KUBR

OneCoin raised about $4 billion selling a cryptocurrency with no real blockchain

OneCoin · Cryptocurrency scheme (private)

Misuse of raised fundsFake customers or vendors

The case in brief

Visible before detection

    Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight

    1

    Document authenticity / direct pull

    Would have looked for the blockchain the token claimed to run on.

    Can mislead when: The company can refuse consent, and a refusal is itself a flag. Some banks and co-op banks are not on AA yet.

    2

    Ownership / related-party links

    Would have mapped the offshore entities to the founders.

    Can mislead when: Nominee directors and offshore layers hide links. Name matching throws up false positives, so every flag shows its evidence path.

    3

    End-use tracing of funds

    Would have traced investor money to the founders.

    Can mislead when: Kubr sees only the company's own accounts. Once money reaches a third party's bank, Kubr can flag the payee but cannot see the next hop without that party's consent.

    Where Kubr services would have helped

    Financial diligence

    Offered in India
    • C3 Would have mapped the offshore entities to the founders.
    • C5 Would have looked for the blockchain the token claimed to run on.

    Borrower monitor

    Offered in India
    • C3 Would have mapped the offshore entities to the founders.
    • C6 Would have traced investor money to the founders.

    Proceeds tracer

    Offered in India
    • C3 Would have mapped the offshore entities to the founders.
    • C6 Would have traced investor money to the founders.

    Verified Snapshot

    Offered in India
    • C3 Would have mapped the offshore entities to the founders.

    Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.

    A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.