1:24-cv-00337
E.D. Tex.Jun 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Bruce Cohn alleges he fell victim to a cryptocurrency scam, losing over $2.4 million after being solicited by defendant "Anna Popescu" via a dating website in June 2024.
- Popescu allegedly convinced Cohn to invest in cryptocurrency through TrustHFTwallet, resulting in his assets being transferred to six specific blockchain addresses (the “Target Addresses”).
- Plaintiff traced the allegedly stolen assets to these addresses, held in USDC (U.S. Dollar Coin), and sought an asset freeze to prevent dissipation.
- The Court first issued and extended a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) freezing the Target Addresses; Plaintiff now sought a preliminary injunction to maintain the freeze through trial.
- Plaintiff notified Defendants of the motion through electronic means and other efforts deemed reasonable by the Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of Success (RICO, conversion, fraud) | Presented evidence showing fraud, wire fraud, and asset tracing; Defendants perpetrated a sophisticated scam | Argued insufficient notice or lack of substantive evidence (details sparse/not developed) | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on at least one claim (RICO, fraud, or conversion) |
| Irreparable Harm | Assets could be moved irretrievably without an injunction | Not meaningfully opposed or contested; arguments not detailed | Irreparable harm shown due to ease of asset dissipation |
| Balance of Hardships | Temporary freeze is minimal inconvenience compared to Plaintiff’s potential total loss | Defendants might be inconvenienced by asset freeze | Plaintiff’s threatened injury outweighs any potential harm to Defendants |
| Public Interest | Asset freeze protects against broader cryptocurrency fraud and supports enforcement | Not meaningfully opposed; no strong counterargument | Public interest favors issuing injunction, particularly given cryptocurrency scam crisis |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2017) (setting the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
- Lewis v. Danos, 83 F.4th 948 (5th Cir. 2023) (reciting elements of a civil RICO claim)
- Whelan v. Winchester Prod. Co., 319 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2003) (describing RICO’s requirements)
- Welco Elecs., Inc. v. Mora, 223 Cal. App. 4th 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (elements of conversion under California law)
- OCM Principal Opp. Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Mkts. Corp., 157 Cal. App. 4th 835 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (fraud elements under California law)
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Shenzhen Sanlida Elec. Tech. Co., 80 F.4th 536 (5th Cir. 2023) (notice requirements for preliminary injunction)