An alleged fraud scheme, widely used trading software and the legal limits of attributing responsibility. Court documents, RICO and unresolved questions about controls.
30.09.2026English · source-based encyclopediaIndependent of MetaQuotes
A case about trust, technology and access to court.
Processing status: in-depth working version.
The decision of 16 August 2024 is fully evaluated. Original action, attachments and full pleadings as well as the current state of appeal are not yet fully available. The dossier therefore does not claim a completed processing of all files.
Gurung v. MetaQuotes Ltd, 1:23-cv-06362-OEM-PK, is a U.S. civil case in the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff Anjita Gurung tried to hold legally responsible, in addition to alleged fraud actors, providers of the trading software used. The central question is: where does the provision of technical infrastructure end and where does an attributable involvement in a fraud begin?
The case connects two levels, which must be read separately: the alleged deception using a trading interface and the conditions under which a court decides on the responsibility of individual defendants.
ProceduresCivil lawsuit, no criminal conviction documented here
Decision16.08.2024 · ECF 60
MetaQuotesDismissal in favour of the jurisdiction of Cyprus
Appointment25-328 · current output not verified
Judicial summary of the party’s submission is not proof that all the events described have actually taken place. The terms “sham companies” and “sham brokers” describe here the alleged camouflage of the attacked trade providers.
According to the account reproduced by the court, Gurung met a contact who appeared under a foreign identity in 2021 via social media. Through WhatsApp, he built trust and prompted them to install MT5 from the App Store. He then steered them to selected providers within the application and to accounts on crypto exchanges.
Supposed customer service representatives transmitted via Telegram wallet addresses. Gurung believed to finance her trading account: The transferred amounts appeared in the MT5 interface. Transactions displayed there as well as profit and loss values reinforced the impression of a real trading account. Further payments were required as taxes or fees.
She claimed that the providers were in fact front companies that changed account balances and presented false profit and balance information. The decision mentions, after its presentation, transfers of $596,708of which: $576,708 borrowed. Their funds were not repaid.
The leap of confidence
A number appears in a known application. From this, it is concluded that the money is actually in a legitimate trading account. This equivalence is the central transparency problem of the described deception.
This is not an ordinary trading loss in a broker’s internal risk book. The alleged facts relate to a pretended trading relationship and the withdrawal of money. The use of a real application and a fake business can coexist in presentation.
According to ECF 60, pp. 3–4, Gurung claimed a licensing ecosystem: MetaQuotes grants direct licenses, licensees can pass on white labels and their recipients in turn so-called Gray labels. The assessment of indirect suppliers would be carried out by the licensees after this presentation. The application also indicates providers who have received their access indirectly.
It accused software vendors of being aware of criminal activity and claimed that the technical infrastructure allowed for the presentation of false account information. The court documents this allegation, but in its decision does not find any concrete knowledge of her case nor a concerted manipulation by MetaQuotes.
Knowledge/Participation
An alleged RICO participation requires concrete facts about the respective company and its behavior. General statements about abuse of a platform do not answer this.
Negligence
The action also contained claims of negligence. These are another legal approach: lack of care is not automatically intentional wire fraud or a RICO conspiracy.
Limit of technical statement: The evaluated decision describes the accusation of false profit and balance advertisements. It contains no technical investigation of individual market data feeds and no judicial finding that MetaQuotes falsified Kursticks. The further assertion of “fake market data” requires its own evidence from lawsuits or technical analysis.
The licensing chain also remains a reproduced claimant claim in this state. Without contracts and server allocation, it is not possible to determine which specific provider had received which access from whom.
Together with the Bahamian Society as MSC Defendants; Jurisdiction Objection.
No decision on the merits of RICO liability against this company.
MetaQuotes Software Corp. · Bahamas
Same procedural decision path in ECF 60.
There is no finding that both companies had the same operational role.
Similar Delaware Company
Named in the ruble of the lawsuit; not part of the group of two defined here as MSC Defendants.
Naming equality proves neither group membership nor that the resolution has decided all claims against them.
Additional software provider
Separate RICO audit due to alleged software integration and support.
The reasons are not generally transferable to MetaQuotes.
Alleged sham broker/contact person
Alleged direct deceptive agents.
Your responsibility will not be determined by the software provider decision.
In the editorial text, we waive the names of the attacked trade providers. The linked original files contain the complete Rubrum. Role designations simplify reading, but do not replace assignment in file analysis.
Procedural timeline: events and their significance.
Date
Event
Evidence status
2021 and subsequent months
Contact and claimed deception; in the lecture about eight months and 30 wire-fraud processes.
ECF 60, pp. 2–4; Party lecture.
24.08.2023
Filing the civil action with RICO and other categories of claims.
ECF 60, pp. 1–2; original claim ECF 1 still open.
30.01.2024
Rejection requests from MSC Defendants and the other software provider.
ECF 60, p. 2; arguments reproduced in the decision.
16.08.2024
Both applications are successful, but for different reasons.
ECF 60 is fully read.
10.–18.02.2025
Voluntary withdrawal against further defendants; appeal notice; Rule 54(b) order and separate judgment.
Secondary docket: withdrawal without prejudice and a closure order on 13 February; judgment on 18 February. Original documents are unavailable.
12./13.02.2025
Appeals filed; proceedings 25-328 opened in the Second Circuit.
Secondary Appeals Register.
30.09.2026
Request date of this dossier.
The accessible appeal register extends until 01.04.2025. Later exit not verified.
The closure of the District Court procedure does not say that an appeal procedure is also closed. Without a current appeal decision, its result remains open.
Why the claims against MetaQuotes were dismissed in New York.
Court decision · ECF 60, pp. 5–13
The Cypriot and Bahamian companies invoked the jurisdiction clause of the MT5 end-user licence. This provided for disputes arising from the agreement exclusively courts of the Republic of Cyprus, in particular – where permitted – the District Court of Limassol.
The court examined whether the clause had been sufficiently communicated, was binding, covered parties and claims and whether there were strong reasons against its enforcement. Gurung had approved the EULA. Their objections were mainly aimed at the scope of the clause and the practical unreasonableness of a lawsuit in Cyprus.
It argued that its non-contractual claims arose from federal law and did not fall under the contractual clause. However, the court saw the same underlying facts and a sufficiently close relationship with software use. It also considered the clause applicable to those claims.
Gurung cited limited funds, immigration-related obstacles and the fact that Cyprus would not recognise her RICO claims in the same form. The court found this insufficient: an alternative forum need not provide identical causes of action. It considered the difficulties alleged insufficient to displace the clause.
The exact range
The claims against the two MSC Defendants were without prejudice Own forum non conveniens Rejected. This is a decision on the place of prosecution, not a decision that MetaQuotes was involved in the alleged fraud or that the allegations were refuted in substance.
“Without prejudice” does not guarantee that a later action will succeed or remain within the time limit in every jurisdiction. Here it describes the form of dismissal.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is part of US law addressing organised criminal activity. As well as criminal prosecution, it can provide a civil cause of action. Gurung brought a private civil action; use of the term RICO does not amount to a criminal conviction.
The relevant statutory provisions
Standard
Function
Test question in software context
18 U.S.C. § 1961
Defines, among other things, Enterprise, recorded precursors and patterns. Wire Fraud is one of the crimes recorded. For a pattern, the law specifies at least two relevant acts in the defined time frame.
What specific predicate acts and what organizational connection are claimed?
Section 1962(c)
Captures leadership or involvement in an Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of Racketeering Activity related to interstate or foreign trade.
What imputable contribution did the concrete defendant make?
Section 1962(d)
Prohibits the conspiracy to violate paragraphs (a), (b) or (c).
What are the facts of an alleged unlawful joint operation agreement?
Section 1964(c)
Private claim in case of injury to business or property caused thereby; triple damage in case of fulfilled conditions as well as costs including reasonable lawyer fees. The standard contains a special restriction on securities fraud and a conviction exception.
Which asset breach is legally attributable to the alleged RICO breach?
Enterprise: a shared undertaking beyond a supply chain
An Enterprise can be a legal entity or an actually affiliated group. According to the standards set out in the Gurung Decision, such a group needs a purpose, relationships and enough duration to pursue that purpose. A formal hierarchy is not required. However, unconnected actors do not become a RICO entity simply because they use the same software.
Pattern: number and relationship of acts
At least two actions are a legal lower limit, not an automatic fulfillment. The precursors must be interconnected and have the necessary continuity. Many transfers in an alleged fraud therefore do not readily replace the examination of the entire facts. The DOJ explains this connection for criminal proceedings; this is not an independent decision on Gurung’s civil action.
Participation: Differentiate support and leadership
In Reves v. Ernst & Young507 U.S. 170 (1993), the Supreme Court required for Section 1962(c) a participation in the operation or management of the Enterprise. Outsiders can also be included; a position in upper management is not necessary. However, the sale of a useful service alone does not answer this requirement.
Injury and international scope
The standard requires a causal relationship to the protected property infringement. RJR Nabisco v. European Community, 579 U.S. 325 (2016), additionally requires a domestic US injury for private RICO claims. Foreign defendants, US plaintiffs or cross-border payments do not settle that question by themselves. This background is not an additional ground of dismissal found in Gurung.
Why RICO is Attractive and Demanding
The approach can capture multiple actors of an alleged fraud organization and have far-reaching civil consequences. Precisely for this reason, the formula “software provided and deserved” is not enough: context, concrete role, precursors and attributable damage must be substantiated.
Why the RICO pleading against the other provider failed.
Court decision · ECF 60, pp. 14–21
The other software provider has been tested separately according to Rule 12(b)(6). At this stage, sufficient factual assertions are generally read in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the court does not have to accept claims of rights and blanket conclusions as true. The plausibility of the claim is examined, not already its proof by a complete trial.
The court found the alleged shared RICO enterprise insufficiently pleaded. In its assessment, providing software support for a monthly fee did not support a plausible inference that the provider shared a purpose of defrauding Gurung. The specific relationships with the alleged perpetrators had also not been adequately explained.
General claims of knowledge about criminal activities on MT5 did not demonstrate a concrete connection to the relevant actors after this examination. The resolution thus deals with an important limit: economic relationship and common criminal purpose are different statements.
The court also dismissed the RICO conspiracy claim against this provider. It did not decide the merits of the remaining state-law claims. After dismissing the federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed those claims without prejudice ab.
This argument must not be presented as a RICO examination of the two MSC Defendants. For them, the court had already considered the other place of jurisdiction as decisive.
MetaQuotes as an infrastructure provider: outstanding questions about controls.
Editorial analysis · no factual determination
A known application can transfer credibility to the providers visible there. First of all, this is an analytical observation on user perception. In the alleged process, Gurung believed that displaying her payments in MT5 confirmed the legitimacy of the trading account. This is where the question of responsibility for an ecosystem lies – even if a concrete liability has not yet been determined.
Access and identity
Who checks direct and indirect licensees? How are provider names, servers and legal entities assigned? Which signals distinguish license access and regulatory permission?
Indications and response
When did concrete indications of abuse come in, at which company and for which server? Which testing, escalation or blocking possibilities actually existed?
Decisive would be a reconstructable chain: license agreement → operator identity → server rights → concrete message → documented reaction. Without this information, neither conscious toleration nor effective control can be derived from a visible server.
The decision on jurisdiction in favour of a foreign forum does not solve the substantive questions of control. Conversely, a consumer protection-related discomfort does not replace facts that bear liability. The criticism must therefore remain concrete: What could recognize, influence and prevent which society?
A software can have legitimate administrative functions that are abused. Technically assigning claimed manipulation requires permissions, logs, account histories and reliable reference data. A screenshot shows a displayed state; it does not only identify the person responsible for its creation.
Access to justice: a second asymmetry of information.
John F. Coyle criticizes in his analysis of the 9 October 2024 the scope of the jurisdiction clause and the treatment of Gurung’s financial obstacles. His core argument: A formally available foreign jurisdiction can be virtually unattainable. Criticism is a scientific evaluation of the decision, not a successful annulment by a higher court.
For users, this creates an additional transparency question: Which disputes are covered by an end-user license and where can claims against the software provider be pursued? The contract with the trading provider and the license of the application may affect different parties and jurisdictions.
Our analytical conclusion: Legal possibility and actual enforceability are different levels of consumer protection. In addition to the alleged deception, the dossier therefore documents the cost and jurisdictional barriers of legal proceedings.
Independent assessment of the jurisdiction argument.
Further files are incorporated on the basis of document number, date, procedural reference and statement type. Particularly relevant are technical attachments, specific abuse reports and the subsequent appeal documents. The current version shall remain open until it is reviewed.