A non-fungible token (NFT) influencer who received settlement requests through the NFT which dropped an “F-bomb” casually multiple times claimed that the influencer “was involved in the recent $7 million token pre-sale” at least” involved in wire fraud.
On May 20, Mike Kanovitz, a partner at the law firm Loevy & Loevy, said in a tweet that a settlement demand had been sent as an NFT to a wallet address associated with an influencer named Ben. Still unpublished. He claims that Ben. eth “used a manipulative launch strategy” for the Psyop (PSYOP) token, which raised $7 million in its first presale within 72 hours.
Concerns involved around the structure of liquidity pools (LPs) and how tokens “flow out” after the pre-sale. Shortly after posting the letter on Twitter, Ben.eth tweeted that 50% of the tokens had already been issued and “the rest will be issued shortly.” “At the very least, you would be guilty of wire fraud, the precondition for racketeering and the basis for tripling your damage ($7 million to $21 million),” the letter said.
Kanovitz noted that “refunds are a valid thing.” However, he warned that legal action could be taken if refunds are not provided: “So, just send the ETH back. It will be over and you and your victim can go on with their lives. But if you insist on fucking thousands of people, my law firm will come forward and correct it This injustice." Additionally, he warned that Ben.eth could go through a "painful" process if the letter is not complied with.
"The suit will be in your personal name and alias and will be served on your home," the letter said. Kanovitz further threatened to subpoena the influencer's communications, saying "the evidence will put the final nail in your coffin."
He added that he would reveal the true identities of the influencer's co-conspirators. Kanovitz concluded the letter by saying, "You're committing real fraud, and it's hurting real people. If you don't do it right, you do it at your own risk." In response to the letter, Ben.eth retweeted it hours later on May 20, saying it was "so unprofessional and could cause problems for the Bar Association."
