The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has charged a network of purported crypto trading platforms and AI-themed investment clubs, alleging a retail fraud that raised at least $14 million. Filed on December 22, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the complaint targets three platforms and four investment clubs for conduct allegedly spanning January 2024 to January 2025.
What the SEC says happened and what it is seeking
The SEC alleges violations of the anti-fraud provisions in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The agency is seeking permanent injunctions, civil penalties, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest, positioning the case as both investor restitution and future-conduct restraint.
The complaint names specific entities as defendants and frames the pitch as deliberately misleading. Defendants are accused of falsely claiming government licenses and marketing “Security Token Offerings” that purported to represent interests in legitimate businesses. The defendants identified in the text include Morocoin Tech Corp., Berge Blockchain Technology Co. Ltd., and Cirkor Inc., alongside AI Wealth Inc., Lane Wealth Inc., AI Investment Education Foundation Ltd. (AIIEF), and Zenith Asset Tech Foundation.
The SEC’s narrative emphasizes that the “platform” activity was not what it appeared to be. The complaint alleges there was no genuine market activity, and that investor deposits were misappropriated and routed overseas through a network of bank accounts and cryptocurrency wallets. That framing goes directly to custody, traceability, and the core investor-protection premise that deposits should not be repurposed outside disclosed terms.
Recruitment tactics are described as coordinated and designed to mimic professional credibility. The scheme allegedly relied on social-media advertising and group messaging, steering victims into WhatsApp chats where operators impersonated financial professionals and used purported AI-generated trading tips to project expertise. The AI angle, as described, functions less as technology and more as a credibility wrapper to reduce skepticism.
Once funds were deposited, the alleged mechanics shifted from acquisition to containment. The complaint says withdrawals were impeded through advance fees and other obstacles, effectively trapping deposits and escalating losses. That pattern is described as consistent with “pig butchering,” where trust is built over time before larger transfers are induced and access to funds is progressively restricted.
From an operational risk standpoint, the case spotlights the weak points the alleged actors exploited. The allegations reinforce why onboarding controls, promotional-channel governance, transaction traceability, and transparent custody and reserve representations are critical for retail-facing crypto products. In practical terms, the SEC is positioning this as a confidence scam amplified by AI narratives and high-friction withdrawal mechanics, with the litigation now proceeding in federal court in Colorado.
