The victims of ROFX, who are suing the fraudulent Forex scheme, have filed a motion for default judgment against 26 defendants in this lawsuit. This becomes clear from documents filed with the Florida Southern District Court on June 27, 2022.

The plaintiffs move the Court for entry of default judgment as to liability only against the following Defendants:

• Peter Mohylny
• The Investing Online
• Ester Holdings, Inc.
• Wealthy Developments LP
• VDD-Trading, Ltd.
• Dmytro Fokin
• Ivan Hrechaniuk
• Manuchar Daraselia
• Brass Marker s.r.o.
• Sergiy Prokopenko
• Profit Media Group LP
• Auro Advantages, LLC
• Borys Konovalenko
• Mayon Holding Ltd.
• Marina Garda
• Mayon Solutions Ltd.
• Olga Tielly
• Notus, LLC
• Global E-Advantages, LLC
• Alla Skala
• Olga Abrykosova
• Easy Com, LLC
• ShopoStar, LLC
• Grovee, LLC
• Trans-Konsalt MR Ltd.
• Art Sea Group Ltd.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are a group of investors who say they were defrauded by a web of actors tied to RoFx.net. RoFx, they say, held itself out to be a foreign exchange platform motored by artificial intelligence that turned out to be nothing more than a sham. The defendants are over forty individuals and entities said to be part of RoFx’s scheme.

According to the complaint, between 2018 and 2021, the RoFx operators ran a phony foreign exchange trading service via RoFx.net—a website hosted in Jacksonville, Florida. The RoFx Operators claimed to have artificially intelligent software that could conduct foreign exchange trading on behalf of customers; the customers needed only to send funds to the RoFx Operators and, in return, the customers were promised passive income.

The RoFx Operators perpetrated this years-long fraud using a sophisticated website, active customer service team, invoices, account statements, foreign exchange activity reported on third-party websites, and promotions via advertisements and sponsored articles—and even allowed some customers to withdraw limited funds.

In fact, the RoFx operators never conducted foreign exchange trading and, instead, pocketed the customers’ funds.By the time the RoFx.net website went dark in September 2021— and the RoFx Operators stopped responding to customers—the RoFx Operators had stolen at least $75 million from customers.

Plaintiffs filed the present class action on September 29, 2021, after the RoFx Operators disappeared with their ill-gotten gains. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on February 14, 2022, with the Court’s leave, bringing several claims against the Defaulting Defendants: Violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Count I); RICO Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Count II); Common Law Fraud (Count III); Conspiracy to Commit Fraud (Count IV); Aiding and Abetting Fraud (Count V); Conversion (Count VI); Conspiracy to Commit Conversion (Count VII); and Aiding and Abetting Conversion (Count VIII). After the Defaulting Defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to the Amended Complaint, the Clerk entered defaults against them on May 27, 2022 and May 31, 2022.

In their motion for default judgment, the defrauded investors say a civil RICO plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees from the defendants. The plaintiffs also claim they are entitled to recover actual and punitive damages in any action for fraud, including conspiracy to commit and aiding and abetting fraud claims.

The plaintiffs note they are still navigating motions to dismiss and have yet to begin discovery or move for class certification. Until the Court has an opportunity to consider whether Plaintiffs’ action is appropriate for class treatment, damages cannot reasonably be calculated for purposes of entering final judgment.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs request the Court enter default judgment against the Defaulting Defendants solely as to liability and defer judgment as to damages.