InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 17
Posts 1675
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 01/03/2013

Re: None

Thursday, 01/05/2023 10:28:35 AM

Thursday, January 05, 2023 10:28:35 AM

Post# of 112592
Never received coin refund

Over a year ago this company in their OTC filings stated that the had an "escrow" established to refund the DSC Coin. In their latest filings they disclose that they have $74 in the bank.

This was IMHO a delay tactic to buy time with BS, something that this company has been getting away with for over 5 years.

I have had 11 DSC coin buyers reach out to me about buying the coin and not getting their refund. Please PM if you would like to take legal action, making these conspirators accountable.

Last looking at the outrageous claim of the DSC coin being backed by more than $100,000,000 in assets (BTC, ETH, Gold & Silver), I look at the previous conduct of advisors and management and see patterns emerging showing the depth of this conspiracy to defraud the mnority investor of $DSCR.

Case in Point

FRED SCHIEMANN's SEC PERMANENT INJUCTION

Fred Schiemann

The Commission announced that on June 16, 1993 the Honorable Edward C. Reed, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Nevada issued a permanent injunction against Fred V. Schiemann (Schiemann) of Reno, Nevada. The order enjoins Schiemann from aiding and abetting future violations of the antifraud provisions. Schiemann consented to the issuance of the permanent injunction without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint. The issue of the amount of disgorgement was left open. The complaint alleged that while acting as a certified public accountant for the company, Pacific Waste Management, Inc. (Pacific Waste), Schiemann fraudulent inflated assets of the company in two audited financial statements distributed to the public and market makers. The inflated audited financial statements were relied on by an attorney to issue an opinion that those selling the securities of Pacific Waste need not comply with Rule lSc2-6. Broker-dealers relied on the opinion and did not comply with Rule 15c2-6 when soliciting the securities of Pacific Waste to their retail customers. Schiemann was aware that these audited financial statements would be relied on for this purpose. [SEC v. Pacific Waste Management, Inc .. et al., Civil No. CV-N-93-232-ECR, USDC Nevada] (LR-13704)

Source:
https://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1993/dig071393.p