RICO Class Action Alleges ROFX Investors Lost Tens of Millions Through Fraudulent Foreign Exchange Trading Scheme

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges ROFX.net and a cadre of shell companies and individuals have orchestrated “nothing more than a front” for a massive scheme whereby they’ve defrauded investors worldwide by soliciting them to deposit money or cash equivalents with the robotically operated foreign exchange trading platform. 

The 40-page RICO lawsuit, filed in Florida on September 29, alleges ROFX and its cohorts, in exchange for investors’ funds, falsely promised a return on investment in the form of a percentage of ROFX’s daily trading profit that “never came to pass.” The suit claims that after more than two years of maximizing investors’ account balances and “creating the illusion of stability,” ROFX, whose platform purports to utilize algorithms to trade on behalf of investors, and its co-defendants ultimately distributed little profit to potentially tens of thousands of proposed class members while preventing the individuals from making withdrawals, and thereafter “stole” all the remaining investment capital amid a “wide-reaching” fraud that is “global in scope.” 

The lawsuit states that the plaintiffs first learned that the ROFX website was inaccessible on or around September 16, 2021. Upon inquiry, the suit says, ROFX’s customer service line said the company’s domain was being serviced. On or around the same day, the plaintiffs noticed that entities to which money was wired for deposit with ROFX were no longer active, the complaint states. 

On or around September 17, the ROFX website was taken off its hosting platform, the filing says, claiming the plaintiffs first learned federal authorities had frozen the company’s assets on September 19.

According to the complaint, proposed class members have since at least 2016 lost tens of millions of dollars after investing with ROFX under the belief that they were dealing with a legitimate foreign exchange trading platform.

“Significantly, each Plaintiff in the class has been the victim of the same false and fraudulent representations of material fact resulting in the theft of each of their investment capital,” the suit claims, seeking more than $50 million in damages. 

Among other relief, the plaintiffs seek from the court an immediate injunctive order freezing all of ROFX’s assets and enjoining and preventing the defendants from “dissipating or encumbering” any of the assets. Moreover, the plaintiffs ask the court for orders to prevent the defendants from destroying financial records or any other relevant documents and permit expedited discovery into the allegations made in the lawsuit.

“The aforementioned emergency relief is warranted to halt the fraud and prevent Defendants from distributing Plaintiffs’ assets in an unfair and inequitable manner,” the lawsuit urges. 

According to the filing, ROFX is a digital trading platform that purports to use “robot forex trading” to make trades on behalf of investors. Per the suit, a forex robot is trading software that uses an algorithm to look for and enter into trades, and acts as a trader or advisor in making decisions for the investor. ROFX’s website touts that the forex robot platform means investors, essentially, “no longer need any special knowledge or trading experience!” the lawsuit says. 

The suit alleges ROFX, during the relevant period, advertised its services through mainstream outlets such as Facebook and Google and often flooded consumer review websites with positive reviews. Around October of last year, Yahoo Finance and the Associated Press released information with regard to ROFX’s approach to investing and touted Warren Buffet’s interest in investing with the company, the case says. 

ROFX investors were told, among other representations, that their money “couldn’t be safer,” that “no one has ever lost money” with the company, and that ROFX’s percentage allocation management module (PAMM) allowed for a form of pooled money forex trading whereby an investor can allocate money in desired proportions to qualified traders or money managers of their choosing who, in turn, make trades of multiple investors on a single account, the lawsuit says. Of the latter representation, however, the suit alleges ROFX’s advertisement of its PAMM service option, which proposed class members may not have been aware was unavailable to those who did not invest at least $5 million, served to mislead investors by giving them a false sense of security that the services they were being offered were legitimate and that their investments were safe. 

From the complaint: 

“When asked about the PAMM service option via the ROFX customer service numbers, ROFX informed Plaintiffs that this option was only available if at least $5 million was invested with ROFX. In reality, this option was not available to any customers and was simply used as a tool to lull skeptical investors into a false sense of security such that they would deposit money in furtherance of the scheme.”

Per the suit, an investor, after establishing a ROFX account, was given the option of locking in their investment for a certain period of time, meaning they must wait until the period is over before they’re eligible to withdraw funds. The plaintiffs say they were also given the option to select for certain investments one of five “No Lock Period” packages, each with their own promised percentage share in ROFX’s daily trading profit in exchange for a certain initial investment.

The lawsuit alleges that in reality, although some withdrawals were permitted for those with “No Lock” packages, ROFX did not permit investors to withdraw money at their discretion. 

According to the complaint, investors’ deposits into ROFX accounts during the timeframe covered by the suit were wired from their legitimate bank accounts to “shell companies with accounts at legitimate financial institutions.” Included among these shell companies are some of ROFX’s co-defendants, the full list of whom can be found at the bottom of this post.  

The case goes on to allege that ROFX also defrauded some investors by intentionally misleading them into buying tokens for an initial coin offering (ICO) that “was never intended to happen.” Per the suit, the ICO was announced around the same time as an algorithm update that promised a higher return rate. This money is alleged to have been stolen by the defendants and “divert[ed]” to fraudsters around the world. 

Lastly, the lawsuit says that although ROFX represented to investors that they’d be able to withdraw funds from their accounts at any time, this turned out not to be the case. In many instances, the suit claims, ROFX told investors looking to withdraw funds that their accounts were under an anti-money laundering inspection, and that the company “did not know how long the investigation was going to take.” Investors who continued to inquire with ROFX about withdrawing their money often encountered roadblock after roadblock, including cumbersome requests to present identification and utility bills, the case relays, adding that many withdrawal requests were left pending even after an investor provided the requisite identification. 

Named as defendants in the lawsuit alongside RoFX.net are Auro Advantages LLC; Aware Choice Ltd.; Boonruk Ruamkit Co., Ltd.; Brass Marker s.r.o.; Easy Com LC; Epayments Systems Ltd.; Ester Holdings Inc.; Global E-Advantages LLC; Grovee, LLC; Igoria Trade S.A.; IT Outsourcing Co., Ltd.; Notus LLC; Shopostar, LLC; VDD-Trading, Ltd.; Wealthy Developments LP; Andrei Fetin; Anna Shymko; Anton Bilous; Borys Konovalenko; Dmytro Fokin; Jorge Luis Castillo; Manuchar Daraselia; Mikhail Rymanov; Natalia Los; Nattpemol Krinara; PapahraTsor Nrviratporn; Peter Mogilniy; Stanislav Khomenko; Youras Ziankovich and unidentified John Does 1-30.

At publication time, ROFX’s website remained offline. 

The complaint can be found below.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.