprise. Also, this is a ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss so the Court takes the allegations as true for purposes of ruling. The merits still have to be litigated.”





Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter


Continue Reading

Trending