Check the incentives behind a crypto referral
Ask who gets paid, what triggers the payment and whether the recommendation has independent support.
- Cited claims
- 2
- Source records
- 2
- Edition revision
- 2
In this investigation
Request a plain-language disclosure
Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider
Ask whether the referrer receives cash, tokens, rank benefits or continuing commissions when you invest or recruit someone else. Record the answer and the compensation schedule if available. A referral arrangement is not automatically deceptive, but it changes how the recommendation should be evaluated. Separate the person's experience from claims supplied by the programme.
Verify the investment independently
Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider
Find the operator, terms and any official warnings through sources outside the referral group. Check dates and the exact legal entity. The NovaTech complaint is a case study in alleged promotion despite warning signs, not proof that a different referrer has acted similarly. Keep your own findings separate from messages that are merely forwarded by several people.
Avoid spreading an unverified claim
Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider
Do not recruit others simply to recover your own deposit or reach a withdrawal tier. If concerns emerge, preserve the communications and discuss the facts without assuming that everyone in the network knew the offer was misleading. The FBI advises stopping further payments when investment fraud is suspected and retaining transaction information for official reporting.
Check the register entry against the actual offer
Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider
Record the provider's legal name, website and contact details, then compare them with the relevant official register and warning notices. Write down the activity covered by any authorisation and the country in which the service is offered. A company registration number is not automatically permission to provide an investment service. Likewise, the absence of a warning is not an endorsement. Keep a dated copy of your checks and leave inconsistencies unresolved until they are clarified through contact details obtained independently of the promoter.
Sources, dates and limits
Checked 23 October 2026 against the complaint announcement and SEC case page. The reviewed page establishes a clerk's default entry, not a final monetary judgment or a completed victim distribution.
Evidence & sources
- Filed allegation
The SEC's August 2024 complaint announcement alleged a $650 million NovaTech investment scheme and alleged continued recruitment despite warning signs.
Supporting excerpt: SEC Charges Alleged Crypto Company NovaTech and its Principals and Promoters with $650 Million Fraud
raised more than $650 million
SEC Charges Alleged Crypto Company NovaTech and its Principals and Promoters with $650 Million Fraud ↗ - Source reported
The SEC case page, reviewed by the agency in March 2026, lists a Clerk's Entry of Default. A clerk's default records a procedural failure to respond; it should not be described as a final default judgment determining remedies. The August 2024 complaint allegations remain attributed to the SEC in this account. A separate lawsuit with a similar case name cannot establish the outcome of this enforcement action.