€2,500,000. This is the approximate amount that Ghislain E., the defendant, allegedly extorted from the civil parties present before the Namur criminal court on Wednesday. Some were not present, other victims may not have come forward. According to the defendant’s companion, he still held a few weeks ago, nearly 1,000 bitcoins, 39 million euros.
If the defendant did not appear in person, his wife was present in court. Both, as managers of the company QI, also accused, had to answer for forgery and fraud. The forgeries in question were forged discretionary management agreements.
Ghislain E. was very well documented on cryptocurrency. This former salesman in the pharmaceutical industry knew how to be persuasive and inspire confidence. This is how he launched the QI company at the end of 2017, thanks to his wife, who had a management degree. He promised returns of between 40 and 80% within 6 months, without risk taking, boasting of having himself benefited from returns of nearly 1000%, with supporting evidence. For “concrete“All of this, he had his clients sign contracts read and reread by tax specialists, accountants and financial experts, committing to deliver quarterly management reports, proof of his good faith.
Thus, a company invested nearly 825,000 euros. Ghislain E promised him 1,485,000 euros in return. Another victim entrusted him with the management of a sum of 380,000 euros, she was to receive 684,000 euros in return.
According to the advice of several civil parties, it was a Ponzi scheme that had been set up, Ghislain E. remunerating the first investors with the money of the most recent. The Namurois used the money for purposes other than investing in cryptocurrency and no longer reimbursed his investors.
Me Clement spoke at length about Ghislain E’s way of doing things. “The Financial Information Processing Unit noted numerous transfers between its accounts, those of the couple, those of the QI company and those of the investors. Funds flowed in and out to other accounts. We note in particular 133,000 euros used by the couple for fittings, or 436,000 euros used for the purchase of a farm. Large sums were used for sports betting. 410,000 euros were lost at the Ostend casino. There was the purchase of several vehicles for 91,000 euros. And transfers to tax havens.“
The defendant’s wife now claims to be biting her fingers to have participated in the constitution of the company by which the alleged offenses were committed. She explains : “I trusted him with his business, I didn’t have access to the company’s accounts. I was not aware of the amounts involved. He did receive large sums, which were converted into cryptocurrency. But there was a technical problem when transforming these sums back into cash, the banking system did not play the game. He then went to Cyprus to take steps to solve the problem, but it was not feasible , he then went in search of a solution to Mauritius in October 2020, a solution to transform this cryptocurrency into an official currency. He still has the money of the people who say they are prejudiced, he just has to unlock it.”
The defendant would therefore have found THE solution to return the money to those who invested it. The problem ? “This money is present on an electronic wallet which is in a computer which has been seized. Access to this computer is the only way for him to reconvert the sums and repay.“Some investors have asked for their cryptocurrency to be returned to them, in order to convert it into currency themselves. They have not received a response to their request
Questioned by President Cadelli, the defendant admits, however, that for several months, her husband, she, and their 3 children have been living… thanks to the conversion of “small sums“cryptocurrency, around 4,000 euros per month, all the same.”In Mauritius, he gives training on cryptocurrency. We rent an apartment 800 euros per month, rent a car and he pays me 1,900 euros to pay and maintain our house in Belgium. And there is the schooling of the children.“What suggest to the lawyers of the forty civil parties that the defendant collected a large sum, before disappearing. Sum thanks to which he lives today, to the detriment of many victims.
No hearing instruction by videoconference
The lawyers for the defendant, who currently resides in Mauritius, had arranged for their client to be questioned by the court by videoconference. A solution to which several of the counsel for the civil parties opposed, this scenario “having no legal basis”. Faced with this opposition, President Cadelli refused to proceed in this way, for lack of a legal basis. Counsel for the defendant regretted the decision, as this solution would have allowed the ten or so civil parties present in the room to obtain answers from the mouth of the principal concerned.
The defendant’s wife explained the reason for her absence:He was looking for a solution to convert cryptocurrency into cash and a lead was emerging in Mauritius. He had a bad encounter there, this person discovered that he had a large wallet of virtual currency. The corrupt Mauritian police searched on November 27 and found Xanax, mine, the possession of which is subject to a license in this country. His passport was confiscated, a laptop was confiscated. My doctor certified that the Xanax belonged to me and was dispensed legally. My husband is in court on April 27, so he may be present at the next hearing on May 18.”
Indictment and pleadings on May 18.
JVE