Lebowitz Partners

Securities Law | Securitization Consulting

Justin M. Lebowitz
LEBOWITZ PARTNERS LLP
275 Madison Avenue, Suite 406
New York City, NY 10016
justin@lebowitzlpr.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

CASE DOCUMENTATION AND DEPOSITION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DIGITAL GROWTH VENTURES, LLC, INVESTMENT FRAUD | SEC

DR. JAMES GALLAGHER-SAVARIAN, SCID: 077194-10
MR. TIMOTHY ELSEVIER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, ADDITIONAL:
PENDING INTERNATIONAL REVIEW
Plaintiffs,

v.

GAMING FOR GOOD E.V.,

MR. DRIES ALBERT G. LEYSEN,
MR. BACHIR BOUMAAZA,
MR. RICCARDO VARENNA

Defendants.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW OF INVESTMENT SCHEME AND FRAUDULENT ASPECTS (PONZI STRUCTURE AND PUMP
AND DUMP ACTIVITY)…….…………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………3

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE…………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………15

III. THE PARTIES………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………….……………16

A. PLAINTIFFS……………………………………………………………………….………………………………….…………….16
B. DEFENDANTS…………………………………………….………………………………………………………….…………….16

IV. DESCRIPTION OF CRYPTOCURRENCY ISSUANCE AND MECHANISMS OF

CONTROL…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17

V. DEFENDANTS CREATED A FRAUDULENT CRYPTOCURRENCY INVESTMENT SCHEME AND

MISREPRESENTED CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………18

VI. PLAINTIFFS ENDURED FINANCIAL LOSSES WITH NO OFFERED ARBITRATION………………………………..…18

VII. SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….18

VIII. PENDING INTERNATIONAL REVIEWS AND FURTHER RECOURSE…………………………………………….….….19

REQUEST FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………19

2
** A public repository of key documents, videographic and audio evidence from the defendants’
Twitch, YouTube and Discord channels is available at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y4v68g7s022o8ee/AADctlcdsohipm7vRZCo129Za?dl=0

Backup link: https://mega.nz/#F!reowUKLb!H6W5MoKti1MwvPbxgBUtMA

Lead plaintiffs are located in the United States and extended representation of plaintiffs involve
affected individuals in Canada, Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Slovenia, Poland,
Lithuania, and with pending case reviews from other countries in Europe. The defendants are currently
located in Forst (Lausitz), Germany and have conducted their cryptocurrency scheme under German
legal jurisdiction. Like most cryptocurrency investments, they have conducted their fund raising over
the Internet using popular platforms, including Twitch, Discord and YouTube, attracting a global
audience.

In relation to the evidence for the case, the defendants have deleted most of the recordings on
their online channels pertaining to promotion of their investment scheme, but key videographic
evidence has been saved by different plaintiffs and is available with full context on a reconstructed
repository, created by the lead attorney. Any direct quotes and references to statements, promises and
threats made by the defendants is linked to videographic evidence, documented in the footnotes.

I. OVERVIEW OF INVESTMENT SCHEME AND FRAUDULENT ASPECTS (PONZI STRUCTURE AND

PUMP AND DUMP ACTIVITY)

1. On October 11th 2017, Mr. Dries Leysen and Mr. Bachir Boumaaza announced on their Twitch live
video stream (www.twitch.tv/athenelive) that they would create their own cryptocurrency and that
people would be able to obtain it by donating, either to an established charity (Save the Children USA)
or to Mr. Leysen1. They extensively referred to themselves, both explicitly and implicitly as “a good
cause” for donations. Mr. Leysen explained that the cryptocurrency they would issue would have real-
world value, as it would be possible to use it to participate in projects they were running, such as an
upcoming video game built by their team. They appealed to their long-time viewers by saying that they
wanted to prioritize them, as those viewers were likely to “have trust in them” and, as such, promised
to reward them with profits in the scheme in exchange for their trust and backing. Mr. Boumaaza made
promises, such as “the people that trust what we do, you are going to get rich; those that do not trust
me, you guys are going to miss out,” with no appropriate disclaimers or explanations. He also described
the value of the coin as “the more people will believe in this vision, the more the coin will grow in value,”
lacking any description of intrinsic value and extensively referring to trust as the main reasonable basis
for investing1. In addition to the extensive reliance on trust-building, Mr. Leysen and Mr. Boumaaza
promoted their investment scheme through promises of future returns based on their future actions
and past track-records, as further detailed below.

2. In this same live stream, Mr. Boumaaza stated that they would make efforts to get their
cryptocurrency listed on exchanges so that it would be available for public trading and explicitly

VE1 – Videographic Evidence 1 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context:

1

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y4v68g7s022o8ee/AADctlcdsohipm7vRZCo129Za?dl=0

3
promised a future availability for trading the obtained cryptocurrency: “when we go to exchanges, when
the coin is on exchanges, then the value that you have to donate to get the coin will be always twice as
much as the value on exchanges.” In other words, obtaining the cryptocurrency by sending funds to
them would be twice as costly as buying it from another person on exchanges, further favoring
exchange-based trades and creating an artificial price-anchoring.

3. Promises of returns were made in the same stream, with Mr. Boumaaza stating that “when you
calculate it out very quickly, you already see that, by getting into it early, you benefit four times more,
because you get them at half the price and once we go live on exchanges, we double the amount to buy
it from us.” Early investment was encouraged by advertising increased returns, with no appropriate
disclaimers or goodwill statement of risks to the investment and operations.

4. From the standpoint of securities law, both domestically and internationally, Mr. Leysen’s and Mr.
Boumaaza’s cryptocurrency investment scheme is, in fact, a security. The transfer of funds, whether to
an established charity, to an individual or any other entity, under the premise of promised or advertised
future returns based on the effort of the issuer accomplishes, at the most fundamental level, the
functions of a security. Even if the cryptocurrency was stated to be issued with the good will of Mr.
Boumaaza, investors who contributed funds had a reasonable expectation to receive the
cryptocurrencies and participate in their advertised benefits, including financial appreciation of the
invested capital in the form of a rising value of the cryptocurrency. The cryptocurrency investment
scheme proposed here does not pass the Security and Exchange Commission’s cornerstone Howey test,
as it explicitly and repetitively promises and advertises future returns. In Canada, this does not pass the
reference test. In Europe, including Germany, this is considered as a security of speculative nature and
is subject to general securities law. No such disclaimer or consideration was made during the
announcement or at any other point up to the present. In addition, Mr. Boumaaza stated that Mr. Leysen
had consulted a German lawyer who had allegedly advised them that their investment scheme was
entirely legal, with no proof of such statement ever produced for investors and viewers. Again, reliance
on the issuer’s trust is at the forefront. As outlined in Section V, Mr. Boumaaza has abused the notion
of charitable donations to absolve himself and the associated defendants of any responsibility for
financial wrongdoing and to obfuscate the defendants’ role as issuers of securities.

5. Once viewers were allowed to invest in the scheme, they were promised a cryptocurrency called
Purpose (ticker: PRPS, blockchain contract:
https://etherscan.io/token/0x7641b2ca9ddd58addf6e3381c1f994aac5f1a32f), which would be
created and issued by them at a later date, when the main offering would come to an end. During this
period of initial investments, the first price was 1.00 USD per PRPS token, which was subsequently raised
to 2.00 USD per PRPS while still being offered only through Mr. Boumaaza’s Twitch stream. This increase
in price was at the discretion of the defendants and they increased the amount of investments from
viewers through this action, which they later claimed they foresaw, as evidenced through countless
videos in the public repository. This self-determined increase in price of a PRPS token further sets
expectations of profit from the part of investors and it was advertised by Mr. Boumaaza as an
opportunity not to be missed out on. Another aspect fueling expectations of profit lies in Mr.
Boumaaza’s announcement that PRPS would have a supply of 1 billion tokens, of which all unsold tokens
would be burned (destroyed) at a rate of 20% a year2. This sets expectations of a mechanically reducing

VE11 – Videographic Evidence 11 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context

2

4
total supply, which is equivalent to the outstanding shares converging towards the float for traditional
securities, undoubtedly increasing the price-per-unit as a function of supply and demand.

6. Funds were raised from viewers in the following month, with Mr. Boumaaza and Mr. Leysen
repeatedly claiming having raised 2 million USD from viewers. It is important to note that for a period
of time during the fund raising, Mr. Leysen and Mr. Riccardo Varenna gave their personal bank accounts
to investors and instructed them to send their investments there through wire transfers3. Investors’
bank statements were obtained demonstrating these transfers and are kept as private evidence, ready
to be provided in a court of law. Mr. Leysen acts as the Chairman of the Board for Gaming for Good, e.V.
and Mr. Varenna acts as the Treasurer for this same entity. Gaming for Good, e.V. is established in
Germany and is the entity used by the defendants to raise funds for charity and organize their charitable
activities. In the case of this cryptocurrency investment scheme however, personal bank accounts have
been used, with Mr. Leysen vouching that he would simply act as a middle-man and not appropriate
any of the funds, without giving any proof of such actions to investors. Furthermore, as detailed in
Section IV, Mr. Leysen and Mr. Boumaaza explicitly admitted using the obtained funds for non-charitable
activities, such as funding the defendants’ running costs of operations and supporting the investment
scheme through market intervention. All the while, they claimed that the activities funded by investors
would ultimately result in charitable acts. This raises questions of embezzlement of funds and
misrepresentation of charitable activities. This is further amplified by the defendants advertising their
charitable fund-raising track record, especially by using a video produced by Save the Children USA
vouching for Mr. Boumaaza in 2016, when their current scheme bares no relationship or resemblance
to past activities. Save the Children’s 2016 video was used to build confidence in the scheme without
the knowledge or consent of this established American charity. Section IV describes these dynamics in
greater depth.

7. Over the course of this investment scheme, no appropriate disclaimers have been made to investors.
Mr. Boumaaza and Mr. Leysen repeatedly used superficial statements of non-responsibility, such as
stating that “everything they said was not legally-binding”, but contradicting such statements by
immediately thereafter promoting their investment scheme and making promises of returns, often
times making both contradicting claims in the same sentence, as evidenced in one of their promotional
YouTube videos [“Even though anything I say is not legally binding, it could change your life.”] 4. Further
superficial disclaimers include text overlaid on their video stream stating that “Donation recipients [the
defendants] are not required, obliged or bound to accept, acknowledge, reward or compensate for any
donations. Statements made on this livestream are for entertainment purposes and are not legally
binding. ‘Purpose’ tokens are given out freely by Athene [Bachir Boumaaza], who reserves the right to
do so at his own discretion with no obligation to do so towards donors.” 5 Such disclaimers are not
accompanied by similar actions and from the videographic evidence, promises to obtain the tokens and
expectations of profit are reasonable for a viewer deciding to invest. These disclaimers are insufficient
for the offering of a public security involving significant risks of execution and loss and are non-sequitur,
rendered void by adjacent statements and concurrent actions, as extensively evidence in the public
repository of videographic recordings.

3
ES1 – Electronic Statement – Plaintiff’s Bank Statement
4
YouTube Video on the Defendants’ Channel AtheneWins, titled “PRPS & DUBI ALRDY MOONING? DUBI $40 ON
IDEX?! (this is not trading advice, could all be scam lol)” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxDrbGTU628 –
Referenced as VEY1 in the public repository
5
VE11 – Videographic Evidence 11 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context:

5
8. The investors were able to claim their PRPS tokens and were advised to follow the mechanics of the
investment scheme. According to these mechanics, as extensively evidenced in the public video
repository, investors were encouraged to ‘lock’ their PRPS tokens for a pre-determined period of time
(usually 1 year), meaning that they would send their PRPS tokens to a smart-contract address
(https://etherscan.io/address/0x7aed8adb665d649cc83d8e002147cee65f88fbb0), which had the
function of safe-keeping and locking the tokens for the pre-determined period of time. As a reward for
this action, the investors would receive a second cryptocurrency created and issued by the defendants,
called Decentralized Universal Basic Income (ticker: DUBI, blockchain contract:
https://etherscan.io/token/0xd4cffeef10f60eca581b5e1146b5aca4194a4c3b). Investors would receive
a return on their locked PRPS at a rate of just under 4% a year, sent to their cryptocurrency wallet in the
form of DUBI tokens. The interest on the locked PRPS would be received all-at-once when they locked
their PRPS, as opposed to when the lock-up period expires. This further establishes this cryptocurrency
scheme as a security and creates additional expectations of profit. This was described by Mr. Boumaaza,
as detailed in point 10 below, referencing their YouTube promotional material.

9. Both PRPS and DUBI were listed on public cryptocurrency exchanges IDEX (www.idex.market) and
EtherDelta (www.etherdelta.com). Once on those exchanges, the price of DUBI and PRPS increased by
orders of magnitude (reached an all-time high of around 250.00 USD, as detailed later in this section),
through market manipulation done by the defendants. This is evidenced by the defendants consistently
referring to a ‘buywall’ for DUBI and a ‘sellwall’ for PRPS over the course of the investment scheme,
persisting to the time of this writing. Mr. Boumaaza and Mr. Leysen have stated explicitly that part of
the funds obtained from investors were used to create buy orders for the DUBI token on these
exchanges, to create an artificial price floor for the token, referred to as a ‘buywall’. The defendants
refer to this mechanism explicitly, as evidenced extensively across multiple videos in the public
repository. This is also described to this day on their own cryptocurrency exchange, which they created
to circumvent bans on the aforementioned public exchanges, which is explained in point 11. As for the
‘sellwall’ it consists of unsold PRPS tokens, generated by the defendants and provided for sale on
exchanges, in addition to selling it on the stream for twice the price offered on exchanges, as explained
above. In essence, the defendants are involved in unfair pricing of a security they issued, as they are
selling it on both platforms. There is no difference in the tokens or rights investors would obtain through
either means of acquisition. The only difference stated was that acquisition through the live video
stream would be for charitable support, which had no concrete basis and no fundamental and
substantial difference in outcomes for investors. Extensive use of the word ‘donation’ and ‘charity’
obfuscates that there was no such tangible endeavor in the scheme and the funds obtained by the
defendants were in part used to foster speculation on exchanges and create a scheme whereby they
could raise more funds through exchanges and implement Ponzi scheme-type features, which resulted
in a pump and dump scheme when support for the buywall was ceased by the defendants, as further
detailed starting at point 12. Videographic and audio recordings are available in the public repository
detailing the unfolding of these events and the core dynamic of the investment scheme was described
by Mr. Boumaaza, as detailed in point 10 below.

6
 IMG1-9 - ‘Buywall’ Disclaimer
As described on the defendants’ exchange www.dubiex.com

IMG1-9 Contextual: Attempt to abstract the entity providing the funds for the buywall in this new
disclaimer, with non-sequitur reference to philanthropic activities and implicit promise of future profits
from a reasonable viewer’s perspective. Final speculative note is in contradiction with the adjacent
statements and has no basis for appropriate security disclosures.

10. Once PRPS and DUBI were listed on public exchanges, the defendants engaged in promoting the
tokens to a wider audience, by publishing content across their YouTube channel
(www.youtube.com/athenewins) and advertising it consistently on their Twitch channel. The
defendants created YouTube videos, which had overt promotion in their titles, even promising profits in
the titles themselves. Beyond the titles, the contents contained the usual non-sequitur disclaimers and
inappropriate description of execution risks for a security.

7
 IMG1-10.1 – Promotional Investment YouTube Videos on the AtheneWins channel
Still available for viewing at the time of case submission (May 25th 2018), also backed up in the public
repository6.

IMG1-10.1 Contextual: The videos all contain information about the availability of tokens for trading,
directing viewers to the appropriate exchanges to find them and encouraging the audience to buy the
tokens for profit, while using the same inappropriate disclaimers. Statements range from ‘missing out
on this opportunity’ to ‘life-changing returns’. IDEX is mentioned as an exchange having listed PRPS and
DUBI and people are made aware that the price has already increased from the initial 1.00 USD to over
40.00 USD, all of which happened through increases in the buywall, which, as explained above, is
controlled by the defendants. During this period, no philanthropic act was performed, no new project
was established and the promised video game which would use the currencies issued by the defendants
was unavailable. The increase in price came from speculation, which was fueled by these promotional
materials featuring Mr. Boumaaza and the manipulation of the DUBI token’s buywall by the defendants
to ever higher prices.

6
YouTube videos backed up in the public repository, from left to right, referenced to as VEY2, VEY3 and VEY4

8
 IMG1-10.2 – Promotional and Explanatory Video of the Investment Scheme on the same YouTube
channel
Still available for viewing at the time of case submission (May 25th 2018), also backed up in the public
repository7.

IMG1-10.2 Contextual: In this video, the defendants’ cryptocurrencies are promoted, with forward-
looking statements, including the fact that Mr. Leysen was working to establish a foundation, as they
had no legal charitable foundation established and still do not as of the submission of this case. It is
important to realize that before they had any legal framework for the activities they were promising to
do, the tokens they issued were already trading on public exchanges and speculation was fueled by the
defendants’ promotional efforts. Outside of advertising their investment scheme, Mr. Boumaaza
explicitly explained how the investment scheme would work, as was described above in points 8 and 9.
Around the explanation, Mr. Boumaaza made implicit and explicit promises, such as “So why does
Purpose make people very rich?” Mr. Boumaaza further likened his investment scheme to the
functioning of a bank, by referring to the locking mechanism of PRPS and the interest obtained on it
through DUBI as equivalents to deposits and interest on deposits, which is misleading and incorrect, as
this was a marketable security already at the time of this explanation and the defendants were engaging
in price manipulation by providing the so-called buywall and sellwall, effectively setting the price.
Furthermore, Mr. Boumaaza refers to DUBI not being regulated and that there may be a risk of future
regulations, playing into the mainstream misconception that cryptocurrencies are above the law and do
not fall in the already established regulatory framework. It is also noteworthy that Mr. Boumaaza has
subsequently repeatedly boasted on his stream of not being prosecutable, as the scheme was done with
cryptocurrencies and was never advertised explicitly as an investment. This demonstrates a reckless and
superficial approach to their issuance and adds a strong color of Mr. Boumaaza being in the knowledge
of legal boundaries, but deciding to cross the line of re-categorization. Finally, in this video, he makes
future promises related to DUBI, such as their ambition to establish it as a means of decentralized
universal basic income, to be implemented in villages in need, through their yet to be established
charity. This video is available in its full-context in the public repository.
11. As the promotion of the scheme grew, so did skeptics. Some people reported the two
cryptocurrencies issued by the defendants to the owners and developers of the cryptocurrency
exchange IDEX, after overt promotion was done in the general chat box that was available on IDEX’s
website (www.idex.market) at the time (it has since been disabled). The promotion of PRPS and DUBI
was done by investors and other users, as the only way the price would rise beyond the buywall
established by the defendants is if speculation would increase as to the future potential and value of

7
YouTube video backed up in the public repository, referenced to as VEY5

9
the tokens. The CEO and lead developer of IDEX investigated the cryptocurrency with the available
information at the time and deemed it clear that the risk of fraud was very high and were not supportive
of such a scheme. They made a statement to the IDEX community and delisted the tokens, while
allowing holders of the tokens to still have access to their balances of PRPS and DUBI for withdrawal
from the platform. Mr. Boumaaza challenged the CEO to a debate and the CEO did not respond to his
request, stating to IDEX’s community that it was not necessary as no additional information would
change the mechanism of the tokens and the defendants engaging in overt market price manipulation.
We have established contact with the owners of IDEX and they have stated an interest in supporting the
claims made by the plaintiffs and acting as expert witnesses. Below are the official announcements from
IDEX to its community, where they delisted PRPS and DUBI and allowed users to withdraw the tokens
from their platform.

IMG1-11.1 – Official Twitter Account of IDEX Delisting PRPS and DUBI

Available publicly at: https://twitter.com/aurora_dao/status/956638283827699713

10
 IMG1-11.1 – Official Twitter Account of IDEX Delisting PRPS and DUBI
Available publicly at: https://twitter.com/aurora_dao/status/957032907914215425

Following these announcements and actions, the tokens were still available for trading on the
EtherDelta (www.etherdelta.com) cryptocurrency exchange. The owners of EtherDelta have not
responded to our request for comment and from analyzing the trade volume on EtherDelta for PRPS
and DUBI, there was minimal trading on this platform compared to IDEX. Following this enforcement,
Mr. Boumaaza announced on his Twitch live video stream that the defendants would be building their
own exchange to allow for unencumbered trading of PRPS and DUBI as well as any other cryptocurrency
supported on the Ethereum blockchain (ERC-20 standard). He also later promised that the exchange
would have fees in the form of buying DUBI tokens with a small percentage of the value of the trade.
Mr. Boumaaza explicitly stated that instead of a flat fee in the currency of purchase, the fee would be
applied to obtaining DUBI, which he equated to “the same as having no fee” and even used this point
to promote DUBI and communicate guidance on future pricing by stating that “it is better than a fee,
since the DUBI you get will be worth a lot”, in essence stating that traders on the defendants’ exchange
would make profits by executing trades, instead of paying fees like on every other platform. The profit-
making was explicitly stated as stemming from obtaining DUBI, which was promoted as having a
significant increase in future value8. All of these promises were made with no disclosures as to pertinent
risks and end-user rights. The exchange created by the defendants is available at www.dubiex.com,
which stands for DUBI Exchange and, to this day, only has an active order book and executed trades for
PRPS and DUBI. All other listed tokens from other projects and companies have no trading volume,
which demonstrates that the platform’s sole objective is to create a venue for speculation in the
defendants’ tokens. The feature of obtaining DUBI instead of paying fees has still not been implemented
to this date.

12. In the midst of all the promotion, the defendants’ Twitch channel was banned by the moderators of
the platform. The defendants managed to get their account unbanned, but warned their investors and
viewers that they would no longer be able to promote their tokens, as it went against the platform’s
terms of service. Whenever a viewer asked about PRPS or DUBI, Mr. Boumaaza would state that he

VE12 – Videographic Evidence 12 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context

8

11
could not answer that, but that he would recommend people to join the defendants’ Discord server
(direct link given to viewers: https://discord.gg/q2CEKkr), where discussions were ‘uncensored’, as he
repeatedly emphasized. Any questions related to the defendants’ investment scheme were redirected
on the Discord platform, where Mr. Boumaaza and Mr. Leysen overtly promoted the tokens. In the
extreme, Mr. Boumaaza made statements such as “if I were you, I would take out a loan for this” 9 and
“I created so many millionaires”, without any disclaimers whatsoever and even accompanied with
mockery of anyone being skeptical, as evidenced in the recorded audio from those sessions.

13. As promotion was still ongoing on the Discord platform, the buywall for the DUBI token was
progressively increased by the defendants and, at one point, it hit 200.00 USD. Around this period of
time, significant amounts of DUBI were sold onto the buywall, meaning that users/investors who had
DUBI in their possession, either from gaining it as interest for locking PRPS or from buying it previously
on exchanges, were filling the defendants’ buy orders that made up the buywall, to get rid of their DUBI
in exchange for a more recognized and liquid cryptocurrency, Ether (ETH). All these transactions are
public on the blockchain, which is an advantage provided by cryptocurrencies, and in the case of one
user, he/she parted ways with 689 ETH, currently worth 413,621.00 USD and worth approximately
602,400.00 USD at the time the transactions were made. Mr. Boumaaza stated multiple times on his
Twitch and Discord channels that this was an early investor in PRPS, who went by the online handle
“TooTanky”. There was no substantiation in regard to the person’s real identity and no clarification if the
person was an outside investor or a member associated with directly or indirectly with the defendants.
This seller had obtained 94,000.575 PRPS and had locked them to receive 3,760.023 DUBI on January
13th 2018, as evidenced by his main wallet
(https://etherscan.io/address/0x338aefab5b4c42d8af114f25f9a8bfe6add5afd4). He transferred 1,880
DUBI to the EtherDelta exchange and sold them to the buywall provided by the defendants for 246 ETH
(worth approximately 215,000.00 USD at the time) on February 10 th 2018, as evidenced by his
EtherDelta wallet
(https://etherscan.io/address/0x15345afddbea4c1004abd8c7b79e3e92231b2a09).
He transferred the remaining 1,880 DUBI to the defendants’ exchange (www.dubiex.com) and sold them
to the buywall provided by the defendants for 446 ETH (worth approximately 389,804 USD at the time)
on March 6th 2018, as evidenced by the MetaMask wallet he used on DubiEx
(https://etherscan.io/address/0x85a8063196334626394fb0a7b31e56b00d5dd689).
Whether an insider or an outside investor, this individual exemplifies the Ponzi-nature of the scheme,
as he parted ways with funds that were mostly comprised of other original investors’ money. The
buywall consisted of original investors’ money, as described by Mr. Boumaaza in the aforementioned
videos and repeated consistently on all the defendants’ official channels. The most this seller would
have contributed as an original investor is 188,000.00 USD, if he had bought PRPS directly from Mr.
Boumaaza and Mr. Leysen, when it was being offered at 2.00 USD per PRPS token, yet he parted ways
with at least 413,621.00 USD, with profits coming mostly from other original investors’ funds. Mr.
Boumaaza stated that the buywall would be made up of funds from sales in the video game and from
investment profits made by the defendants, yet those were forward-looking statements as the game
has yet to be released and no evidence of trading profits with those funds exists on the blockchain or
has otherwise been demonstrated to investors and viewers.

VE6 – Videographic Evidence 6 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context

9

12
14. Mr. Boumaaza announced on his Twitch live stream, after the seller mentioned in point 13 took
action, that “it [was] a sad day, since TooTanky could have made more profit today and even more in
the future.”10 Mr. Boumaaza was referring to the fact that he raised the buywall from 200.00 USD to
250.00 USD as a show of confidence in his scheme and to similarly convince others, as is exemplified in
the videographic evidence provided with its entire context in the public repository. Following this
announcement, a few other sellers exchanged their DUBI for ETH at this new higher price offered by the
defendants, taking home sums ranging from 50,000.00 USD to 300,000.00 USD. These profits also come
from the pool of funds from all of the original investors. We have extensive blockchain documentation
of these transactions, ready to be provided and adjoined with expert comment in a court of law.

15. A key requirement for Ponzi schemes is that the pool of funds used to perpetuate the scheme is
limited and the scheme collapses when the pool of funds is no longer sufficient to keep the promised
parameters of the scheme functional, such as the price at which the buywall is executed. After the
sellers described above had completed their transactions, Mr. Boumaaza announced that he was going
to stop enforcing the buywall and that the scheme would have to be restructured, as evidenced in the
preserved Twitch stream videos and audio recordings from the defendants’ Discord server11. In essence,
not only did the scheme result in the transfer of funds from many original investors to a few who pulled
the trigger earlier, but it also resulted in the token price going from 1.00 USD to 250.00 USD to having
no liquid market value – essentially a pump and dump with the price determined in a liquid fashion only
through the buywall which was controlled by the defendants.

16. At this stage, as investors were getting restless, Mr. Boumaaza promised refunds for everybody who
contributed initially as well as for people who bought DUBI on exchanges. He explicitly stated that he
would refund everyone who requested it, as otherwise “he could get into trouble”12, as documented in
the public repository. He re-assured everyone repeatedly, multiple days in a row that “no one would
lose money.”13

17. It is noteworthy that during this time, trading of DUBI and PRPS was still allowed on the defendants’
exchange and that they only removed the buywall, but kept the sellwall to raise funds from any person
still interested in buying PRPS. As the scheme would have to be re-arranged, this was reckless as it was
combined with usual lack of disclaimers and explanations. As detailed in the following sections, this
ended up financially harming some investors, including some who bought DUBI tokens in hopes of
acquiring them at a cheaper price and still being able to partake in the features of the defendants’
promised upcoming video game and other future projects. These investors, as well as investors who
bought DUBI at an earlier time on exchanges and others with more specific involvements in buying PRPS
and DUBI, have had a complete financial loss in most cases and an unrecoverable partial loss in other
cases, as the refunds were not honored in the terms original promised and the defendants issued a new
set of PRPS and DUBI tokens, specifically excluding people according to criteria the defendants had
never explained during original and evolving stages of the scheme. This new issuance was combined
with abandoning support for the old PRPS and DUBI tokens. All of this is documented extensively using

10
VE13 – Videographic Evidence 13 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context
11
VE34 – Videographic Evidence 34 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context
12
VE26 & VE46 – Videographic Evidence 26 & 46 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context
13
VE20 & VE23 – Videographic Evidence 20 & 23 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context

13
the blockchain, videographic and audio recordings, all of which is prepared and presentable in a court
of law.
Contract address for the new PRPS token:
https://etherscan.io/token/0xd94f2778e2b3913c53637ae60647598be588c570

Contract address for the new DUBI token:

https://etherscan.io/token/0x9c6fa42209169bcea032e401188a6fc3e9c9f59c

** It is noteworthy that the new tokens still have the same dynamic, with the new DUBI having a buywall
on the defendants exchange (www.dubiex.com) and the new PRPS having a sellwall. They have publicly
stated on their channels that they will raise prices for the tokens much more gradually and cautiously,
“making the scheme guaranteed to work” and “having enough funds to keep it going for 10 years and
more”14.

18. The original refund forms included the ability for all investors to make a claim for a refund,
irrespective of having originally contributed or acquired the tokens on exchanges and irrespective of
having bought one or the other. It is noteworthy that at this point, some of the plaintiffs were afraid to
fill out the form, as they feared additional consequences from Mr. Boumaaza, who has shown an ability
to be abusive to his community, using threats and verbal abuse as evidenced in our videographic
recordings and audio recordings, available in the public repository15. Copies of the original form have
been provided by all plaintiffs and demonstrate an initial willingness from the defendants to go through
the different cases.

19. In the matter of a few weeks, Mr. Boumaaza announced that they had decided to refund people
who bought PRPS, but not to refund anyone who had purchased DUBI tokens from exchanges. The initial
reason stated was that “[they] had received too many illegitimate requests”, as documented by e-mail
replies from the defendants’ support staff to the plaintiffs’ refund requests. It is noteworthy that,
through the blockchain, it can be seen that up to 26 refund requests for investors who bought DUBI
have been made, as their form required that the investors prove ownership of their cryptocurrency
wallet/address by sending a null transaction to one of the defendants’ wallets
(https://etherscan.io/address/0xcf37018d283f8199df3f2bcf9365175ee0b7c665). Our firm has also
been in contact with a majority of these investors and have requested the same proof, from which we
have concluded, along with confirmation from a third-party, that every claim we have reviewed is
legitimate, which means that the majority of the claims are legitimate. The third-party stands ready to
be an expert witness if a motion needs to be filed. Accordingly, the defendants’ reasoning that they had
received too many illegitimate claims is not only false, but is a frank disregard of responsibilities, as the
illegitimate claims should have been excluded and the legitimate ones refunded. Lead plaintiff Dr. James
Gallagher-Savarian had joined the defendants’ Discord server to ask for a refund of his DUBI purchase
on both EtherDelta and DubiEx and was told by Mr. Boumaaza that they would not honor those refunds
for the reasons stated above. When Dr. Gallagher-Savarian pointed that there weren’t many requests
like his to process, he was told by Mr. Boumaaza that “it didn’t matter, since he never told people to buy
DUBI, only PRPS.” When Dr. Gallagher-Savarian also demonstrated that was not the case, he was treated
abusively with insults, ridicule and was no longer able to have a discourse as Mr. Boumaaza proceeded
to ban and block him from the server. Many of the plaintiffs were treated in the exact same fashion and
14
VE45 – Videographic Evidence 45 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context
15
VE26 – Videographic Evidence 26 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context

14
all of the elements described here are available for public review in the repository, including the audio
recording from the Discord session mentioned. Mr. Boumaaza further blamed the investors who were
financially harmed, by stating that “their own greed caused their troubles” and also stated that by
attempting to get refunds the investors “were, in essence, scamming him.”16 Throughout these verbal
exchanges, Mr. Boumaaza kept referring to the investors’ funds as “Reese’s [Dries Leysen’s] money” and
that refunds would “come from Reese’s pockets”, in essence appropriating the funds and giving no
recourse or rights to investors in what is otherwise a security17. Below are direct snapshots of the
defendants’ Twitch channel and their chat, in which Mr. Boumaaza’s account (AtheneLive) is used to
explicitly tell people to buy DUBI and to program a chat bot to automatically tell people to do so and
directs them to the appropriate exchanges. This is in addition to all the promotion referenced above,
where both tokens are promoted and a distinction is never made between the investors’ rights between
both tokens. Finally, most forward-looking promises about the defendants’ upcoming video game,
implementation of universal basic income in villages and collection of fees on DubiEx involved the use
of DUBI, not PRPS. DUBI is the token that held future functionality. From the promotional material and
promises made by Mr. Boumaaza, an investor had a reasonable basis to purchase DUBI on exchanges
and could be swayed into believing it had rapidly increasing value because of the overt market
manipulation done by the defendants in their implementation of a buywall for DUBI.

IMG1-19.1-19.2 – Mr. Boumaaza’s Twitch Account Programming the Chat Bot to Direct People on
IDEX to Buy DUBI
These are screenshots of the Over Rustle Logs, which is a database that saves all Twitch chats, going
back over a year ago, regardless of whether the associated steam video was deleted by the streamer
or not. The statements captured in the images here can easily be reproduced by anyone by going to
the website and using athenelive as both the entry for the channel and username and navigating to
the illustrated timestamp (January 14th and 19th 2018).
[https://overrustlelogs.net/stalk?channel=athenelive&nick=athenelive]

20. As it stands, the plaintiffs have attempted to contact the defendants across many different channels
to settle the matter privately, but Mr. Boumaaza and Mr. Leysen are, to this day, not establishing any
dialogue with the plaintiffs. This case is a matter of criminal offense and will be reported to all
authorities of relevance, as detailed in section VIII.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The lead plaintiffs have submitted the case and will plead in the state of New York, with
additional security-related investigations to be engaged by the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the Ontario Security Board, in Canada, as this scheme has financially harmed both American and
Canadian citizens. Plaintiffs have made their intentions clear: if there is no resolution, they will pursue

16
VE26 – Videographic Evidence 26 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context
17
VE46 – Videographic Evidence 46 – Available publicly, provided in its entire context

15
all available enforcement routes, including the newly established Cryptocurrency Fraud Department at
the SEC and OSB. Furthermore, plaintiffs in Germany have made their intention clear to submit the case,
in its entirety, with contact to Lebowitz Partners, LLP and myself, to the appropriate authorities, with in-
person submission to the German police, at the cybercrime division, as this is a case of criminal law, to
be pursued at the international level, as global citizens have been financially harmed. The German
citizens affected will lead the rapport with other affected parties if a resolution cannot be reached
through arbitration with the defendants. Other citizens in Europe, including Belgium, Slovenia and
Poland have made their intentions clear to submit the case to their local authorities, again focusing on
the local police and Europol submissions, as the case is criminal in nature.

III. THE PARTIES

A. THE DEFENDANTS

DIGITAL GROWTH VENTURES, LLC – A global investment firm, focused on equity and equity-like
investments globally, including segregated and separately-managed cryptocurrency accounts. Lead
plaintiff alongside others directly referenced.

DR. JAMES GALLAGHER-SAVARIAN – Individual investor and employee at Digital Growth Ventures,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada branch. Attempted multiple times to settle individually with Mr.
Boumaaza, Mr. Leysen and the support staff at Gaming for Good, with no reciprocation.

MR. TIMOTHY ELSEVIER – Individual investor and employee at Digital Growth Ventures, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada branch. Contacted the support staff and received no reply to requests.

Other parties similarly situated – Individual investors situated mainly in North America and Europe,
with significant personal losses, having both financial and health costs related to this present case,
with no recourse offered by the defendants.

Plaintiff’s current overall losses are approximately 25,000.00 USD, not including pending individual
cases still being reviewed, as they were received on short notice and not including other investors who
have unrealized losses in the current iteration of the investment scheme or are dealing with an illiquid
market to obtain appropriate appropriate compensation for selling their securities.

B. DEFENDANTS

GAMING FOR GOOD E.V. – An entity established by Dries Albert G. Leysen in Forst (Lausitz), Germany,
with co-signatories Riccardo Varenna, Nolan Jansenss, Rafael Schamilow, Albert Citko, Stanislaw
Jemeljanow, and Brian Bogelund. It has been the vehicle for Mr. Boumaaza’s and Mr. Leysen’s past
charitable activities and has been used as a front for this investment scheme. Funds contributed in
this case by investors have not been employed by this corporate entity, but rather by Mr. Leysen and
Mr. Varenna, through funds being wired directly to their personal bank accounts from investors.
Furthermore, it has extensively been referenced to by Mr. Boumaaza to state that he has no
responsibility in the scheme and that it is all done under a legal entity, as easily observed through
numerous videographic recordings available in the public repository. Mr. Boumaaza has also boasted
in those recordings that he cannot be sued because his name was never signed on any legal

16
document, although it is clear and implied that the promotion of the investment scheme happened
mainly through him and using the lack of signatory presence can be construed as intentionally
deceitful in a court of law.

MR. DRIES ALBERT G. LEYSEN – Currently residing in Germany, in the Forst (Lausitz) locality, where
Gaming for Good is based. He is the Chairman of the Board for Gaming for Good. He has appeared in
numerous live streams, joining Mr. Boumaaza in promoting their investment scheme. He has referred
to himself as “the money man” and Mr. Boumaaza has also said that Mr. Leysen is the one responsible
for all monetary transactions. He is also commonly referred to as “Reese” in the videographic and
audio recordings.

MR. BACHIR BOUMAAZA – Also residing in Forst (Lausitz), Germany, where he has conducted the
promotion of the investment scheme described in this case. Has acted as the public figure behind the
investment scheme and whenever a plaintiff has requested a venue for settlement from Gaming for
Good, Mr. Boumaaza has explicitly stated being the one having the last word, while claiming no
association or legal responsibility for Gaming for Good, its actions or undertakings and the investment
scheme described here. Also commonly referred to as “Athene”.

MR. RICCARDO VARENNA – Residing in the same locality as the above-mentioned defendants. Acts as
the Treasurer of Gaming for Good. Had appeared in live video streams alongside Mr. Boumaaza, has
provided his personal bank account for certain transactions during the initial fund raiser and has not
produced any public proof of the use of the proceeds. His role in the scheme from the accumulated
evidence is in the provision of his bank account for a few investor transactions. The full extent has yet
to be determined.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF CRYPTOCURRENCY ISSUANCE AND MECHANISMS OF CONTROL

The issuance of the original PRPS and DUBI for initial investors has occurred by the manual
creation of 1 billion units of PRPS and DUBI and manual transfer of every investors’ obtainable
contribution. PRPS and DUBI are ERC-20 tokens, issued on the Ethereum blockchain. They have their
respective smart-contract, which is responsible for the functions of and rules governing those tokens
(whether they can be transferred, divided, etc.).

It is important to note that 2 versions of PRPS and 2 versions of DUBI exist. When the scheme
collapsed in March of this year (2018), they decided to restart their scheme with certain exceptions.

The exceptions consist mainly of a mechanism of control, where Mr. Boumaaza has explicitly
stated that he could exclude anyone he wanted and he did so with all the buyers of DUBI on
exchanges or the investors who sold onto the buywall that was provided by the defendants. This
mechanism of control is against having a properly functioning security and completely ignores any due
process for such re-allocations. This in itself is illegal in both the USA and Germany, without the proper
legal framework and financial compromises between the invested parties.

Furthermore, the price manipulation of the tokens on exchanges, using Ether (ETH) to create
significant bids that can be moved at ever higher prices is both a mechanism of price-control and of
driving speculation.

17
 V. DEFENDANTS CREATED A FRAUDULENT CRYPTOCURRENCY INVESTMENT SCHEME AND
MISREPRESENTED CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Boumaaza repeatedly used a video produced by Save the Children USA in 2016 on their
YouTube page, vouching for him as a legitimate fund raiser. He used the video, without context, to justify
and legitimize this current investment scheme. This was done with no approval or awareness from Save
the Children USA and could potentially cause reputational harm to Save the Children USA as its name is
used to vouch for a scheme it is unaware of and has resulted in significant financial losses for investors
to date. Our firm is in the process of explaining the ongoing activities to Save the Children and will be in
communications with them in case they need more information or need to make a formal request.

Link to Save the Children USA YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7S9jqefxf0

By continuously using the words “donation” and “donors” in his promotional material and
discussion with his community, he superficially replaced the words “investment” and “investor”,
without consideration for what the defendants’ scheme fundamentally represented. Even if someone
donated to Save the Children and received PRPS in exchange or recognition for that donation, the fact
that those tokens were promoted and structured as securities and the fact that a viewer and investor
had a reasonable basis to expect receiving those tokens and making a return renders the whole charity
and donation framework referred to by Mr. Boumaaza unusable. Furthermore, there is no evidence that
the funds raised personally (those sent to Mr. Leysen and Mr. Varenna) were used for tangible charity.
Instead, the defendants have explicitly stated that the funds were used to support their buywall for the
DUBI token and to fund the remaining development of their video game, which could potentially be
used in the future for charitable fundraisers, but with no current such application.

VI. PLAINTIFFS ENDURED FINANCIAL LOSSES WITH NO OFFERED ARBITRATION

Almost 3 months after the loss of funds, the plaintiffs still have not been able to make individual
contact with the defendants to discuss the matter. They are being ignored and actively banned from the
defendants’ online channels. A formal dispute is being engaged, as no other means have been successful
to date.

VII. SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS

A) Criminal Offense – Investment Fraud (Pump and Dump scheme with a Ponzi structure)
I) MR. BACHIR BOUMAAZA – Promoter of the scheme
II) MR. DRIES ALBERT G. LEYSEN – Promoter of the scheme and alleged market manipulator,
implementing the price-controls described in prior sections
III) MR. RICCARDO VARENNA – Potential embezzlement of funds, to be determine upon
official bank investigation
IV) GAMING FOR GOOD, E.V. – The legal entity used for the daily operations, known to be
owned by a shell entity, to be further detailed on due process

18
B) Other Allegations – Charity Misrepresentation
I) MR. BACHIR MOUMAAZA – Misrepresented their daily operations as charity and relied on
another charity’s reputation and his past involvement with it to promote current aspects of an
investment scheme

VIII. PENDING INTERNATIONAL REVIEWS AND FURTHER RECOURSE

As described, this case involves financial losses for investors around the world, confirmed plaintiffs are
from the USA, Canada, and many countries in Europe, as outlined in Section III. The defendants have
operated under German law and, as such, the affected German citizens will bring the case forth to their
authorities, with all evidence available. They have been instructed on the procedure and will be guided
by our firm through coordinating with the American and Canadian regulators.

From a securities law standpoint, the SEC has expressed their willingness to pursue these cases
internationally and if no relief is found for the plaintiffs upon official contact and communication with
the defendants, will be asked to include this case in the growing list of cryptocurrency frauds that have
affected American citizens.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The plaintiffs have all submitted their refund forms to the defendants, which have been ignored.
The plaintiffs require the defendants to honor their refund forms, with the information as provided at
the time the refund was requested. Refunds are to be performed in the currency of transaction, whether
Ether, Euros, US Dollars or as otherwise documented. If the defendants no longer have the information,
they can request it through our firm and we will gather all the plaintiffs’ relevant documents to be used
in calculating the sums for the refunds.

Furthermore, this case will be documented officially for the public before midnight on May 25 th
2018, New York Eastern Time Zone. A letter of personal appeal will also be sent to the defendants on or
right before this deadline, using all the public electronic addresses belonging to the defendants, for the
record. A reasonable delay of 3 business days will be given to the defendants to reply to the personal
appeal made by our firm. If no response is obtained by the deadline of midnight, Wednesday May 30 th
2018, New York Eastern Time Zone, the case will be filed forward and prosecution using all available
means described above will be engaged.

If you have any additional information about this case or have assumed financial losses and would
like to add yourself to the list of plaintiffs, contact me directly:

justin@lebowitzlpr.com

19