Considering hes not the one that robbed them and doesn't have their money, I'm gonna guess never? Talk to bitconnect and the people that aided in getting it shut down if you want your money back.
It is illegal to earn from Ponzi Schemes in the United States whether or not you are aware that it was a Ponzi does not matter. So yeah, he is required by law to surrender all profits. As cited by a past court decision on a similar matter:
"It is no answer that some or for that matter all of [defendant's]
profit may have come from "legitimate" trades made by the
corporations. They were not legitimate. The money used for the trades
came from investors gulled by fraudulent representations. [Defendant]
was one of those investors, and it may seem "only fair" that he should
be entitled to the profits on trades made with his money. That would
be true as between him and [the principal or his corporations]. It is
not true as between him and either the creditors or the other
investors in the corporations. He should not be permitted to benefit
from a fraud at their expense merely because he was not himself to
blame for the fraud. All he is being asked to do is to return the net
profits of his investment - the difference between what he put in and
what he had at the end."
(ibid. 757-758.)
The decision of a federal judge far outweighs what you fanboys say.
Considering hes not the one that robbed them and doesn't have their money, I'm gonna guess never? Talk to bitconnect and the people that aided in getting it shut down if you want your money back.
exactly.
It is illegal to earn from Ponzi Schemes in the United States whether or not you are aware that it was a Ponzi does not matter. So yeah, he is required by law to surrender all profits. As cited by a past court decision on a similar matter:
Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116
S.Ct. 673 (1995):
"It is no answer that some or for that matter all of [defendant's]
profit may have come from "legitimate" trades made by the
corporations. They were not legitimate. The money used for the trades
came from investors gulled by fraudulent representations. [Defendant]
was one of those investors, and it may seem "only fair" that he should
be entitled to the profits on trades made with his money. That would
be true as between him and [the principal or his corporations]. It is
not true as between him and either the creditors or the other
investors in the corporations. He should not be permitted to benefit
from a fraud at their expense merely because he was not himself to
blame for the fraud. All he is being asked to do is to return the net
profits of his investment - the difference between what he put in and
what he had at the end."
(ibid. 757-758.)
The decision of a federal judge far outweighs what you fanboys say.