Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:20-cr-00398
Case Name:   USA v. Dos Santos
  Press Releases:
Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,  and Peter C. Fitzhugh, Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), announced the unsealing of an indictment charging PABLO RENATO RODRIGUEZ, GUTEMBERG DOS SANTOS, SCOTT HUGHES, CECILIA MILLAN, and JACKIE AGUILAR for their roles in an internationally coordinated fraud and money laundering ring involved in defrauding individuals through investments in AirBit Club, a purported cryptocurrency mining and trading company.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels.  RODRIGUEZ and HUGHES are expected to be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge John Early of the Central District of California, MILLAN is expected to be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld of the Middle District of North Carolina, and AGUILAR is expected to be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak of the Eastern District of Texas.  DOS SANTOS was arrested in Panama City, Panama, and is pending extradition to the United States. 

Acting United States Attorney Audrey Strauss said:  “As alleged, the defendants put a modern-day spin on an age-old investment scam, promising extraordinary rates of guaranteed return on phantom investments in cryptocurrencies.  Thanks to HSI, the defendants are in custody and facing serious criminal charges.”

HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Peter C. Fitzhugh said:  “Those arrested today have not only been charged with running a multimillion-dollar cryptocurrency investment fraud and money laundering ring, but also for allegedly spending their victim’s money on luxury cars, jewelry, and homes. These alleged fraudsters pulled out all the stops to sell their scheme to their victims with enticing recruitment events, then shamelessly used proceeds of their scheme to recruit additional victims through even more aggressive and lavish marketing pitches. As today’s arrests show, HSI New York’s El Dorado Task Force investigates financial crimes of every type, and will stop those who prey on unsuspecting investors who entrust their hard-earned savings to so-called financial advisors.  Those who violate this trust for their personal gain will face consequences for their actions.”

According to the allegations in the Superseding Indictment unsealed today:[1]   

RODRIGUEZ, DOS SANTOS, HUGHES, MILLAN, and AGUILAR participated in a coordinated scheme in which victim-investors (the “Victims”) were induced to invest in AirBit Club based on the promise of guaranteed profits in exchange for cash investments in club “memberships” (the “AirBit Club Scheme” or the “Scheme”).  Beginning in late 2015, AirBit Club, through its founders, RODRIGUEZ and DOS SANTOS, as well as its promoters (the “Promoters”), including MILLAN and AGUILAR, marketed AirBit Club as a multilevel marketing club in the cryptocurrency industry.  Promoters falsely promised Victims that AirBit Club earned returns on cryptocurrency mining and trading and that Victims would earn passive, guaranteed daily returns on any membership purchased.

RODRIGUEZ, DOS SANTOS, HUGHES, MILLAN, and AGUILAR traveled throughout the United States, and around the world to places in Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe, where they hosted lavish expos and small community presentations aimed at convincing Victims to purchase AirBit Club memberships.  In furtherance of the AirBit Club Scheme, the Victims were induced to buy memberships in cash, including in the Southern District of New York.  Following a Victim’s investment, a Promoter provided the Victim with access to an online AirBit Club portal to view the purported returns on memberships (the “Online Portal”).  While Victims saw “profits” accumulate on their Online Portal, those representations were false: no Bitcoin mining or trading on behalf of Victims in fact took place.  Instead, RODRIGUEZ, DOS SANTOS, MILLAN, and AGUILAR enriched themselves, and spent Victim money on cars, jewelry, and luxury homes, and financed more extravagant expos to recruit more Victims. 

HUGHES, an attorney licensed to practice law in California, had previously represented RODRIGUEZ and DOS SANTOS in a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation related to another investment scheme known as Vizinova before aiding RODRIGUEZ and DOS SANTOS in perpetrating the AirBit Club Scheme by, among other things, helping to remove negative information about AirBit Club and Vizinova from the internet. 

In many instances, as early as 2016, Victims who attempted to withdraw money from the AirBit Club Online Portal and complained to a Promoter were met with excuses, delays, and hidden fees amounting to more than 50% of the Victim’s requested withdrawal, if they were able to make any withdrawal at all.  In one instance, AGUILAR told one Victim of the AirBit Club Scheme who was complaining about her inability to withdraw AirBit Club returns that she should “bring new blood” into the AirBit Club Scheme in order to receive her returns.

In April 2020, another victim received a notice on the AirBit Club Online Portal that his account was closed – and principal investment lost – due to “execution of financial sustainability Reserve, policy #34 of the Airbit Club Terms and Conditions, due to the economic and financial crisis caused by (Covid-19).”

RODRIGUEZ, DOS SANTOS, HUGHES, and MILLAN sought to conceal the AirBit Club Scheme, as well as their respective control of the proceeds of that Scheme, by requesting that Victims purchase memberships in cash, using third-party cryptocurrency brokers, and by laundering the Scheme’s proceeds through several domestic and foreign bank accounts, including an attorney trust account managed by HUGHES (the “Hughes Trust Account”).  The Hughes Trust Account was ostensibly intended to maintain custody of HUGHES’s law practice’s client funds.  Instead, the Hughes Trust Account was used by RODRIGUEZ, DOS SANTOS, HUGHES, and MILLAN to conceal the nature and origin of the AirBit Club Scheme’s illicit proceeds.  Through that account, HUGHES directed Victim funds to the personal expenses of RODRIGUEZ, DOS SANTOS, MILLAN, and himself, and funded promotional events and sponsorships designed to further promote the AirBit Club Scheme.  In total, the defendants laundered at least $20 million in proceeds of the Scheme through these various methods.

*                      *                     *

RODRIGUEZ, 37, of Irvine, California, DOS SANTOS, 45, of Panama City, Panama, and MILLAN, 37, of Greensboro, North Carolina, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.   HUGHES, 44, of Newport Beach, California, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.  AGUILAR, 55, of Plano, Texas, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

The wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy charges each carry a maximum term of 20 years in prison, and the bank fraud conspiracy charge carries a maximum term of 30 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants would be determined by the judge. 

Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of Special Agents from Homeland Security Investigations’ El Dorado Task Force, HSI Panama, the HSI Panama City Transnational Criminal Investigative Unit, and HSI New Orleans.  Ms. Strauss further thanked the attorneys and investigators at the Securities and Exchange Commission whose expertise and diligence were integral to the development of this investigation.

The case is being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Kiersten A. Fletcher, Cecilia E. Vogel, and Elizabeth A. Espinosa are in charge of the prosecution. 

The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.        

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Superseding Indictment and the description of the Superseding Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12W4gbFg-zSLcHow73jxOjyxjwh6tVEC_yg_jYMGqzFI
  Last Updated: 2024-04-16 22:33:16 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E