Mark Scott, the lawyer responsible for laundering $400 million from the OneCoin fraud, has been denied a new trial, despite a prosecution witness having perjured themselves in the trial against him.
Scott was found guilty of money laundering and bank fraud conspiracy in November 2019 and was then sentenced to 20 years in prison. Scott’s legal team has been seeking a new trial since, citing false testimony from a government witness in the original trial.
The prosecution witness in question, Konstantin Ignatov, is the brother of Ruja Ignatova, the founder of OneCoin. Konstantin Ignatov testified that Scott knew that OneCoin was a fraudulent operation, but Scott has denied this.
In a recent filing, Scott’s legal team argued that the false testimony from Konstantin Ignatov was “material” to the case and that it “undermined the confidence in the verdict.” The legal team also argued that Scott should be granted a new trial because the government failed to disclose the false testimony to the defense before trial.
However, the judge in the case denied Scott’s motion for a new trial, citing the false testimony as not “material” to the case and that it did not “undermine the confidence in the verdict.” The judge also ruled that the government did not have a duty to disclose the false testimony to the defense before trial.
Scott’s legal team has said that they plan to appeal the judge’s decision. If the appeal is successful, Scott could be granted a new trial.
The OneCoin fraud is one of the largest cryptocurrency scams in history. The scheme is estimated to have stolen over $4 billion from investors.
A jury found Mark Scott guilty of laundering $400 million for the crypto scam and was said to have personally profited to the tune of $50 million. He was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering charges he continues to deny despite the guilty verdict.
Scott was alleged to have been involved in setting up investment funds to launder money from OneCoin, moving funds to Fenero Funds through various accounts and jurisdictions.
His lawyers, however, claim that Armenta’s transfer of funds from his own bank accounts to the Fenero Funds wasn’t a bank fraud because a person cannot commit this misconduct by transferring money from his own account. And even if Armenta’s misstatements to his banks in transferring funds were legally considered bank fraud, there is no evidence that Scott was involved in or aware of such misrepresentations.
