What It Actually Costs to Be Deceived

People who bought into Bitcoin Latinum were not reckless gamblers. They read a whitepaper. They listened to a CEO speak confidently on podcasts. They asked questions about insurance and were told, directly and personally, that a portfolio of assets stood behind their money. One investor, identified in the complaint only as Investor A, specifically asked about the insurance. Basile wrote back in an email. He gave her the name of a real, well-known insurance broker. She wired $275,000.

That $275,000 did not go into a trust fund. It did not go into an asset pool. It went into accounts that Basile controlled, accounts that also funded a luxury condominium in Miami and a house in Park City, Utah — both titled under Basile family entities, not under any company supposedly managing LTNM’s “underlying value.”

Investors B and C called Basile directly. He told them LTNM tokens were insured against cyber theft. They invested based on what he said. By February 2022, two SAFT investors had already filed a separate federal lawsuit in Michigan. By then, the price of LTNM on the overseas exchanges where it had been listed had collapsed from the equivalent of approximately $200 to less than $16. By February 2023, GIBF was telling investors that even if they wanted a refund instead of worthless tokens, the funds to pay them might not exist. Today, LTNM is worth nothing.

The betrayal here is specific: these investors were told, repeatedly and in writing, that this investment had protections that distinguished it from every other crypto asset. The “world’s first insured digital asset.” A floor on the currency. A backstop that was “growing over time.” These were not vague promotional boasts. They were precise, technical-sounding claims designed to reach the part of an investor’s brain that checks for safety before committing money. Basile knew exactly which fears to address — and he addressed them with lies.

Straight From the Court Documents

“Bitcoin Latinum is an insured, asset-backed cryptocurrency… Bitcoin Latinum is an asset-backed cryptocurrency, and is working to be the world’s largest insured digital asset.”

— September 27, 2021 press release approved by Basile, attributed to Monsoon Blockchain Corporation

• This press release was publicly distributed via newswire services and posted on the Bitcoin Latinum website. Basile is listed in the complaint as having personally approved it and is identified in the release itself as “Monsoon Blockchain Corporation’s CEO and Founder.”
• The SEC’s complaint establishes that at the time this release was published, no insurance of any kind existed on LTNM, no asset pool existed, and no trust fund had been created. Both claims in this sentence were materially false at the moment of publication.

“That’s the part that [Insurance Broker 1] is insuring, which is to, to insure that asset base against cyber theft, cyber loss, or internal, you know, malfeasance that’s occurred in these other exchanges.”

— Donald G. Basile, in a recorded call with Investor A, on or around May 2021, before Investor A invested $275,000

• This is a direct, personal representation made by Basile to a specific investor in a recorded conversation. The SEC alleges Investor A’s $275,000 investment was made “based in part” on these statements about insurance.
• The complaint establishes that Basile personally handled discussions with the named insurance broker and knew, at the time he made this statement, that no coverage had ever been issued.

“So, low low cost, okay? Low cost of your transaction fee. High speed… Asset backed, so there’s an underlying asset pool behind the currency, okay? And that asset pool increases every time you actually do a transaction, eighty percent of that low network fee goes into the asset pool, so that asset pool is always increasing over time. Additionally, the asset pool is wrapped in insurance, arranged by [Insurance Broker 1], the world’s largest insurance broker.”

— Donald G. Basile, August 19, 2021 podcast interview, later posted on the Bitcoin Latinum website

• This statement was made publicly, recorded, and republished on the official Bitcoin Latinum website, meaning it reached an audience beyond just the original podcast listeners.
• The complaint directly refutes every factual claim in this statement: no asset pool existed, no 80% fee structure was feeding any fund, and no insurance policy had been issued by the named broker or anyone else.
• The layering of three separate false claims in a single answer — low cost, asset backing, and insurance — illustrates the complaint’s allegation that these misrepresentations were used as coordinated “selling points to distinguish LTNM from other crypto assets.”

“80% of token pre-launch sales and 80% of network fees will flow back into LNTM [sic] to support token development”

— The Investor Overview, created by Marketing Company 1 using information Basile provided, and distributed to prospective investors

• The SEC’s complaint states that Basile was the source of the information in this document and that it “largely repeated the false statements that Basile had provided, but this time under Marketing Company 1’s name.” This is the core of how he amplified false claims through intermediaries.
• The complaint documents that SAFT Offering proceeds were not placed in any fund. Instead, far in excess of 20% (and by implication the majority) was spent on Basile’s personal expenses.

What Investors Were Told vs. What Was Real

Basile, GIBF, and Monsoon made three distinct categories of false claims to investors through marketing materials, press releases, podcasts, the official Bitcoin Latinum website, and direct personal communications.

• Claimed: LTNM was insured for up to $1 billion by a named international insurance broker. Reality: No insurance contract, agreement, or coverage of any kind was ever issued by the named broker or any other insurer. Basile had been in contact with the broker but no policy was ever obtained.
• Claimed: LTNM was “asset-backed” by an underlying trust fund holding a diversified portfolio of equities, real estate, and cryptocurrencies. Reality: No trust, fund, or asset pool was ever created. No assets were ever set aside for the use or benefit of SAFT investors.
• Claimed: 80% or more (Basile personally told one investor “90 plus percent”) of all SAFT Offering proceeds would go into an underlying fund to support LTNM’s value. Reality: The percentage spent on Basile’s personal expenses alone “far exceeded 20% of the total SAFT Offering proceeds.” The remainder went primarily to marketing, not to any value-supporting fund.
• Claimed: The value of LTNM’s underlying asset pool would grow automatically over time as more transactions occurred. Reality: No asset pool existed. There was no mechanism by which transaction fees could accumulate because there was no fund to receive them.
• Claimed: Basile operated through distinct entities — a “network,” “project,” and “foundation” — suggesting decentralized, institutional management. Reality: The SEC’s complaint states that “no separate network, project, or foundation existed beyond what Basile himself directed, oversaw, and controlled.”

How a Two-Company Structure Laundered the Lies

Basile did not operate as a solo fraudster. He built a two-entity structure in which GIBF issued the securities and collected investor money, while Monsoon handled marketing and “development” — giving each layer of the fraud its own legal identity. The Letter Agreement between these entities, which was never disclosed to investors, transferred contractual control of the first $50 million in SAFT proceeds to Monsoon at Basile’s direction.

• GIBF GP, Inc. was the formal “issuer” of the SAFTs. Investors transmitted money or crypto assets to GIBF in exchange for the right to receive LTNM. Basile was GIBF’s Chief Investment Officer and a director during the Relevant Period.
• Monsoon Blockchain Corporation was designated the “developer” of LTNM and the entity that marketed the SAFT Offering. Basile was Monsoon’s sole director and CEO. The public-facing identity of the fraud — press releases, website, social media, podcast appearances — ran through Monsoon’s brand.
• A secret Letter Agreement, purportedly effective October 1, 2020, gave Monsoon the right to receive “the first fifty million dollars of SAFT Offering proceeds” from GIBF, after GIBF deducted its own expenses and a $100,000 monthly fee. This agreement was never disclosed to SAFT Offering investors, directly contradicting Basile’s claim that 80% or more of proceeds would support LTNM’s value.
• GIBF GP (Cayman), Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of GIBF, was also party to the Letter Agreement, adding a third entity to the corporate stack. The complaint does not allege it played a major operational role beyond this contractual function.
• A January 9, 2025 Delaware Court of Chancery default judgment confirmed that Basile is now the sole director, CEO, President, Secretary, and Treasurer of both GIBF and Monsoon — consolidating all corporate titles in a single person after the fraud collapsed.

Where the $16 Million Actually Went

The SEC’s complaint documents specifically how Basile redirected investor funds for personal enrichment, making explicit that these expenditures were “not business expenses or fees.”

• ~$4.1 million paid toward the purchase of a condominium in Miami, Florida. The property was titled under a Basile family entity, not any LTNM-related corporate entity.
• $2.8 million used to purchase a house in Park City, Utah. Also titled under a Basile family entity.
• ~$1.4 million charged to Basile’s personal American Express card and paid from accounts holding investor funds.
• ~$1 million transferred to bank accounts under Basile’s control or that of his family members.
• $160,000 spent to purchase a horse for Basile’s daughter.
• The complaint states that the percentage of SAFT Offering proceeds spent on Basile’s personal expenses “far exceeded 20% of the total SAFT Offering proceeds” — meaning he personally took more than he told investors he ever would, even accounting for all permissible expenses.
• Funds not spent on personal enrichment went primarily to marketing costs — not to any fund, trust, or asset pool designed to support LTNM’s value. The two uses of money most important to investors’ thesis were entirely absent.

Putting the Numbers in Human Terms

The Slow Walk to Zero

The timeline of this fraud shows a deliberate sequence of delay that kept investors in the dark while Basile spent their money and the token’s window of tradable value closed.

• The SAFT contract gave GIBF complete, unilateral discretion over when to declare the “Milestone” that would trigger token delivery. There was no deadline, no independent trigger, and no mechanism for investors to force delivery. This structure gave Basile unlimited time to operate without accountability.
• By October 2021, LTNM was trading on overseas exchanges at prices around the equivalent of $200. Rather than declaring the Milestone and delivering tokens while value existed, GIBF — under Basile’s control — did not declare the Milestone. The complaint does not document any stated reason for this failure at the time.
• In November 2021, Basile had GIBF send investors a survey proposing to delay token distribution until February 2022. The stated justification was that waiting would allow LTNM to be listed on more platforms, which would “generate more volume and stability and will have a positive impact on the price.”