The masterminds behind a $65 million investment fraud scheme are now facing serious legal repercussions, with multiple affected parties indicating that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations are progressing and that a class action lawsuit is being prepared, spearheaded by defrauded investors. At the core of the scheme are Bing Xin Wang, a former pharmacist turned lawyer lacking the legal authority to practice in the U.S., and Musthafa Ahmed, a general partner at Sublime Ventures. Their actions have triggered serious violations of U.S. securities laws, anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, and Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, exposing not only themselves but also participants, partners, and investors involved in the scheme to severe penalties.
Sources indicate that key information is being provided by individuals closely linked to both defrauded investors and BasedVCâs internal operations, hinting at a coordinated effort to expose the fraud. The BasedVC team allegedly resorted to bribing collaborators with financial incentives and threatening legal action or smear campaigns to keep them silent. Those brave individuals now cooperating with the investigation claim these tactics were part of a deliberate strategy to hide the true scope of the fraud. The SEC has focused heavily on the $65 million case, with schemes of this size often leading to broader investigations into illicit fund flows and participant involvement.
Illegal Legal Practice and Securities Fraud
Wangâs unauthorized oversight of U.S. legal matters, despite lacking the necessary licensing and legal authority to practice law in the country, is a critical component of the legal action against him. Wang assured investors that Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures were not required and that the investments did not constitute securitiesâclaims that directly contravene multiple U.S. laws. Promotional materials, which falsely claimed, âOur smart contracts are designed to streamline the investment process, eliminating the need for lengthy KYC proceduresâ*, and their website, which promised, âInvest on-chain and claim your vested tokens without KYCâ**, are now central to the charges. These statements created a false sense of compliance while bypassing regulatory safeguards that are required by law.
Sources close to BasedVC have aided investigators, exposing how the company presented forged documents when asked by startups to verify funding sources. By bypassing KYC and AML safeguards, they falsely legitimized funds from unvetted and potentially illicit sources, including a concerningly large share from unaccredited U.S. citizens. This violated securities laws and breached SAFT and SAFE agreements, which mandate the exclusion of such investors. BasedVCâs global fund acceptance, including from sanctioned regions like Russia, may constitute a violation of U.S. sanctions laws, drawing potential attention from federal authorities such as the FBI.
The fraudulent actions carried out by Wang misled multiple companies and investors, creating a chain of illegal investments and exposing everyone to potential legal action. The BasedVC team employed a series of carefully calculated and deceptive practices, skillfully manipulating legal loopholes to continue raising unregistered funds while avoiding scrutiny. The violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 opens Wang and his associates to up to 20 years in prison, significant fines, and potential disgorgement of profits. Under Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, Wangâs fraudulent practices tied to the purchase or sale of securities make him liable for severe penalties, including the imposition of injunctions and financial restitution to investors.
Ahmedâs Strategic Move to Evade Accountability
Ahmed, who played a key role in managing and laundering the funds raised through the scheme, strategically relocated to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) well in advance of the schemeâs collapse. This move, according to insiders familiar with the matter, was a pre-planned attempt to insulate himself from U.S. law and avoid immediate legal repercussions. However, this effort is unlikely to shield him from prosecution, as international cooperation in financial crimes is at an all-time high. Under the Money Laundering Control Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957), penalties for engaging in transactions with illicit funds include fines up to $500,000 or twice the value of the transaction, along with up to 20 years in prison. Extradition proceedings are likely, given the UAEâs increasing cooperation with U.S. authorities on financial crimes, particularly in large-scale fraud cases.
Ahmedâs violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 could add five years to his prison time, in addition to the penalties he faces for money laundering and securities fraud. His role in laundering funds through Sublime Ventures highlights both the sophisticated nature of the fraud and deep ethical violations. Through a series of calculated, unethical decisions, the BasedVC team demonstrated remarkable cleverness in structuring their fraud, using smoke and mirrors to sidestep critical compliance requirements, with the entire operation resembling a criminal organization more than a legitimate business.
Severe Legal Consequences for Participants and Investors
Participants and investors in the fraudulent scheme are not shielded from legal scrutiny. Those involved in unregistered securities offerings could be liable for rescission, requiring them to return any profits, regardless of their knowledge of the scheme’s legality. This liability stems from the Securities Act of 1933, which mandates the return of illegal gains from unregistered transactions.
Even passive participants, who may have invested unknowingly, could be at risk of civil and criminal penalties under laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Aiding and Abetting), which holds individuals accountable for indirectly participating in fraudulent schemes. The risk of being swept into lawsuits is high, as courts do not distinguish between intentional and unintentional involvement when unregistered securities are involved. Participants could face substantial legal fees and penalties for their roles, even if they believed their investments were legitimate. Many investors have already expressed frustration with the evasive nature of BasedVCâs team, their lack of transparency, and growing concerns about the competence and ethics of those in charge.
Civil Liability and the Cost of Defense
A class action lawsuit, confirmed by a group of frustrated and defrauded investors, is expected to escalate the legal and financial fallout for everyone connected to BasedVCâs fraudulent activities. Once filed, it could add another layer of financial risk for investors, team members, and participants, who may find themselves named in civil lawsuits seeking damages for losses incurred due to fraudulent activities. Civil litigation is costly, and defending against fraud charges will likely require extensive legal resources, driving up costs that may become unsustainable. Those found liable could face not only legal fees but restitution to victims, pushing some into financial ruin as they are forced to compensate those defrauded in the scheme.
Startups that Received Funding at Risk of Severe Consequences
Those found to have knowingly accepted illicit funds could be charged with aiding and abetting fraud. The Money Laundering Control Act makes it clear that handling tainted fundsâwhether knowingly or notâexposes entities to criminal prosecution. Even startups that were unaware of the fundsâ illegal origins could be required to return the money, potentially bankrupting them or leading to their permanent shutdown.
In addition to legal consequences, reputational damage is inevitable. Ties to a fraudulent operation severely diminish a startupâs ability to secure future investments, leading to lost investor trust and devastating financial consequences.
Consumer Protection and Deceptive Practices
BasedVCâs approach to handling investor funds without proper KYC and AML procedures likely violates consumer protection laws as well. Under state and federal consumer protection laws, businesses are prohibited from engaging in deceptive or unfair practices that mislead consumers or expose them to undue risk. BasedVCâs failure to enforce necessary safeguards and their misleading claims about compliance could result in claims under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which prohibits unfair business practices. Violations of consumer protection laws can result in crippling fines, mandatory restitution that bankrupts the company, and a total shutdown, leaving participants of the syndicate not only without returns but also exposed to lawsuits, asset seizures, and the collapse of any financial gains they relied upon.
Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Because BasedVC positioned itself as an advisor and fiduciary to its investors, it had a duty to act in their best interests and implement protective measures such as KYC and AML compliance. Failure to do so may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty, exposing them to lawsuits from defrauded investors seeking restitution for their losses.
In the absence of these protective measures, BasedVCâs failure to safeguard investor funds from illegal activities or ensure compliance with relevant laws could be seen as gross negligenceâa significant breach that heightens the severity of legal repercussions.
Relocation to Offshore Jurisdictions Offers No Protection
In a further effort to evade liability, one of the entities involved in the scheme may have been relocated to the British Virgin Islands (BVI). According to insider sources, this move, much like Ahmedâs relocation to the UAE, was an attempt to insulate the operation from U.S. legal scrutiny. Offshore jurisdictions do not shield individuals or entities from the enforcement of U.S. laws, particularly when it involves fraud and money laundering. OneCoin, which defrauded thousands of investors through unregistered securities offerings and misrepresented its compliance with financial regulations, saw its leaders extradited despite attempts to hide funds offshore. Like BasedVC, OneCoinâs reliance on offshore jurisdictions to evade legal scrutiny ultimately failed, highlighting the futility of such tactics.
BasedVCâs Terms Raise Further Legal Red Flags
Despite its blatant disregard for AML and KYC compliance, BasedVCâs terms of service ironically state:
“BasedVC reserves the right to confiscate any and all funds that are found to be in violation of relevant and applicable anti-money laundering (AML) and countering terrorism financing (CFT) laws and regulations, and to cooperate with the competent authorities when and if necessary.”
However, this clause is legally questionable. BasedVC does not have the authority to unilaterally confiscate funds without due process or a court order. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. Private entities like BasedVC cannot confiscate funds outside of established legal channels.
Their inclusion of this clause appears to be a strategic attempt to mislead investors into believing they are protected by law when, in reality, BasedVCâs disregard for compliance suggests a deeper intent to exploit investors and seize their funds illegally. This provision underscores their lack of legal expertise and ethics and adds further evidence that BasedVC is not only operating outside the law but also actively seeking to defraud those who placed trust in their platform.
Distancing from Responsibility May Not Be Enough
Individuals familiar with the internal workings suggest that team members like Rudy De La Cruz (Head of Strategy) and Ben Grabow (Investment Analyst) have quietly attempted to distance themselves from Wang and Ahmed, expressing concerns over the legality of the operations and Ahmedâs financial management. Several insiders appear to have stepped forward early in the investigation, raising questions about their potential motivations and whether they are seeking leniency for their involvement. However, such distancing does not absolve them of liability. Both De La Cruz and Grabow may still face legal consequences for their roles, as U.S. law holds individuals responsible for their participation in any fraudulent or illegal activity, regardless of whether they were directly responsible for its legal oversight.
Severe Penalties and Imprisonment Loom as Legal Actions Intensify
The unraveling of BasedVCâs $65 million fraud scheme has ignited a legal firestorm. With SEC investigations reportedly intensifying and a class action lawsuit gaining strength, all those tied to the schemeâfrom top organizers to investors and startupsâare facing severe legal repercussions. Charges under the Money Laundering Control Act, Securities Act of 1933, and 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy) could result in prison sentences up to 20 years, with figures like Musthafa Ahmed potentially facing even more time due to his key role in laundering funds through the operation.
The legal exposure for participants is growing rapidly, with civil and criminal penalties likely for those who fail to cooperate or attempt to retain illicit gains. One unnamed team member has reportedly begun cooperating with authorities and defrauded investors, placing the remaining BasedVC team under significant suspicion. Their testimony could be instrumental in unraveling the entire operation.
The message for all involved is clear: time is running out to seek legal counsel and mitigate the consequences. Ignoring the gravity of the situation will result in harsher sentences, significant asset losses, and unmanageable legal costs. Immediate action is the only way to reduce the severity of what is to come.
© 2024, StanleyGatero. All rights reserved.
