Selecting an appropriate law firm is crucial for entrepreneurs, particularly in high-risk sectors where business operations might straddle the fine line of legality. In such environments, some law firms play a key role in enabling operators of unregulated financial services or crypto MLM ventures to confront their detractors aggressively. One notable instance is Josip Heit of GSPartners, who relies on the Berlin-based law firm IrleMoser.
IrleMoser Connections
Over the past two years, FinTelegram has received multiple communications from IrleMoser concerning GSPartners and Josip Heit. A similar pattern has been observed with BehindMLM, a leading MLM review platform globally. The partners of IrleMoser, Ben Irle and Christian-Oliver Moser, adopt a notably assertive strategy to curb critical journalism in favor of their clients.
IRLE MOSER LLP is among the nation’s most reputable and leading law firms for copyright law, media law, intellectual property law, and corporate law.
IrleMoser about themselves (link)
Their approach often involves categorizing any critique of their clients as slanderous and pursuing legal action against it. For example, FinTelegram’s critical analysis and subsequent blacklisting of GSPartners and G999 were labeled defamatory by IrleMoser, who sought injunctions to suppress such reporting. This blacklisting partly stemmed from regulatory advisories in Canada regarding authorization lapses – a standard criterion for FinTelegram’s blacklisting policy.
Despite these facts, IrleMoser has endeavored to stifle this exposure through legal proceedings. Since then, various U.S. regulatory bodies have issued Cease and Desist Orders against Josip Heit and his MLM operations, corroborating the warnings issued by FinTelegram.
Read the report about the U.S. Cease and Desist Orders against Josip Heit.
IrleMoser has engaged in similar tactics against BehindMLM, acting on behalf of Heit, where the law firm is sometimes referred to as a “partner in crime.”
Realizing that wasn’t convincing, Heit next turned to the Ukraine courts to obtain an ex-parte order. I learned about the order in mid 2021, through Heit’s partners-in-crime in Germany, Irle Moser.
BehindMLM statement (link)
Confidential SLAPP Attacks?
It is our view that the actions of Heit and his legal representatives at IrleMoser may qualify as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) attacks against entities like BehindMLM and FinTelegram. Despite awareness of numerous regulatory cautions, they continue to challenge critics, employing unorthodox legal strategies in foreign jurisdictions with the primary goal of obstructing journalistic reporting and suppressing investor warnings.
Notably, IrleMoser‘s correspondences often include a disclaimer asserting their confidentiality and prohibiting publication – a stipulation that, while not legally binding, indicates a preference for avoiding public scrutiny.
Remember The Wirecard Disgrace?
In light of the preceding discussion, it is pertinent to reference the Wirecard scandal. In this instance, critical media outlets, notably the Financial Times, faced legal suppression through lawsuits and criminal charges instituted by Wirecard‘s law firms.
This historical precedent underscores the imperative for heightened vigilance and sensitivity, particularly within the German jurisdiction, towards the treatment of legitimate critiques directed at financial service providers engaged in the solicitation of investor funds on a global scale. Such precedence reinforces the necessity for a balanced and legally informed approach in responding to criticisms in the financial sector.
Definition of SLAPP
SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” It is a legal term used to describe lawsuits that are filed primarily to intimidate, censor, silence, and harass critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. These suits are often filed by individuals or corporations against individuals or organizations who have spoken out or taken a position on an issue, typically involving public interest.
The key characteristics of a SLAPP are:
- Intimidation and Censorship: The primary goal is not necessarily to win the lawsuit but to discourage and intimidate those who are exercising their right to free speech or participating in the public process.
- Burdening with Legal Costs: SLAPPs are often complex and costly, forcing the defendant to incur significant legal expenses.
- Chilling Effect: The threat of a SLAPP suit can have a chilling effect on public discourse, as others may become reluctant to speak out or participate in public affairs due to fear of litigation.
- Typically Lacks Legal Merit: Often, these lawsuits are without substantial legal merit, but they can be effective in achieving their goal of silencing opposition through legal and financial pressure.
Many jurisdictions have recognized the threat that SLAPP suits pose to free speech and have enacted anti-SLAPP laws. These laws provide mechanisms for quickly dismissing lawsuits that are aimed at silencing lawful public participation, and they often allow defendants in these cases to recover attorney’s fees. However, the specifics of anti-SLAPP legislation can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another.
Are These SLAPP Attacks?
- On the Obligations of Legal Representatives in Light of Factual Accuracy: In instances where legal representatives are aware, or reasonably ought to be aware, that the contentions made in published materials are accurate and the ensuing warnings warranted, is it permissible under legal ethics for them to assert contrarily, in contradiction to their better judgment, and to initiate legal threats including lawsuits and injunctions against these publications?
- Legal Action Post Regulatory Warnings: Following the issuance of public warnings and cease-and-desist orders by regulatory authorities against the clients represented by these legal professionals, is it legally and ethically justifiable for them to persist in pursuing actions against publications, employing tactics of legal intimidation and threats?
- Due Diligence and Acceptance of Client Funds: In scenarios where the clients of legal representatives generate revenue from activities deemed prohibited by regulatory entities, is there an incumbent responsibility on these representatives to duly notice these activities during their Know Your Client (KYC) procedures, thereby necessitating the refusal of funds from such clients for the payment of legal fees?
Share Information And Opinions
If you have any information about IrleMoser or an opinion about our article, please share it. You can use our whistleblower system, Whistle42, or leave a comment.
