Justice suspends actions and pledges of GAS Consultoria in exchange for judicial recovery plan

This article is from cointelegraph.com.br and the original article can be read here in Portuguese

Justice suspends actions and pledges of GAS Consultoria in exchange for judicial recovery plan

In an injunction last Friday (20), published this Monday (23), Judge Maria da Penha Nobre Mauro, from the 5th Business Court of the Capital of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ), determined the suspension for a period of 180 days of all actions and debt executions of GAS Consultoria, a company that became one of the targets of the “Operation Kryptos” in August of last year by raising approximately R$ 38 billion through a financial pyramid involving cryptocurrencies. According to the decision, GAS has a period of 30 days to present a judicial recovery plan.

The magistrate determined that all seizures and blockings on values, assets and bank accounts are suspended in all cases in which GAS is a defendant. She also decided to transfer all amounts to the judicial recovery action in order to reimburse creditors and investors, according to AgĂŞncia Brasil.

“Determine the suspension of all constraints (pledges, arrests, kidnappings and judicial blocks) that may exist on values, assets, assets, bank accounts, cryptocurrency brokers, among others that may exist in the most varied processes spread throughout Brazil in which the plaintiffs appear as defendants, the amounts being transferred to the Universal Reorganization Court so that, thus, they can be the object of the due reimbursement to investors/creditors without violation par conditio creditorum”, he reported.

The judge understood that an eventual declaration of bankruptcy of the cryptocurrency consulting company managed by Glaidson Acacio dos Santos, the “Bitcoin Pharaoh”, trapped in the framework of Operation Kryptos, could jeopardize the receipt of consumers and investors.

“The purpose of the proposed demand is precisely to prevent the company from being bankrupted and consumers/investors from being harmed. The periculum in mora stems from the existence of numerous demands in execution and acts of constriction potentially capable of compromising the health of the applicant companies and, consequently, affecting the rights of creditors”, he explained.

She also stressed that it is up to the Federal Criminal Justice to assess the occurrence or not of a crime against the national financial system and that GAS can request judicial recovery for carrying out economic activity of circulation of goods, for the preservation of the company, its employees and its investors. .

“For this reason, also, I see, in principle, the competence of this business court for the appreciation of the preliminary injunction, insofar as, for prevention, two public civil actions are in progress aimed precisely at preserving the resources of the applicant companies to satisfaction of the credits of the same thousands of consumers/investors who contracted with them, and the judicial recovery cannot run separately, under penalty of conflicting decisions and measures”, he added.

In January of this year, criminal lawyer Ciro Chagas even revealed the existence of a compensation plan for former GAS clients. What ended up being the subject of a disagreement between Glaidson and the lawyer MĂ´nica Coelho Lemos, who at the end of March stated in an Instagram broadcast that the reimbursement plan had been suspended when she announced that she was leaving the defense of the Pharaoh of Bitcoins and his wife, the Venezuelan Mirelis Zerpa, considered a fugitive. After MĂ´nica’s remarks, a letter from Glaidson contradicting the lawyer was published in telegram groups as reported by the Cointelegraph Brazil.


Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. EmeringCrypto.io does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Scroll to Top