Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Luke201556 [2026] FCR 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pending the extension of the deadline, the Commonwealth submits its closing statement.

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth believes that through the course of this trial, witness testimony has demonstrated that the alleged crimes did occur, we shall cover each charge and examine how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ownership Structure Fraud

This charge is the most clear-cut, with the Defense having provided no evidence to deny its nature. The Defendant billed Royal Dragon & Shell as an LLC, purporting a legally backed system of shares and ownership valid in the jurisdiction of Redmont. Contrary to this, Staff have unequivocally confirmed that no filing exists, or ever existed, registering Royal Dragon & Shell as an LLC under the authority of the DOC. Staff went further to clarify that only a severe abuse of staff power could have conceivably concealed such a filing, something which has not occurred. The Defense claims that there can be reasonable doubt as “multiple people firmly recall it being so”, this is entirely conjecture, the Defense failed to call even a single witness to testify under oath that they remembered such a company docket. The facts stand as such. Staff has firmly concluded that no company docket ever existed, and no valid evidence has been submitted that could even contest this fact with reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court must conclude that RDS was never registered as an LLC under Redmontian law.
We then examine how this amounts to fraud. It is clear that RDS knowingly and recklessly misrepresented their ownership structure, claiming an LLC structure and legal legitimacy that simply did not exist. As evidenced by the public trading of the company on official stock exchanges, citizens relied on the false information provided by the company as justification to make investments and purchase stock, taking on risk of losing their entire investments due to the faux legal nature of the purported shares they purchased. Royal Dragon & Shell provided fraudulent information to the public and its investors, reaping elevated valuations by selling a false bill of goods not protected by Redmontian laws surrounding LLC ownership.

Exchange Rate Fraud

This charge has been thoroughly supported by witness testimony, it is abundantly clear that the exchange rate utilized by Royal Dragon & Shell when calculating its valuation was at best grossly misrepresented, and at worse completely falsified. Witness ElysiaCrynn has testified that both the DOC and the FRB believe that “The rate is unsubstantiated and lacks the support of reliable market data to validate a 1:10 ratio“. It is clear then that no economic entity can verify the validity of such a ratio of exchange. The Defense again provides no evidence to support why this exchange rate could at all be validated or grounded in reality, instead falsely suggesting that the government “affirmed” a 1:10 market rate. The Commonwealth did not affirm any market rate discussed in Slipknot, such a market rate was not included whatsoever in discussions. By acknowledging that the instance of foreign exchange occurred, the Commonwealth was not lending official credence to any purported exchange rate utilized.
The Commonwealth has witness testimony that establishes that an exchange rate of 10:1 is both absurd, and unmoored from reality. Instead of providing any evidence or witness testimony to corroborate their claims that an exchange rate of 10:1 was indeed valid, the defense instead leans heavily on conjecture. This is indeed extremely fraudulent, RDS claimed to have assets with a valuation in CRP currency, and claimed asset valuations in Redmontian currency using this fraudulent exchange rate. By utilizing this unsubstantiated ratio, the Defendant vastly inflated the supposed material valuation of their sole proprietorship. As we have established, quantifiable harm occurred to investors and “shareholders” who bought into this company at heightened values, well above what any reasonable exchange rate would have established, leading to a defrauding of value.
This however, holds no water to the real issue at hand. City RP does not exist. Staff have adamantly declared that no, there is no sanctioned relationship or economic connection between the two servers. In actuality, as demonstrated by P-004, RDS holds 0 monetary assets in Redmont, and indeed all properties listed as being owned by RDS are present on City RP, not Democracycraft. City RP is not a part of the “Blockverse”, this is an unmistakable fact. A company that relies on fantasy properties and assets, would unquestionably be falsifying a valuation based on something that simply does not exist. As City RP functionally does not exist in the “Blockverse”, it is impossible for this court to recognize any valuation purported by RDS as legitimate based on what equates to the validity of Monopoly Money within the Democracycraft Server.

Market Manipulation

As already established above, the exchange rate utilized by Royal Dragon & Shell in order to calculate asset prices was entirely untethered to reality. The Defendant utilized this falsified exchange rate to fraudulently inflate the valuation of all RDS property assets well above what a reasonable exchange rate would support. This is a textbook example of market manipulation, the assets supposedly owned by RDS had their valuation artificially increased using the false exchange rate of 10:1.

False Advertising

The Defense proclaims that due to a legal disclaimer placed within the Royal Dragon & Shell Investor Presentation it is shielded from any prosecution of false advertisement. This is a misunderstanding of the Commercial Standards Act. A Commercial Advertisement is defined in §9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act as “An advertisement intended to benefit or harm a privately owned or operated business”. The contents of the RDS Investor Presentation are clearly designed to benefit RDS by drawing in further investments and increasing the value of its purported shares. As established above, RDS is a supposed LLC with shares protected by Redmontian law, and the asset valuations using the 10:1 exchange rates are provably false. Therefore the only defense is whether a legal disclaimer removes all potential liability.
The disclaimer makes the claim that the presentation “should not be construed as legal, tax, investment or other advice”. However, a publication does not necessitate containing advice in order to act as an advertisement, it merely contains a depiction of a business or its products/assets in order to influence the behaviors of others, this can happen without explicitly containing direct advice. Furthermore, this disclaimer contains a clause structured akin to a contract, stating that “By viewing or accessing the information contained in this presentation, you acknowledge and agree that none of the Company or any of its officers, directors, affiliates, advisers or representatives accept any responsibility whatsoever (in negligence or otherwise) or any loss howsoever arising from any information presented or contained in this presentation or otherwise arising in connection with the presentation”. This “agreement” cannot be in any way legally binding as it lacks any concrete acceptance under §4(2)(b) of the Contracts Act, as no response has been communicated to the offeror.
Ultimately, this is a novel argument made by the defense. Can a disclaimer fully protect from any criminal liability when the information contained within is clearly false advertisement for the benefit of a company. We leave this decision up to the Honorable Judge.

Summary

The evidence presented is sufficient to prove that the actions undertaken by the defendant were criminal in nature. The defense has failed to provide any concrete verifiable evidence to support any of its claims, rather resorting to conjecture and speculation to attempt to discredit the prosecution's ideas. Witness testimony has corroborated beyond any reasonable doubt that there never existed any LLC structuring agreement for RDS, making any information claiming otherwise false. Witness testimony has additionally corroborated that a 10:1 exchange rate between DC and CRP is fully divorced from reality, and any valuation based upon it is therefore vastly and fraudulently inflated. All members of the public who purchased “shares” of RDS were deceived by a literal shell of a company. Shares which supposedly granted a legitimate stake in a corporation with a claimed revenue of $3,000,000 were hawked to the public by the Defendant. In reality however, within the “Blockverse” RDS is a sole proprietorship with 0 cash assets, 0 properties in redmont, and 0 legitimacy provided by LLC registration. To claim otherwise was a crime that defrauded many investors, and deluded them with false promises of becoming a legitimate shareholder. We ask that the Defendant be held accountable for this scheme to pitch Royal Dragon & Shell as something it was not.

 
Novakerbal said:
Pending the extension of the deadline, the Commonwealth submits its closing statement.

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth believes that through the course of this trial, witness testimony has demonstrated that the alleged crimes did occur, we shall cover each charge and examine how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ownership Structure Fraud

This charge is the most clear-cut, with the Defense having provided no evidence to deny its nature. The Defendant billed Royal Dragon & Shell as an LLC, purporting a legally backed system of shares and ownership valid in the jurisdiction of Redmont. Contrary to this, Staff have unequivocally confirmed that no filing exists, or ever existed, registering Royal Dragon & Shell as an LLC under the authority of the DOC. Staff went further to clarify that only a severe abuse of staff power could have conceivably concealed such a filing, something which has not occurred. The Defense claims that there can be reasonable doubt as “multiple people firmly recall it being so”, this is entirely conjecture, the Defense failed to call even a single witness to testify under oath that they remembered such a company docket. The facts stand as such. Staff has firmly concluded that no company docket ever existed, and no valid evidence has been submitted that could even contest this fact with reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court must conclude that RDS was never registered as an LLC under Redmontian law.
We then examine how this amounts to fraud. It is clear that RDS knowingly and recklessly misrepresented their ownership structure, claiming an LLC structure and legal legitimacy that simply did not exist. As evidenced by the public trading of the company on official stock exchanges, citizens relied on the false information provided by the company as justification to make investments and purchase stock, taking on risk of losing their entire investments due to the faux legal nature of the purported shares they purchased. Royal Dragon & Shell provided fraudulent information to the public and its investors, reaping elevated valuations by selling a false bill of goods not protected by Redmontian laws surrounding LLC ownership.

Exchange Rate Fraud

This charge has been thoroughly supported by witness testimony, it is abundantly clear that the exchange rate utilized by Royal Dragon & Shell when calculating its valuation was at best grossly misrepresented, and at worse completely falsified. Witness ElysiaCrynn has testified that both the DOC and the FRB believe that “The rate is unsubstantiated and lacks the support of reliable market data to validate a 1:10 ratio“. It is clear then that no economic entity can verify the validity of such a ratio of exchange. The Defense again provides no evidence to support why this exchange rate could at all be validated or grounded in reality, instead falsely suggesting that the government “affirmed” a 1:10 market rate. The Commonwealth did not affirm any market rate discussed in Slipknot, such a market rate was not included whatsoever in discussions. By acknowledging that the instance of foreign exchange occurred, the Commonwealth was not lending official credence to any purported exchange rate utilized.
The Commonwealth has witness testimony that establishes that an exchange rate of 10:1 is both absurd, and unmoored from reality. Instead of providing any evidence or witness testimony to corroborate their claims that an exchange rate of 10:1 was indeed valid, the defense instead leans heavily on conjecture. This is indeed extremely fraudulent, RDS claimed to have assets with a valuation in CRP currency, and claimed asset valuations in Redmontian currency using this fraudulent exchange rate. By utilizing this unsubstantiated ratio, the Defendant vastly inflated the supposed material valuation of their sole proprietorship. As we have established, quantifiable harm occurred to investors and “shareholders” who bought into this company at heightened values, well above what any reasonable exchange rate would have established, leading to a defrauding of value.
This however, holds no water to the real issue at hand. City RP does not exist. Staff have adamantly declared that no, there is no sanctioned relationship or economic connection between the two servers. In actuality, as demonstrated by P-004, RDS holds 0 monetary assets in Redmont, and indeed all properties listed as being owned by RDS are present on City RP, not Democracycraft. City RP is not a part of the “Blockverse”, this is an unmistakable fact. A company that relies on fantasy properties and assets, would unquestionably be falsifying a valuation based on something that simply does not exist. As City RP functionally does not exist in the “Blockverse”, it is impossible for this court to recognize any valuation purported by RDS as legitimate based on what equates to the validity of Monopoly Money within the Democracycraft Server.

Market Manipulation

As already established above, the exchange rate utilized by Royal Dragon & Shell in order to calculate asset prices was entirely untethered to reality. The Defendant utilized this falsified exchange rate to fraudulently inflate the valuation of all RDS property assets well above what a reasonable exchange rate would support. This is a textbook example of market manipulation, the assets supposedly owned by RDS had their valuation artificially increased using the false exchange rate of 10:1.

False Advertising

The Defense proclaims that due to a legal disclaimer placed within the Royal Dragon & Shell Investor Presentation it is shielded from any prosecution of false advertisement. This is a misunderstanding of the Commercial Standards Act. A Commercial Advertisement is defined in §9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act as “An advertisement intended to benefit or harm a privately owned or operated business”. The contents of the RDS Investor Presentation are clearly designed to benefit RDS by drawing in further investments and increasing the value of its purported shares. As established above, RDS is a supposed LLC with shares protected by Redmontian law, and the asset valuations using the 10:1 exchange rates are provably false. Therefore the only defense is whether a legal disclaimer removes all potential liability.
The disclaimer makes the claim that the presentation “should not be construed as legal, tax, investment or other advice”. However, a publication does not necessitate containing advice in order to act as an advertisement, it merely contains a depiction of a business or its products/assets in order to influence the behaviors of others, this can happen without explicitly containing direct advice. Furthermore, this disclaimer contains a clause structured akin to a contract, stating that “By viewing or accessing the information contained in this presentation, you acknowledge and agree that none of the Company or any of its officers, directors, affiliates, advisers or representatives accept any responsibility whatsoever (in negligence or otherwise) or any loss howsoever arising from any information presented or contained in this presentation or otherwise arising in connection with the presentation”. This “agreement” cannot be in any way legally binding as it lacks any concrete acceptance under §4(2)(b) of the Contracts Act, as no response has been communicated to the offeror.
Ultimately, this is a novel argument made by the defense. Can a disclaimer fully protect from any criminal liability when the information contained within is clearly false advertisement for the benefit of a company. We leave this decision up to the Honorable Judge.

Summary

The evidence presented is sufficient to prove that the actions undertaken by the defendant were criminal in nature. The defense has failed to provide any concrete verifiable evidence to support any of its claims, rather resorting to conjecture and speculation to attempt to discredit the prosecution's ideas. Witness testimony has corroborated beyond any reasonable doubt that there never existed any LLC structuring agreement for RDS, making any information claiming otherwise false. Witness testimony has additionally corroborated that a 10:1 exchange rate between DC and CRP is fully divorced from reality, and any valuation based upon it is therefore vastly and fraudulently inflated. All members of the public who purchased “shares” of RDS were deceived by a literal shell of a company. Shares which supposedly granted a legitimate stake in a corporation with a claimed revenue of $3,000,000 were hawked to the public by the Defendant. In reality however, within the “Blockverse” RDS is a sole proprietorship with 0 cash assets, 0 properties in redmont, and 0 legitimacy provided by LLC registration. To claim otherwise was a crime that defrauded many investors, and deluded them with false promises of becoming a legitimate shareholder. We ask that the Defendant be held accountable for this scheme to pitch Royal Dragon & Shell as something it was not.

Click to expand...

Motion


MOTION TO STRIKE

This statement was filed 13 hours late. By the Commonwealth's own admission, it was late because they wanted to "polish off [their] closing statment"

Your honor, if everyone is just allowed to be 13 hours late because they wanted to "polish off" their statements, what is the purpose of deadlines?

The Commonwealth ignored the court's third deadline and expects no recourse.

We ask they be held accountable to the deadlines and their closing statement be struck.

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


MOTION TO STRIKE

This statement was filed 13 hours late. By the Commonwealth's own admission, it was late because they wanted to "polish off [their] closing statment"

Your honor, if everyone is just allowed to be 13 hours late because they wanted to "polish off" their statements, what is the purpose of deadlines?

The Commonwealth ignored the court's third deadline and expects no recourse.

We ask they be held accountable to the deadlines and their closing statement be struck.

Click to expand...
The Commonwealth did not in fact ignore this deadline, the Commonwealth requested an extension.
 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


MOTION TO STRIKE

Responses to motions are not guaranteed. The Prosecution has spoken out of turn.

Click to expand...
Motion to Strike denied

Regulation 4.4 under the Regulations of the Federal Court grants 48 hours to respond to all motions, briefs or other legal filings.

Dartanboy said:

Motion


MOTION TO STRIKE

This statement was filed 13 hours late. By the Commonwealth's own admission, it was late because they wanted to "polish off [their] closing statment"

Your honor, if everyone is just allowed to be 13 hours late because they wanted to "polish off" their statements, what is the purpose of deadlines?

The Commonwealth ignored the court's third deadline and expects no recourse.

We ask they be held accountable to the deadlines and their closing statement be struck.

Click to expand...
Motion to Strike denied

I will allow the extension and, therefore, the closing statements. We just went through historic times the last few days, where the government came to a halt either through strikes or forcibly by Tech for some time. Both affected the Federal Court and the DOJ.


The defense has 72 hours to provide their closing statements
 
ko531 said:
Motion to Strike denied

Regulation 4.4 under the Regulations of the Federal Court grants 48 hours to respond to all motions, briefs or other legal filings.


Motion to Strike denied

I will allow the extension and, therefore, the closing statements. We just went through historic times the last few days, where the government came to a halt either through strikes or forcibly by Tech for some time. Both affected the Federal Court and the DOJ.


The defense has 72 hours to provide their closing statements
Click to expand...
Your honor, I see I missed mentioning it here - in another case I already said I would be unavailable over the weekend. I will be filing a closing statement today if you will allow it.
 

Closing Statement



Your honor,

The Commonwealth has failed on multiple points to address the necessary factors of any crimes.

On Ownership Structure Fraud
The Commonwealth has failed to prove that investors in RDS actually lost anything. Perhaps they took on more risk than they initially expected, but if RDS did not actually lose anything, then the investors did not lose anything either.

On Exchange Rate Fraud
It is substantially shown that the Commonwealth, at some point in the past, approved of a 10:1 exchange rate. ElysiaCrynn, notably an agent of the Commonwealth, went on record claiming the rate is "unsubstantiated" (although notably not calling it false or incorrect), however as an agent of the Commonwealth, she has a Conflict of Interest so such testimony must be taken with a grain of salt.

Given the existing evidence of a 10:1 exchange rate being approved, this is clearly a valid rate, especially since investors are able to see how the calculation is done.

I also noticed the prosecution in their closing statement claimed "Instead of providing any evidence or witness testimony to corroborate their claims that an exchange rate of 10:1 was indeed valid, the defense instead leans heavily on conjecture." - This is unequivocally false, as shown in the document titled "Slipknot Release".

On Market Manipulation
The Prosecution's claim of Market Manipulation hinges on the 10:1 exchange rate being a "false exchange rate" as they put it.

We again argue that even if there is no well-established market value (which we believe there is), 10:1 is at least a value which has been previously approved by the Commonwealth.

On False Advertising
The Prosecution claims that "A Commercial Advertisement is defined in §9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act as “An advertisement intended to benefit or harm a privately owned or operated business”. The contents of the RDS Investor Presentation are clearly designed to benefit RDS by drawing in further investments and increasing the value of its purported shares."

While their definition of Commercial Advertisement is technically correct under the law, it is notably a circular definition, and fails to establish whether an Investor Report is an advertisement. We still hold that an Investor Presentation is not an advertisement.

Summary
This prosecution has no ground to stand on. My client has done nothing wrong. Please do not wrongly convict an innocent man.

 
Dartanboy said:

Closing Statement



Your honor,

The Commonwealth has failed on multiple points to address the necessary factors of any crimes.

On Ownership Structure Fraud
The Commonwealth has failed to prove that investors in RDS actually lost anything. Perhaps they took on more risk than they initially expected, but if RDS did not actually lose anything, then the investors did not lose anything either.

On Exchange Rate Fraud
It is substantially shown that the Commonwealth, at some point in the past, approved of a 10:1 exchange rate. ElysiaCrynn, notably an agent of the Commonwealth, went on record claiming the rate is "unsubstantiated" (although notably not calling it false or incorrect), however as an agent of the Commonwealth, she has a Conflict of Interest so such testimony must be taken with a grain of salt.

Given the existing evidence of a 10:1 exchange rate being approved, this is clearly a valid rate, especially since investors are able to see how the calculation is done.

I also noticed the prosecution in their closing statement claimed "Instead of providing any evidence or witness testimony to corroborate their claims that an exchange rate of 10:1 was indeed valid, the defense instead leans heavily on conjecture." - This is unequivocally false, as shown in the document titled "Slipknot Release".

On Market Manipulation
The Prosecution's claim of Market Manipulation hinges on the 10:1 exchange rate being a "false exchange rate" as they put it.

We again argue that even if there is no well-established market value (which we believe there is), 10:1 is at least a value which has been previously approved by the Commonwealth.

On False Advertising
The Prosecution claims that "A Commercial Advertisement is defined in §9(9) of the Commercial Standards Act as “An advertisement intended to benefit or harm a privately owned or operated business”. The contents of the RDS Investor Presentation are clearly designed to benefit RDS by drawing in further investments and increasing the value of its purported shares."

While their definition of Commercial Advertisement is technically correct under the law, it is notably a circular definition, and fails to establish whether an Investor Report is an advertisement. We still hold that an Investor Presentation is not an advertisement.

Summary
This prosecution has no ground to stand on. My client has done nothing wrong. Please do not wrongly convict an innocent man.

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Well, Well, Well...

This statement was filed 17 hours late. No extension was requested for the deadline prior to the deadline elapsing.

We ask the Defense be held accountable to the deadlines and their closing statement be struck.

 
Novakerbal said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Well, Well, Well...

This statement was filed 17 hours late. No extension was requested for the deadline prior to the deadline elapsing.

We ask the Defense be held accountable to the deadlines and their closing statement be struck.

Click to expand...

Response


Your honor,

It would be an immense display of bias to allow the Commonwealth to get 4 days of extensions and be late whilst not allowing the Defendant less than 25% of the extra time the Prosecution received.

 
Novakerbal said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Well, Well, Well...

This statement was filed 17 hours late. No extension was requested for the deadline prior to the deadline elapsing.

We ask the Defense be held accountable to the deadlines and their closing statement be struck.

Click to expand...
Overruled. Even though the statement was late, I am allowing it

We will now be entering recess pending verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v Luke201556 [2026] FCR 15

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
The defendant, Luke201556, has committed Market Manipulation, False Advertising, and two counts of fraud through their conduct with RedDragon&Shell. As a sole proprietorship, they never could issue stocks but did. They misled stockholders through their financial reporting by listing CityRP assets in Redmont currency through an unsubstantiated 10:1 conversion rate.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
The defendant pleads not guilty on all charges. The 10:1 conversion rate used to convert CityRP to Redmont assets was a commonly used rate at the time. The prosecution has failed to prove that investors lost anything for the first count of fraud, and the investment report should not be defined as an advertisement for the charge of False Advertisement.

III. THE COURT OPINION
The defendant faces a total of four criminal charges in this case regarding actions conducted by RedDragon&Shell, the sole proprietorship that they own.

Already, the commonwealth has almost made a fatal error in its prosecution. They argue that since RDS was a sole proprietorship, all liability, which includes criminal, falls onto its owner. To quote from the Commonwealth's opening statements, "the Commonwealth reiterates that since RDS was never properly registered as an LLC, all legal liability falls upon its sole proprietor, Luke201556."

While it may be true that civil liability falls onto the owner, it is a matter of FCR precedent that criminal liability does not do the same in cases of sole proprietorship. To quote Judge Muggy in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Asexualdinosaur [2025] FCR 127 "Criminal liability requires evidence of a definitive act undertaken by the Defendant personally, not mere association or ownership."

This case reads more as a prosecution against RDS. The only thing ever alleged directly against the plaintiff is that they own RDS and they own a large number of shares in RDS. Nothing in the Commonwealth's argumentation addresses the need to show that the acts of RDS are the acts of Luke201556. The entire case presents as an attempt to equate criminal liability with mere ownership. This can't happen.

But what the Commonwealth's arguments lack, their evidence provides. If you examine the documents in P-001, P-002, and even the defense's exhibit D-001, you will see a signature from the plaintiff. This bridges the gap that may turn mere ownership into criminal liability. These signatures demonstrate that the plaintiff was the one acting on behalf of RDS.

To first look at one of the counts of fraud, the Commonwealth alleges that the exchange rate of 10:1 used by RDS to list the value of properties in CityRP to Redmont currency has no basis and, therefore, is false and fraudulent. This exchange rate of 10:1 is one of the most contested facts in this case. The defense provides two things to demonstrate that this exchange rate matched the market. This is the Slipknot discussions and D-001.

When reviewing the Slipknot communication, the court finds very little to confirm a 10:1 exchange rate. The only thing mentioning any Redmont value for CityRP currency is the first message by Omegabiebel, in which they state, "Wetc is now prepared to pay $250k crp (about 2.5-3 mil DC)." If substantiated, this valuation would match the 10:1 rate. It is important to mention that this was stated before any money switched hands. The second half of the discussion not only doesn't substantiate this valuation but does the opposite. Omegabiebel goes on to describe much difficulty with trying to exchange this CityRP currency to Redmont. This is seen in comments such as:

"alr I'll try to do the FX asap. It's a shit ton harder since Vanguard collapsed."
"Trying, not that easy."
"It's a shitshow. I'm trying but Nexalin ruined FX."
"Also i've been trying to find someone to FX with. 4 people i've tried and none can FX due to the banking crisis taking away their money."
"And now I can't get the money FXed."
"And I can't find someone to FX with."

These struggles seem to go on for at least a month. No ability to exchange CityRP currency to Redmont currency. This leads the court to believe that no market existed for such an exchange. Finally, Omegabiebel comes to some resolution by admitting that no direct exchange was possible. "The deal went through, I couldn't find anyone who would do a cash for cash so I just bought RDS shares and converted them to NER ones."

This leads us to D-001, which is a contract between Omegabiebel and RDS to convert "gaming tokens" to NER shares at a 10:1 or 12:1 ratio. While this is the ratio we are looking for, it does nothing for this case. The purchase price for these "gaming tokens" is unknown. The court has no idea how much these tokens were bought for using CityRP currency.

The court then must make the determination that this exchange rate is unsubstantiated and false. By publishing this exchange rate to investors meets the first half of the Criminal Code Act's definition of Fraud "knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another..." To address the second half of this definition, we must explore the other count of fraud. The one relating to the misrepresentation of the ownership structure of RDS.

The misrepresentation of the ownership structure rests in P-001. This document describes the bylaws of RDS and the power of its shareholders. The Commonwealth alleges that a sole proprietorship can't issue shares. When looking at the relevant law at the time, the Legal Entity Act, you may see that Section 4(4)(i) allows all legal entities to deal in shares; only incorporated entities may have shares issued, as seen in Section 8(12). As a sole proprietorship is not an incorporated entity, it can not issue shares for itself. Listing any ownership structure with shareholders that legally can't exist would fulfill the first half of the definition of fraud, as it misrepresents material facts.

To address the second half of both of these counts of fraud. It requires "causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm." What is the other party that relied on these statements? In P-006, you can see there are 21 shareholders. Shareholders that shouldn't exist. One of the documents misrepresented that shares could be issued, and the other persuaded people to buy shares by misrepresenting the valuation of the company in terms of assets. Both of these are required for a person to purchase shares. You can't buy shares that can't be issued, and there is no point buying shares for ownership in something with little if any value.

What is the harm? The harm is the same for both of these counts of fraud. Every shareholder purchased a non-existent security. They never bought ownership in the company, and they aren't protected in any way. They would have no standing, for example, to sue if the company acted against shareholder interests. The bylaws of the company couldn't be enforced. The shareholders bought nothing as if it were something. If that isn't harm, the court doesn't know what is. All requirements for both counts of fraud are met.

To look at the crime of market manipulation. In the CCA, it is defined as either "being a person with responsibility for a public company or asset, fraudulently inflates or deflates its value" or "undertakes any activity, regardless of a direct responsibility for a public company or asset, with the primary intention to artificially influence the price or trading volume of a security for personal gain." The first definition is what the court will address.

First, Luke201556 is responsible for RDS being its owner. RDS was acting as a public company issuing shares. This court has already found his actions to be fraudulent twice. The final requirement is, did this fraudulent behavior inflate or deflate its value? The answer is an easy yes. The value of this company on any stock exchange should have been zero. They could never issue shares, being a sole proprietorship means any value is an inflation. As the shares were issued under fraudulent pretenses, as previously discussed, this would fulfill the crime of Market Manipulation.

At last, we come to the fourth crime alleged, False Advertising. This crime is defined as "authorising or disseminates a commercial advertisement containing knowingly false claims." It is contested that the Investor presentation is an advertisement at all. The definition of the crime does little to help, as the word "advertisement" is circular, with it both in the name and definition. The court must examine what an advertisement is. The purpose of an advertisement seems clear in that it is to influence or persuade someone to either commit an act or purchase a product. Is that the purpose of this investor presentation? Well, an investor presentation is aimed at doing one of two things. Either insinuate trust for the company among shareholders or persuade non-shareholders to purchase shares and become shareholders. As it is trying to persuade some to purchase a product being shared, this court finds it an advertisement.

Was the investor presentation false? Well, it is clearly built on false pretenses. Investors for RDS legally can't exist. It also includes false information already discussed in both counts of fraud.

Is it knowingly false? The presentation included the 10:1 exchange rate discussed earlier. The court found that this wasn't substantiated, and Luke201556 should have too. Luke201556 should have known that sole proprietorships can't issue shares either. Should does not mean did. While the information is false, nothing shows the state of mind of Luke201556 when making these statements. The other three crimes do not require a state of mind, unlike this one. The closing being Fraud, which states "knowingly, or recklessly..." With the level of misrepresentations being dealt with, it is clearly reckless, if not knowingly, for the fraud charges. False advertisement requires a state of mind that this court can't find without a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to support any state of mind.


IV. DECISION
In the matter of [2026] FCR 15, the Federal Court finds the following:
1. On 1 Count of False Advertisement, the court finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY.
2. On 2 Counts of Fraud, the court finds the Defendant GUILTY.
3. On 1 Count of Market Manipulation, the court finds the Defendant GUILTY.

The following are to be executed:

  1. The Defendant is hereby fined the applicable sentence of 300 penalty units or a $30,000 fine and 30 minutes of imprisonment for the crimes of Fraud and Market Manipulation.

V. DICTA
I find it necessary to address, by way of dicta, an issue that really stuck with me. In attempting to prosecute multiple related cases at the same time, the Commonwealth created circumstances that risked the idea of a fair trial. This issue significantly influenced my consideration of several verdicts and warrants addressing for future cases.

This case is clearly linked to cases [2026] FCR 16 and [2026] FCR 17. In those cases, the defendants were charged with Third-Party Misrepresentation. By its very nature, that offense requires the existence of another party who has committed Market Manipulation. The Commonwealth alleged that Luke201556 and RDS was that second party.

All three cases were prosecuted simultaneously, with this case finishing last. This created an immediate difficulty when considering the verdicts in [2026] FCR 16 and [2026] FCR 17. A finding of guilt for Third-Party Misrepresentation would require a finding that Market Manipulation had occurred. Because Luke201556 had not received a verdict, such a finding would effectively determine Luke201556's guilt.

There is no difference between finding that Third-Party Misrepresentation occurred and finding that the alleged underlying Market Manipulation occurred. To convict the former while the latter remained undecided would be to prejudge the guilt of Luke201556 before the completion of their case.

This presented me with a difficult question. Should the verdict in [2026] FCR 16 and [2026] FCR 17 be delayed until this case finishes? Such a decision was also problematic, as it would require those cases to sit and would allow evidence and arguments from this case to influence the others. In effect, the fairness concerns in one case would be traded to the other.

A judicial officer is limited to three sources when making decisions: the evidence and arguments presented within the case itself, the applicable law, and binding or persuasive precedent. What a court may not do is consider evidence, arguments, or unresolved findings from separate cases, particularly where those cases are active.

The Commonwealth prosecuted these cases as though they were one, despite their being separate cases involving separate defendants. In doing so, it asked for findings of guilt that could only be reached by presuming the guilt of another. This placed the Court in the position of being asked to violate one fair trial for a finding of guilt in another.

I write this dicta to illustrate the difficulties created by the commonwealth and to provide insight for future prosecutions. Where one crime requires proof of another person's guilt, those matters should be prosecuted in an order that protects the independence of each case and protects every defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.




The Federal Court thanks all parties involved. Court is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top