On December fifteenth, Mark Scott lastly filed his case for a OneCoin retrial.
Scott was convicted in November 2019 and seeks to overturn his conviction.
Arguments raised by Scott in favor of a retrial deal with two cases perjury by witness Konstantin Ignatov, and the way the perjury allegedly impacted the jury’s responsible verdict.
Konstantin Ignatov is the brother of OneCoin founder and former CEO Ruja Ignatova.
When Ruja fled in late 2017, Konstantin went from being her private assistant to CEO of OneCoin.
Konstantin was arrested by US authorities in March 2019. A part of Konstantin’s responsible plea, entered into later that 12 months, noticed him conform to full cooperation with US authorities.
That pledged cooperation noticed Konstantin produced as a witness in Mark Scott’s OneCoin cash laundering trial.
Information of Konstantin committing perjury broke again in September.
The primary occasion pertained to Konstantin’s OneCoin work laptop computer, which he testified he threw away.
Essentially Konstantin gave the laptop computer to Duncan Arthur, who he was travelling with on the time.
Arthur travelled with it again to Bulgaria and turned the laptop computer over to OneCoin.
Konstantin’s girlfriend then organized to have the proof on the laptop computer destroyed.
Arthur made a duplicate of the proof earlier than it was destroyed.
Arthur acknowledged that on the laptop computer had been “many particulars about OneCoin’s monetary dealings in London, Dubai, Sofia, and the disposition of property together with financial institution accounts, investments associated enterprise
ventures, valuables and actual property in billions of {dollars}.”
In July 2020 Arthur turned the laptop computer proof over, as a part of “eight containers of OneCoin materials”, to UK and US authorities.
The DOJ is believed to have discovered of Ignatov’s laptop computer perjury in June 2021, through one other report despatched to them by Duncan Arthur.
The Authorities didn’t disclose this reported perjury … with the Manhattan DA investigator claiming, fairly disturbingly, that he had “obtained busy with different issues” and believed that Mr. Scott had been sentenced to jail already.
The second occasion of Konstantin’s perjury pertains to a gathering between Mark Scott (proper) and Irina Dilkinska, a OneCoin government.
In his December fifteenth movement, Mark Scott’s legal professional writes;
Dilkinska was greater than 3,000 miles away in New Delhi on the date in query, as journey information definitively show.
Scott’s legal professional goes on to assert DOJ Prosecutors had been conscious of Konstantin’s perjury on the time.
Worse, the Authorities was conscious throughout trial that the story Konstantin was spinning for the jury in regards to the Dilkinska assembly in Sofia was nearly actually false.
E-mails from the Authorities’s discovery, which the protection recognized for the Authorities whereas Konstantin was nonetheless testifying, made clear that Dilkinska was nearly actually not in her dwelling metropolis of Sofia when Mr. Scott visited OneCoin’s workplaces there on Wednesday, July 20, 2016.
Along with journey information, Scott’s legal professional references an exhibited e mail alternate. that happened on the time of the alleged assembly.
The alternate happened throughout the time of the alleged assembly in Bulgaria. Within the alternate Dilkinska tells Scott she’d be “touring for the entire week”.
The e-mail exhibit was rejected for Scott’s trial, on the idea it was “clearly inadmissible rumour” and lacked “impartial corroborating proof”.
That proof wouldn’t floor till earlier this 12 months.
A supply offered the protection with a duplicate of Dilkinska’s passport with stamps displaying that she was in India on the date of the assembly, a passport that counsel for Dilkinska has confirmed is correct.
Counsel for Dilkinska then offered the Authorities with a video of Dilkinska herself flipping by way of the pages of the passport.
Lastly, on December 3, 2021, the Authorities knowledgeable protection counsel that Indian authorities had confirmed the accuracy of the passport stamps:
Dilkinska arrived in India on July 19, 2016 and departed on July 22, 2016.
OneCoin’s supposed head cash launderer was most actually not in Sofia on July 20, 2016, a lot much less at a gathering in OneCoin’s workplaces with Mark Scott, as Konstantin had informed the jury.
Dilkinska labored immediately with Ruja Ignatova. Her legal professional working with Mark Scott’s protection group is an attention-grabbing improvement.
Dilkinska, Konstantin claimed, was “in control of creating and managing pretend firms for the corporate OneCoin,” the aim of which had been to “create financial institution accounts . . . for the cash laundering functions.”
If Dilkinska is an individual of curiosity within the DOJ’s ongoing investigation into OneCoin, they haven’t made that public.
It ought to be famous Scott’s legal professional makes a giant deal about an unlawful cellphone Konstantin obtained in jail (it appears OneCoin defendants haven’t any downside gaining unlawful entry to cell telephones).
I’m not conscious of any revealed proof pointing to something on Konstantin’s seized cellphone pertaining to Scott’s trial.
Scott’s legal professional places forth that Konstantin’s perjury resulted in him being denied a good trial.
These a number of confirmed cases of perjury solid grave doubt on the whole lot of Konstantin’s testimony, together with his claims that Mr. Scott
was “one of many principal cash launderers for OneCoin.”Had the jury recognized that Konstantin had blatantly lied in regards to the fictitious Sofia assembly with Dilkinska in addition to the destruction of the OneCoin laptop computer, the whole lot of Konstantin’s testimony would
nearly actually have been discredited.And if Konstantin was so fast to lie on two events, the jury would have had grave cause to doubt Konstantin’s broader testimony that Mr. Scott was a “cash launderer.”
Had been the jury to ignore all of Konstantin’s testimony – or at the very least all testimony inculpatory to Mr. Scott that was not in any other case corroborated – there might be no confidence it could have returned the identical verdict.
In late September, the DOJ claimed Konstantin’s perjury was “not materials” to Scott’s responsible verdict.
The DOJ put forth Konstantin’s perjury,
amounting to solely a small piece of Ignatov’s testimony and relating to an occasion that happened after the charged conspiracy and was unrelated to Scott’s guilt, was not materials to the jury’s verdict.
Ignatov’s full testimony had restricted relevance to the important thing difficulty in dispute at trial, i.e., Scott’s realizing participation within the charged legal conspiracies.
The proof submitted by the DOJ, leading to Scott’s conviction, prolonged nicely past Konstantin Ignatov.
A call on whether or not Mark Scott can be granted a retrial stays pending.
