DOJ Faces Scrutiny Over Sealed MoonPay Crypto Fraud Case Amid Trump Ties, Favoritism Claims

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing intense scrutiny following the temporary sealing of a court docket related to a cryptocurrency fraud case. This case purportedly involved executives from the crypto payments firm MoonPay and an associate of President Donald Trump. While the DOJ attributed the brief closure to a “clerical error,” the incident has prompted allegations of favoritism in federal enforcement actions within the crypto space, drawing parallels to MoonPay’s existing business ties with Trump-affiliated digital assets.

• A U.S. Department of Justice court docket for a cryptocurrency fraud case was temporarily sealed.
• The case reportedly involved executives from crypto firm MoonPay and an associate of President Trump.
• The DOJ attributed the sealing to an inadvertent “clerical error,” and the docket was unsealed within hours.
• The incident sparked allegations of preferential treatment, given MoonPay’s prior connections to Trump-linked digital assets.
• Despite redaction efforts, the identities of purported victims were publicly revealed through blockchain transaction data.
• The core fraud involved a Nigerian scammer defrauding MoonPay CEO Ivan Soto-Wright and US CFO Mouna Ammari Siala of $250,000 in Ethereum.

The underlying case centers on a Nigerian scammer accused of impersonating real estate developer Steve Witkoff, co-chair of Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee, to defraud two individuals of $250,000 in Ethereum. The complaint identified MoonPay CEO Ivan Soto-Wright and US CFO Mouna Ammari Siala as the purported victims. Notably, the deceptive scheme employed a subtle typographical trick in a fake email address, substituting a lowercase ‘l’ with an uppercase ‘I’ to mimic Witkoff’s association with the inaugural committee.

Interim US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a known ally of President Trump, clarified that the District of Columbia court’s sealing of the entire docket was an inadvertent “ministerial, clerical error.” Pirro stated that the DOJ had only requested an amended complaint be made public after specific company names and victim identities were redacted. She affirmed that the docket was unsealed within hours of the error being recognized. However, these initial redaction efforts were ultimately circumvented when NOTUS, an investigative outlet, linked publicly accessible blockchain transaction data to wallet addresses previously associated with Soto-Wright, thereby revealing the purported victims’ identities.

Allegations of Preferential Treatment

Critics, including prominent crypto policy advocates, quickly voiced concerns that the DOJ’s swift action to recover funds for MoonPay executives stood in stark contrast to a perceived slowdown in broader enforcement against other cryptocurrency companies. Mark Hays, a crypto policy advocate with Americans for Financial Reform, told NOTUS, “If you’re friendly with Trump and you’re a Trump crypto bro, you get the DOJ proactively trying to recover your assets.” This sentiment is further fueled by MoonPay’s past role as an exclusive partner for trading $TRUMP, a memecoin linked to the Trump family, with executives reportedly touting the substantial profits derived from the token’s success. This history adds a significant layer of complexity to the transparency concerns surrounding the handling of the case.

7 days ago, $TRUMP took the crypto world by storm 🫡

MoonPay was picked as the token's official onramp, through our partners at @moonshot 🚀

750,000 new people created a MoonPay account ⛓️ we saw a 1,023% increase in first-time onchain transactions

BIG WEEK! pic.twitter.com/4FiC1Xt4ti

— MoonPay 🟣 (@moonpay) January 24, 2025

A former prosecutor from the DC Attorney’s Office, who requested anonymity, commented on the highly unusual nature of the situation. While specific documents, such as medical records or national security materials, are routinely filed under seal, it is exceedingly uncommon for an entire court docket to be closed to public view without an explicit and thoroughly justified motion. This precedent highlights the legal community’s emphasis on maintaining judicial transparency, particularly in cases involving high-profile individuals and dynamic financial sectors like cryptocurrency.

The ongoing scrutiny of this case underscores the intricate challenges inherent in applying traditional legal frameworks to digital asset fraud. Simultaneously, it emphasizes the persistent public and professional demand for clear, unbiased enforcement actions, regardless of political affiliations or business connections.