Luiz Capuci Jr. left the United States when he heard that his Mining Capital Coin Ponzi scheme was being looked into.

Capuci believed that Brazil’s refusal to extradite its nationals would shield him from justice.

Unfortunately, this has not quite transpired.

While the DOJ’s criminal case against Capuci is stalled (Capuci remains a wanted fugitive), the SEC is advancing its civil case via alternative service.

Something about which Capuci is not pleased. 

Capuci expressed his disappointment in a 27 September intent filing. 

In the filing, the law firm Wellman and Warren stated, on behalf of Capuci (right):

Wellman & Warren, LLP, representing Defendant Capuci, sends notice that it intends to raise foreign law problems by relying on the law of the Federative Republic of Brazil.

On August 26th, the SEC submitted its alternative service motion. The regulator attempts to serve Capuci and his accomplice in crime, Emerson Pires, via the Hague Convention in the motion.

This can be time-consuming, but the SEC has also asked for permission to serve Capuci through email. specifically, via email to Capuci’s attorneys in California.

Capuci’s response, supported by a “statement of Brazilian legal authority,” is that “Brazil does not permit email service for individuals in its country.”

Capuci desires that the SEC be prohibited from communicating via email, as this would waste the most time.

The SEC acknowledges that the Convention is applicable in this instance. In addition, it acknowledges that it can perform service through the Convention. It seeks an alternative means of service since it asserts that it will take between eight and twelve months to serve the individual defendants.

The SEC does not wish to serve in accordance with the Convention because, in its opinion, it would take too long.

This is not a valid excuse to evade the Convention’s specific obligations.

Capuci also contends that if the court grants the SEC’s motion, his pending appeal against the Mining Capital Coin injunction would be undermined.

The court has given the SEC until October 4 to file a response to Capuci’s response, which we anticipate occurring within the next twenty-four hours.

However, in regards to the MCC injunction, Capuci has also submitted a funny reaction to being found attempting to sell frozen assets.

When the SEC found out that Capuci had tried to sell a lot of frozen real estate, it filed a motion to find him in contempt.

Capuci’s answer was filed on September 27 and argued,

The SEC has not provided any evidence to support this claim.

The SEC asserts to the court that Capuci has disposed of assets covered by the preliminary injunction but fails to provide a single example of property that was transferred or sold to a third party.

Consequently, the motion of the SEC should be denied.

Capuci contends that although he has offered for sale assets that have been frozen by the MCC injunction, this does not equal a desire to actually sell them.

The SEC has already determined that such activity does not constitute a breach of the asset freeze. Moreover, the preliminary injunction ruling itself does not restrict the conduct in question.

In other words, Capuci has not violated the order until the actual sale of the blocked assets.

The decree contains no wording prohibiting Capuci from “attempting” or “attempting” to sell his properties.

Instead, the injunction prohibits Capuci from “selling” or “transferring” his possessions.

The SEC could have incorporated qualifying language that would have prevented Capuci from selling his assets, but it chose not to.

The SEC must therefore live with the words it has chosen.

Despite the fact that Capuci’s attempt to avoid being caught is hilarious, it remains to be seen whether the court buys his bulls**t.

In its filing, the SEC noted that co-defendant Emerson Pires had previously sold a frozen Florida real estate asset.

Pires (right) is now facing contempt charges. However, having also fled to Brazil, he has ignored all SEC filings to date.

Like the alternative service motion, Capuci’s contempt response gives the SEC until October 4 to answer. 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *