Steinhardt v. albertAI.click
1:25-cv-00303
E.D. Tex.Jul 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Angela Steinhardt was deceived into participating in a fraudulent employment scheme involving alleged cryptocurrency transactions on a platform posing as a legitimate company (AlbertAI.click).
- Plaintiff was promised high compensation and convinced to deposit increasing amounts of money, ultimately totaling $372,000, to access fictitious bonuses and earnings.
- After repeated deposits and inability to withdraw her funds, Plaintiff realized she was the victim of a scam and confirmed that AlbertAI.click was not affiliated with the real Albert AI company.
- Using blockchain tracing, Plaintiff identified specific cryptocurrency exchange accounts (at Bitget and Binance) that received her allegedly stolen assets.
- Plaintiff sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to freeze certain cryptocurrency accounts, then moved for a preliminary injunction to extend the freeze through trial, excluding an account at Coinbase, which was determined to be her own.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of Success on Merits (RICO, Conversion, Fraud) | Defendants orchestrated a sophisticated, traceable scam causing substantial pecuniary loss. | Not summarized in opinion | Likely to succeed on all claims |
| Irreparable Harm | Crypto assets are easily and instantly dissipated, risking total loss. | Not summarized in opinion | Risk of unretrievable asset loss is irreparable. |
| Balance of Hardships | Delaying asset movement minimally prejudices Defendants vs. Plaintiff’s only chance at recovery. | Not summarized in opinion | Balance favors Plaintiff; injunction appropriate. |
| Public Interest | Preserving traceable, stolen victim assets serves broader public interests against scams. | Not summarized in opinion | Public interest favors granting injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whelan v. Winchester Prod. Co., 319 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2003) (civil RICO elements and enterprise requirement)
- Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2017) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Grand Pac. Fin. Corp. v. Brauer, 783 N.E.2d 849 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (elements of conversion under Massachusetts law)
- Balles v. Babcock Power Inc., 70 N.E.3d 905 (Mass. 2017) (fraud elements under Massachusetts law)