Judicial conviction shows that simulated sale of property served to hide good of collective process against business.
Known as the Bitcoin Era the leaders of the financial coup Minerworld José Aparecido Maia dos Santos and Divina Inácia de Souza were accused of bad faith by the courts in a lawsuit they were trying to unblock a R$ 1.2 million property.
Thus, according to the judicial decision, José and Divina made only a simulation of the sale of a property located in Mato Grosso do Sul, not realizing the transfer to a third party involved in the business. For the Justice, the simulation served to leave the property out of the blockade determined soon after Operation Easy Profit.
Thus, after three months, the defendants should receive back the property, finalized by the supposed buyer involved with the deal. However, the Courts perceived the attempt to repossess the property as a way to keep the property from being blocked in a collective action against Minerworld.
Property of R$ 1.2 million
Minerworld is investigated as a financial pyramid that may have claimed thousands of victims by 2018. With the promise of easy profit, the company’s activities were interrupted shortly after a police operation.
Recently, however, the Minerworld „Bitcoin couple“ tried to recover a property that would be in their name. However, the courts were suspicious of the process of selling the property, which consisted of its return by the buyer.
Public Prosecutor closes case against Minerworld but federal trial continues
That is, in about three months the couple would have the property back, according to a deed of purchase and sale signed by the parties involved. But, with the decision of the Justice to condemn the „Bitcoin couple“ for bad faith „for altering the truth of the facts“, it was understood that the process of buying the property could be a fraud.
„It is now perceived that the simulation occurred to defraud the guarantee established in the collective process“.
The court decision also analyzed the deed signed between the parties, where the buyer of the property assumes the obligation to return the property to the „Bitcoin couple“, right after the construction of six apartments on the site.
„The deed itself reveals the intention to simulate the business, because, at the time of the last payment, the buyer returns to the sellers the six apartments that were being built“.
Bitcoin Couple
José de Divina are known as the „Bitcoin couple“ due to the wedding party that sealed the union between the leaders of MinerWorld. Organized in 2017, the wedding cost R$ 750 thousand at the time and also included a presentation by the famous „sertaneja“ couple Bruno and Marrone.
At that time, Minerworld’s business was still active all over Brazil. However, shortly after the company came to an end with a police operation.
Justice denies preliminary injunction and holds Bitoferta and Bitpago as defendants in Minerworld lawsuit
While in 2017, the „Bitcoin couple“ boasted a luxury life watered with a lot of money, in 2018, the couple presented that they live with small informal services, and the couple’s income does not exceed R$ 1,700 currently.
Payment in Cryptomeda
The negotiation of the R$ 1.2 million property mentioned in the lawsuit reveals some curiosities about the case that were perceived in the decision, as part of the payment in cryptomoedas.
In this case, R$ 500 thousand of the total value of the property would be transferred in MCash, the cryptomeda created by MinerWorld to try to pay the investors who trusted the company.
However, the payment offer in MCash happened even before the cryptomoeda was created by MinerWorld, thus raising suspicions about the sale of the property of R$ 1.2 million.
Finally, with the judicial decision about the embargo presented by Minerworld leaders, the duo must pay a fine of until 10% of the cause, for the practice of bad faith in relation to the sale of the „Bitcoin couple“ property.
„The judge shall, on request or on his or her own initiative, order the bad faith litigant to pay a fine, which shall be more than one percent and less than ten percent of the corrected value of the cause“.