Check whether a crypto offer is actually available in your country

Verify the entity, service and geographic conditions instead of relying on a promoter's workaround.

Mining claims · Source record: · Checked:

Record limits · Goettsche’s dismissal with prejudice is verified in the 28 July 2026 order; Weeks’s plea rulings are verified in the February orders. These are individual outcomes, not a closure of every defendant’s case. Later judgments for other defendants were not obtained.

By Crypto Newsroom (AI-assisted) · AI-assisted research · Independent human review pending
· EN · Revision 3
Cited claims
7
Source records
6
Edition revision
3
In this investigation

Identify the contracting entity

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

Find the legal name in the terms, the service you would receive and the country restrictions. Save those details before relying on a registration logo. A group may use several entities, and the named entity should match the agreement rather than merely share the brand. If the seller cannot identify it clearly, record the answer as unresolved.

[1]Supporting evidence ↓

Check the official source

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

For an EU service, use ESMA and the relevant national regulator to check authorisation and its scope. For another jurisdiction, use that jurisdiction's authority. Do not assume that a foreign registration covers your country or that one authorised activity covers every product. Compare the official contact details with the website and messages you received.

[1][2]Supporting evidence ↓

Do not conceal eligibility to get access

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

If a promoter tells you to change your location, supply false information or ignore the terms, preserve that instruction and pause. The BitClub record illustrates the evidential importance of such directions in a specific case. A technical ability to reach a website is not permission to use its financial service, and a successful deposit is not a regulatory check.

[1]Supporting evidence ↓

Ask for a mining-contract reconciliation

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

Write down the contract identifier, promised capacity, duration, location if disclosed, electricity and maintenance deductions, payout formula and termination conditions. Compare the same period across the contract, any operator statement and payments already received. Record which evidence comes from the seller and which can be independently checked. Equipment images and referral income belong in separate rows. This worksheet can identify unanswered operational questions; it cannot verify facilities you have not inspected or establish the current criminal status of people in an old case announcement.

[1][3]Supporting evidence ↓

EU authorisation check after July 2026

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

For a country-availability check, note that the EU-wide MiCA transitional period ended on 1 July 2026. A provider cannot rely on an old transitional registration as if it were continuing MiCA authorisation. Match the entity, activity and country to the official record; a pending application alone does not settle those questions.

[3][2]Supporting evidence ↓

Verify a case update by person, count and document

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

For BitClub, record the court, case number, defendant, filing date and ECF number before copying a status. ECF 611 dismisses the indictment as to Goettsche; ECF 553 concerns Weeks’s plea-withdrawal motion and ECF 554 addresses reconsideration. Keep a separate column for a sentencing judgment. Mark a hearing date as a schedule, and a missing judgment as not obtained rather than no sentence. Preserve the original link and check date so a changed status can be traced.

[5][6][7][4]Supporting evidence ↓

Record checked on 25 October 2026

Goettsche’s dismissal with prejudice is verified in the 28 July 2026 order; Weeks’s plea rulings are verified in the February orders. These are individual outcomes, not a closure of every defendant’s case. Later judgments for other defendants were not obtained.

[4][5][6][7]Supporting evidence ↓

Evidence & sources

Statements and quotations retain the editorial or source language. Open a supporting excerpt to inspect the original record.

  1. [1]Adjudicated finding

    Joseph Frank Abel pleaded guilty in September 2020 to conspiracy to offer and sell unregistered securities and to a false-tax-return offence connected with BitClub Network.

    Supporting excerpt: California Man Admits to Securities and Tax Offenses Related to $722 Million Bitclub Network Fraud Scheme
    conspiracy to offer and sell unregistered securities
    California Man Admits to Securities and Tax Offenses Related to $722 Million Bitclub Network Fraud Scheme ↗

    Source language: EN · Captured Oct 22, 2026

  2. [2]Source reported

    EU supervisory authorities advise checking provider authorisation and warn that protection depends on the asset and service.

    Supporting excerpt: EU Supervisory Authorities warn consumers of risks and limited protection for certain crypto-assets and providers
    check the provider of crypto-asset services is authorised in the EU
    EU Supervisory Authorities warn consumers of risks and limited protection for certain crypto-assets and providers ↗

    Source language: EN · Captured Oct 22, 2026

  3. [3]Source reported

    ESMA states that the EU-wide MiCA transitional period ended on 1 July 2026.

    Supporting excerpt: ESMA statement on the end of MiCA transitional periods
    1 July 2026
    ESMA statement on the end of MiCA transitional periods ↗

    Source language: EN · Captured Oct 22, 2026

  4. [4]Adjudicated finding

    On 28 July 2026 the court dismissed the indictment with prejudice as to Matthew Goettsche, on the government’s application. This order does not dismiss the case against every defendant.

    Supporting excerpt: US District Court, New Jersey: Goettsche dismissal with prejudice, ECF 611 (public court copy)
    the Indictment in this case (D.E. 1) be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Matthew Goettsche.
    US District Court, New Jersey: Goettsche dismissal with prejudice, ECF 611 (public court copy) ↗

    Source language: EN · Captured Oct 25, 2026

  5. [5]Adjudicated finding

    On 4 February 2026 Judge Claire Cecchi issued an amended opinion denying Jobadiah Weeks’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; it replaces the 8 October 2025 opinion.

    Supporting excerpt: US District Court, New Jersey: Weeks amended opinion and order, ECF 553
    Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied
    US District Court, New Jersey: Weeks amended opinion and order, ECF 553 ↗

    Source language: EN · Captured Oct 25, 2026

  6. [6]Adjudicated finding

    The amended opinion records Weeks’s plea to an unregistered-securities conspiracy and tax evasion; dismissal of the wire-fraud count was conditional on compliance with the plea agreement.

    Supporting excerpt: US District Court, New Jersey: Weeks amended opinion and order, ECF 553
    The Government agreed to move for dismissal of Count One of the Indictment at the time of sentencing if Defendant fully complied with the plea agreement.
    US District Court, New Jersey: Weeks amended opinion and order, ECF 553 ↗

    Source language: EN · Captured Oct 25, 2026

  7. [7]Adjudicated finding

    A separate order filed on 4 February 2026 denied Weeks’s reconsideration motion and directed that specified filings be unsealed.

    Supporting excerpt: US District Court, New Jersey: Weeks reconsideration order, ECF 554
    Defendant’s motions are denied, and certain filings stipulated to by the parties shall be unsealed.
    US District Court, New Jersey: Weeks reconsideration order, ECF 554 ↗

    Source language: EN · Captured Oct 25, 2026