Anda di halaman 1dari 27

Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 5824

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
NEW YORK REGIONAL OFFICE JORGE G. T ENREIRO
200 VESEY STREET, SUITE 400 T ELEPHONE: (212) 336-9145
NEW YORK, NY 10281-1022 EMAIL: T ENREIROJ@SEC. GOV

September 25, 2018

VIA ECF and UPS Overnight

Hon. Carol Bagley Amon


United States District Court
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: SEC v. PlexCorps a/k/a and d/b/a PlexCoin and Sidepay.ca, et al.;
No. 17 Civ. 7007 (CBA)

Dear Judge Amon:

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) respectfully seeks


leave, pursuant to Rule 3(A) of this Court’s Individual Motion Practices and Rules, to file a
motion to compel and a motion for discovery sanctions against Dominic Lacroix and Sabrina
Paradis-Royer (collectively “Defendants”) under Rule 37(a) and Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure for the reasons discussed below.
Defendants Have Continued to Ignore the Court’s Orders Requiring Them to Provide an
Accounting of Assets and Repatriate Assets
Defendants have blatantly and without any justification disregarded this Court’s multiple,
unequivocal orders that they produce a verified accounting and that they turnover PlexCoin
investor assets.
In the Court’s Order to Show Cause dated December 1, 2017 (D.E. 10) (“OSC”), the
Court ordered Defendants, among other things, to produce within three business days “a sworn
verified written accounting” reflecting the amounts and locations of investor assets raised from
the PlexCoin ICO, OSC ¶ XII, and to “immediately” transfer to the registry of the Court all
assets “derived from PlexCoin or PlexCoin Tokens or PlexCorps,” id. ¶ 2(c); see also id. ¶ IX.
These deadlines were extended to December 27, 2017, by a stipulation of the parties and Order
of this Court, which specifically required Defendants to provide to the Commission “a full list of
bank and brokerage accounts . . . and any blockchain addresses through which investor funds
were solicited or received,” as well as the “sworn verified accounting ordered by Paragraph XII
of the OSC.” Stipulation and Order dated Dec. 8, 2017 (D.E. 19) ¶¶ 5, 6. To date, Defendants
have complied with neither of these orders.
As the Court was made aware at a January 9, 2018, pre-motion conference, Defendants
failed to produce these documents by the required deadline, unilaterally deeming themselves
excused from doing so by the filing of their own pre-motion letter related to jurisdictional issues.
See Transcript of Hr’g dated Jan. 9, 2018 at 4:1-5:7 (D.E. 35). Accordingly, Defendants have
already once been in contempt of this Court’s orders.
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91 Filed 09/25/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 5825

Hon. Carol Bagley Amon September 25, 2018


Page 2

Although the Court stayed most of the OSC’s orders at Defendants’ request on January 9,
2018, the parties agreed that should this matter remain pending upon resolution of Defendants’
motion to dismiss, they would submit a proposed schedule to resume the deadlines set forth in
the OSC, including, specifically, “the submission of a sworn verified accounting ordered by
Paragraph XII of the OSC.” Stipulation and Order dated Jan. 11, 2018 (D.E. 32) ¶¶ 6. After this
Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss (D.E. 84) on August 9, 2018, the parties submitted a
proposed scheduling order (D.E. 86), which the Court adopted in relevant part (Order dated Aug.
22, 2018), specifically providing that “[b]y September 18, 2018, the Individual Defendants are to
submit to the Commission all items ordered produced by the OSC, including, but not limited to,
the accounting of investor funds and the list of Individual Defendants’ accounts and assets, and
the provisions contemplated by paragraphs IX and XII of the OSC.” Letter of Jorge Tenreiro,
dated Aug. 20, 2018 (D.E. 86) at 1. Nevertheless, Defendants have neither produced the ordered
accounting and list of assets nor repatriated any funds.
Defendants are, accordingly, once again simply disobeying this Court’s orders and the
very production deadlines they have repeatedly stipulated to. Their persistent failure to comply
with the Court’s orders evidences that Defendants have no intention of participating
meaningfully in this litigation. At the same time, the Commission is expending valuable
resources and time in preparing for a preliminary injunction hearing, including by gathering
documents, arranging for the travel of witnesses domestically and from abroad, retaining an
expert witness, and preparing a summary witness to present evidence of Defendants’ fraudulent
asset raise. The Commission is in the position of having to prepare for the hearing without
crucial investor-related information that the Commission needs to pursue this action, all while
Defendants continue to control the assets that the Court has ordered repatriated.
Defendants’ dereliction coupled with the prejudice to the Commission and to Defendants’
investor victims warrants the serious sanction of a default judgment against them under Rule
37(b)(2)(A)(vi). A Rule 37 sanction must be “just” and “commensurate with the non-
compliance,” Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd., 490 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2007), to
bring “the prejudiced party to the same position [it] would have been in absent the wrongful”
conduct. Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, Defendants should
not be allowed to continue the charade of purporting to defend this action while not actually
participating, including by failing to comply with their Court-ordered obligations. Absent the
sanction, Defendants could employ this strategy indefinitely, including potentially after the entry
of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, nothing less than a final, default judgment will put the
Commission in the position it would be should Defendants have meaningfully participated in the
litigation. Delaying the inevitable final judgment only increases the likelihood that Defendants
will continue to dissipate investor assets in violation of this Court’s orders. See generally Mem.
of Law in Supp. of Emergency Ex Parte Application, dated June 13, 2018 (D.E. 71).
The Court should hold Defendants in contempt and render a default judgment.
Defendants Continue to Refuse to Participate in Discovery
Defendants have also persistently and continually refused to participate in discovery in
this action. The Commission has elsewhere documented the tortured history of Defendants’
prior repeated refusals to engage in discovery, including with respect to the personal jurisdiction
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91 Filed 09/25/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5826

Hon. Carol Bagley Amon September 25, 2018


Page 3

motion that Defendants themselves sought to file. See generally Letter of Jorge G. Tenreiro,
dated Mar. 14, 2018 (D.E. 38); Letter of Jorge G. Tenreiro, dated May 3, 2018 (D.E. 55).
Briefly, although Magistrate Judge Levy compelled Defendant Lacroix to sit for a deposition
(Order dated May 8, 2018), Lacroix refused to testify, invoking instead his right against self-
incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (D.E. 63), and
Defendants produce only a handful of publicly available documents in response to the
Commission’s jurisdictional document requests, while failing to provide any answers to
jurisdictional interrogatories, including respecting the location of inexplicably missing
documents requested by the Commission.
After the stay of discovery expired following this Court’s Order on Defendants’ motion
dismiss, the Commission served deposition notices on each Defendant (attached hereto as
Exhibit A), document requests (Exhibit B), requests for admissions (Exhibit C, submitted
without attachments), and interrogatories (Exhibit D, submitted without attachments). The
deadlines set forth in those various discovery requests, which were expedited as per paragraph
XI of the OSC, have passed without Defendants producing a single document or appearing for a
deposition.
As required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on September 18, 2018, and then
again on September 24, 2018, we attempted to confer in good faith with counsel for Defendants
in an effort to obtain discovery without the need for this Court’s intervention. Counsel for
Defendants indicated that his clients would not appear for a deposition, and did not respond to
Commission inquiries about the document requests, requests for admissions, or interrogatories.
Much like with respect to jurisdictional discovery, Defendants have proffered no
justification, let alone any credible or persuasive one, to excuse their failure to respond to the
Commission’s outstanding discovery requests. For many of the same reasons as with respect to
the requested default judgment, the Court should compel Defendants’ response to the discovery
requests. The Commission should not be prejudiced by having to prepare for and participate in a
preliminary injunction hearing without the benefit of discovery from Defendants, all the while it
turns over its own documents to Defendants. The Commission and Defendants’ investor victims
should not have to wait any longer while Defendants pretend to participate in this litigation with
one hand while dissipating assets and refusing to answer discovery requests with the other.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the Court grant leave to file a motion for
sanctions and to compel against Defendants pursuant to Rule 37.

Respectfully submitted,

Jorge G. Tenreiro

cc (via email w/encl.): Jason Gottlieb, Esq.


Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-1 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 5827

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-1 Filed 09/25/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 5828
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-1 Filed 09/25/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5829
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 5830

EXHIBIT B
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 5831

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, :
:
Plaintiff, : 17 Civ. 7007 (CBA)
:
- against - : ECF Case
:
PLEXCORPS :
(a/k/a and d/b/a PLEXCOIN and SIDEPAY.CA), :
DOMINIC LACROIX and :
SABRINA PARADIS-ROYER, :
:
Defendants, :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF


DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT DOMINIC LACROIX

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and paragraph XI of the

Order to Show Cause dated December 1, 2017 (D.E. 10), Plaintiff Securities and Exchange

Commission requests that defendant Dominic Lacroix produce the following documents within

three days of the date of this request at the offices of the United States Securities and Exchange

Commission at 200 Vesey Street, Suite 400, New York, N.Y. 10281.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. If any responsive documents are withheld for any reason, including any applicable

privilege, please comply with Local Civil Rule 26.2, which is incorporated herein.

2. Each document requested is to be produced in its entirety, including all non-identical

copies and drafts, without abbreviation, expurgation, or redaction.

3. Each request shall be answered fully unless it is subject to a good faith objection, in

which event the reason for the objection shall be stated in detail. If an objection pertains to only a
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 5832

portion of a request, or a word, or phrase, or clause contained within a request, please state the

objection to that portion only, and respond to the remainder of the request.

4. If any document sought by this Request once was, but no longer is, within Paradis-

Royer’s possession, control or custody, please identify each such document and its present or last

known custodian, and state: (a) the reason why the document is not being produced; and (b) the

date of the loss, destruction, discarding, theft or other disposal of the document.

5. Unless otherwise indicated, this Request seeks documents from January 1, 2017

through the present (the “Relevant Period”).

6. This Request is ongoing in nature, and responsive documents should be produced as

they are found or created on an ongoing basis.

DEFINITIONS

1. The Uniform Definitions in Discovery Requests set forth in Local Civil Rule 26.3

apply to these Requests, and are incorporated herein, including, without limitation, the definition

of “communication,” “document,” and “concerning.”

2. “PlexCorps” or “PlexCoin” shall refer to the Defendant PlexCorps a/k/a and d/b/a

PlexCoin, as well as the entity known as Sidepay or Sidepay Ltd., and all its current and former

representatives, agents, employees, accountants, or attorneys.

3. “Lacroix” or “You” shall refer to Defendant Dominic Lacroix and his current or

former accountants, attorneys, agents or other representatives, or any corporations, partnerships,

d/b/a’s or other entities over which he exercises or has exercised any control.

4. “Paradis-Royer” shall refer to Defendant Sabrina Paradis-Royer and her current or

former accountants, attorneys, agents or other representatives, or any corporations, partnerships,

d/b/a’s or other entities over which she exercises or has exercised any control

2
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 5833

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

1. All Communications between You and any actual or potential purchaser of any

digital token or coin, any membership interest, or any asset sold or contemplated to be sold by

PlexCorps.

2. All Documents relating to any Communications between You and any actual or

potential purchase of any digital token or coin, any membership interest, or any asset sold or

contemplated to be sold by PlexCorps.

3. All Documents and Communications relating to PlexCorps’ use of proceeds or

contemplated use of proceeds from any sales of any digital token or coins, or of any membership

interest, or any asset, including but not limited to Documents and Communications relating to

development of PlexCorps’ products.

4. All addresses used to transfer any digital asset, including any virtual currency, or

other token or coin, used to purchase any digital token or coin sold by PlexCorps, including all

blockchain addresses from which that asset was sent or to which any portion of that asset may have

been subsequently transferred.

5. All Documents and Communications relating to any potential or planned use by

purchasers of any digital token or coin, or any membership interest or asset, sold by PlexCorps

during the Relevant Period, including but not limited Documents and Communications relating to

potential software or code being developed by PlexCorps related to any such digital token or coin,

or any membership interest or assets, or any uses of such digital token, coins, or membership

interests or assets.

3
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5834

6. All Documents and Communications relating to any rights given to or held by

purchasers of any digital token or coin, or any membership interest or assets, sold or contemplated

to be sold by PlexCorps.

7. All Documents and Communications relating to secondary trading of any digital

token or coin, or any membership interest or asset, sold or contemplated to be sold by PlexCorps,

including but not limited Documents and Communications with actual or potential purchasers or

with any exchange.

8. All Documents and Communications relating to potential or actual redemptions of

digital tokens or coins, or membership interests or assets, sold by PlexCorps, by any actual or

potential purchasers.

9. All Documents and Communications relating to potential or actual repurchases of

digital tokens or coins or membership interests or assets sold by PlexCorps, from any actual or

potential purchasers.

10. Documents sufficient to identify a list of all individuals, entities, or persons who

purchased any membership interest, token, or coin, offered by PlexCorps.

11. All Documents and Communications relating to any refunds of purchases of any

membership interest, token, or coin, offered by PlexCorps.

12. All public statements or releases issued by PlexCorps, including but not limited to

documents sufficient to identify the date and medium of dissemination of any such statements or

releases.

13. Documents sufficient to identify all bank and brokerage accounts, whether located

within or outside the U.S., and any blockchain addresses, wallets, or interests, over which you

exercise any control or have any beneficial interest.

4
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 5835
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 5836

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, :
:
Plaintiff, : 17 Civ. 7007 (CBA)
:
- against - : ECF Case
:
PLEXCORPS :
(a/k/a and d/b/a PLEXCOIN and SIDEPAY.CA), :
DOMINIC LACROIX and :
SABRINA PARADIS-ROYER, :
:
Defendants, :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF


DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT SABRINA PARADIS-ROYER

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and paragraph XI of the

Order to Show Cause dated December 1, 2017 (D.E. 10), Plaintiff Securities and Exchange

Commission requests that defendant Sabrina Paradis-Royer produce the following documents

within three days of the date of this request at the offices of the United States Securities and

Exchange Commission at 200 Vesey Street, Suite 400, New York, N.Y. 10281.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. If any responsive documents are withheld for any reason, including any applicable

privilege, please comply with Local Civil Rule 26.2, which is incorporated herein.

2. Each document requested is to be produced in its entirety, including all non-identical

copies and drafts, without abbreviation, expurgation, or redaction.

3. Each request shall be answered fully unless it is subject to a good faith objection, in

which event the reason for the objection shall be stated in detail. If an objection pertains to only a
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 5837

portion of a request, or a word, or phrase, or clause contained within a request, please state the

objection to that portion only, and respond to the remainder of the request.

4. If any document sought by this Request once was, but no longer is, within Paradis-

Royer’s possession, control or custody, please identify each such document and its present or last

known custodian, and state: (a) the reason why the document is not being produced; and (b) the

date of the loss, destruction, discarding, theft or other disposal of the document.

5. Unless otherwise indicated, this Request seeks documents from January 1, 2017

through the present (the “Relevant Period”).

6. This Request is ongoing in nature, and responsive documents should be produced as

they are found or created on an ongoing basis.

DEFINITIONS

1. The Uniform Definitions in Discovery Requests set forth in Local Civil Rule 26.3

apply to these Requests, and are incorporated herein, including, without limitation, the definition

of “communication,” “document,” and “concerning.”

2. “PlexCorps” or “PlexCoin” shall refer to the Defendant PlexCorps a/k/a and d/b/a

PlexCoin, as well as the entity known as Sidepay or Sidepay Ltd., and all its current and former

representatives, agents, employees, accountants, or attorneys.

3. “Lacroix” shall refer to Defendant Dominic Lacroix and his current or former

accountants, attorneys, agents or other representatives, or any corporations, partnerships, d/b/a’s or

other entities over which he exercises or has exercised any control.

4. “Paradis-Royer” or “You” shall refer to Defendant Sabrina Paradis-Royer and her

current or former accountants, attorneys, agents or other representatives, or any corporations,

partnerships, d/b/a’s or other entities over which she exercises or has exercised any control

2
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 5838

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

1. All Communications between You and any actual or potential purchaser of any

digital token or coin, any membership interest, or any asset sold or contemplated to be sold by

PlexCorps.

2. All Documents relating to any Communications between You and any actual or

potential purchase of any digital token or coin, any membership interest, or any asset sold or

contemplated to be sold by PlexCorps.

3. All Documents and Communications relating to PlexCorps’ use of proceeds or

contemplated use of proceeds from any sales of any digital token or coins, or of any membership

interest, or any asset, including but not limited to Documents and Communications relating to

development of PlexCorps’ products.

4. All addresses used to transfer any digital asset, including any virtual currency, or

other token or coin, used to purchase any digital token or coin sold by PlexCorps, including all

blockchain addresses from which that asset was sent or to which any portion of that asset may have

been subsequently transferred.

5. All Documents and Communications relating to any potential or planned use by

purchasers of any digital token or coin, or any membership interest or asset, sold by PlexCorps

during the Relevant Period, including but not limited Documents and Communications relating to

potential software or code being developed by PlexCorps related to any such digital token or coin,

or any membership interest or assets, or any uses of such digital token, coins, or membership

interests or assets.

3
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 5839

6. All Documents and Communications relating to any rights given to or held by

purchasers of any digital token or coin, or any membership interest or assets, sold or contemplated

to be sold by PlexCorps.

7. All Documents and Communications relating to secondary trading of any digital

token or coin, or any membership interest or asset, sold or contemplated to be sold by PlexCorps,

including but not limited Documents and Communications with actual or potential purchasers or

with any exchange.

8. All Documents and Communications relating to potential or actual redemptions of

digital tokens or coins, or membership interests or assets, sold by PlexCorps, by any actual or

potential purchasers.

9. All Documents and Communications relating to potential or actual repurchases of

digital tokens or coins or membership interests or assets sold by PlexCorps, from any actual or

potential purchasers.

10. Documents sufficient to identify a list of all individuals, entities, or persons who

purchased any membership interest, token, or coin, offered by PlexCorps.

11. All Documents and Communications relating to any refunds of purchases of any

membership interest, token, or coin, offered by PlexCorps.

12. All public statements or releases issued by PlexCorps, including but not limited to

documents sufficient to identify the date and medium of dissemination of any such statements or

releases.

13. Documents sufficient to identify all bank and brokerage accounts, whether located

within or outside the U.S., and any blockchain addresses, wallets, or interests, over which you

exercise any control or have any beneficial interest.

4
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-2 Filed 09/25/18 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 5840
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-3 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 5841

EXHIBIT C
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-3 Filed 09/25/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 5842

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, :
:
Plaintiff, : 17 Civ. 7007 (CBA)
:
- against - : ECF Case
:
PLEXCORPS :
(a/k/a and d/b/a PLEXCOIN and SIDEPAY.CA), :
DOMINIC LACROIX and :
SABRINA PARADIS-ROYER, :
:
Defendants, :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
TO DEFENDANTS DOMINIC LACROIX AND SABRINA PARADIS-ROYER

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as paragraph

XI of the Order to Show Cause dated December 1, 2017 (D.E. 10), plaintiff Securities and

Exchange Commission requests that defendants Dominic Lacroix and Sabrina Paradis-Royer

(“Defendants,” “you,” or “your”) respond to the following Requests for Admission in writing and

under oath within three (3) calendar days of the date of these Requests.

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. The Uniform Definitions in Discovery Requests set forth in Local Civil Rule 26.3

apply to these Requests, and are incorporated herein.

2. These Requests for Admission shall be deemed continuing, and supplemental

answers shall be required if you directly or indirectly obtain further information after the initial

response, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4): “If a matter is not admitted,

the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-3 Filed 09/25/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 5843

admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith

requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the

part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or

information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made

reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable

it to admit or deny.”

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(5): “The grounds for objecting to

a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a

genuine issue for trial.”

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

1. Admit that from approximately August 2017 through October 2017, you sold the

digital asset known as “PlexCoin” to purchasers at large, including purchasers at large who were

located in the United States.

2. Admit that from approximately August 2017 through October 2017, you sold

approximately 81 million PlexCoin to purchasers at large.

3. Admit that at no time between January of 2017 and the present did you have or

operate any office located in Singapore for you or any of your business endeavors, including but

not limited to the PlexCorps and/or PlexCoin projects.

4. Admit that at no time between January of 2017 and the present were any individuals

associated with the PlexCorps and/or PlexCoin projects located in Singapore.

5. Admit that at all times between January of 2017 and the present, you were

ultimately responsible for the project known as “PlexCorps” or “PlexCoin”

2
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-3 Filed 09/25/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 5844

6. Admit that at all times between January of 2017 and the present, you were

ultimately responsible for the sale of PlexCoin to members of the public.

7. Admit that between August and October of 2017, members of the public were able

to purchase PlexCoin using their credit cards, or the digital assets known as Bitcoin, Ether, and/or

Litecoin.

8. Admit that at no time have you filed or caused to be filed a registration statement

under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) with respect to the offer and sale

of PlexCoin on or around August through October 2017 with the Commission.

9. Admit that at no time has a registration statement filed under the Securities Act

been pending with the Commission with respect to the offer and sale of PlexCoin on or around

August through October 2017.

10. Admit that you did not consult with any attorney respecting the obligations to

register the offer and sale of PlexCoin under the Securities Act.

11. Admit that the number of individuals involved with the PlexCorps project and/or

with the sale of PlexCoin was approximately ten to fifteen, all of whom were located in Canada.

12. Admit that at no time did the PlexCorps and/or PlexCoin projects employ or

independently contract over forty-eight (48) individuals around the world.

13. Admit that you have used portions of the proceeds from the sale of PlexCoin for

personal expenditures, including paying personal bills and home decoration.

14. Admit that you authored the PlexCoin Whitepaper, the English translation of which

is appended hereto as Exhibit A.

3
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-3 Filed 09/25/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5845

15. Admit that, between June 2017 and the present, you controlled and caused

statements to be posted on the websites www.plexcorps.com , www.plexcoin.com, and

www.plexcoin.org (together the “PlexCoin Websites”).

16. Admit that the PlexCoin Websitee stated, starting on or around July 2017, that

PlexCoin purchasers will be “able to buy [their] PlexCoin at a discounted price and in priority, and

enjoy a return of 1,354% on your investment!” a version of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

17. Admit that you purchased ads on Facebook related to PlexCorps and/or PlexCoin,

including ads targeting individuals in the United States, as reflected in the records appended hereto

as Exhibit C.

18. Admit that you created documents and other electronically stored information (as

those terms are defined in Rule 34(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) in connection

with you selling PlexCoin to United States purchasers after August 2, 2017.

19. Admit that you transferred or caused to be transferred certain funds raised in

connection with the sale of PlexCoin to personal bank accounts, including but not limited to

accounts in the name of Sabrina Paradis-Royer, including but not limited to by converting certain

digital assets such as Ether, Bitcoin, and Litecoin into fiat currencies such as Canadian Dollars.

20. Admit that at no time between January 2017 and the present did PlexCorps or any

of your business ventures have any contact or agreement with Visa with respect to the offering of a

“PlexCard.”

21. Admit that during the time of the offer and sale of PlexCoin to the public you were

aware of an order by the Quebec Financial Markets Tribunal prohibiting you from engaging in the

sale of PlexCoin.

4
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-4 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 5846

EXHIBIT D
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-4 Filed 09/25/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 5847

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, :
:
Plaintiff, : 17 Civ. 7007 (CBA)
:
- against - : ECF Case
:
PLEXCORPS :
(a/k/a and d/b/a PLEXCOIN and SIDEPAY.CA), :
DOMINIC LACROIX and :
SABRINA PARADIS-ROYER, :
:
Defendants, :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and paragraph XI of the

Order to Show Cause dated December 1, 2017 (D.E. 10), Plaintiff Securities and Exchange

Commission requests that Defendants Dominic Lacroix and Sabrina Paradis-Royer respond to the

following Interrogatories within three (3) days from the date of these Interrogatories.

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

A. The definitions and rules of construction set forth in Local Civil Rule 26.3 of the

Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New

York (“Local Rules”) are incorporated by reference into these Interrogatories as if fully set forth

herein.

B. “PlexCoin” refers to the digital coin offered and sold by Defendants in 2017, as

well as any other entities, projects, and business affiliated with the PlexCoin digital coin, including

but not limited to PlexCorps, DL Innov, Gestio, Inc., Sidepay.ca, and Sidepay Ltd., and all of the
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-4 Filed 09/25/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 5848

officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of any such

other entities or businesses.

C. “Lacroix” shall mean Dominic Lacroix and any person or entity acting on his

behalf.

D. “Paradis-Royer” shall mean Sabrina Paradis-Royer and any person or entity acting

on her behalf.

E. “Sidepay” shall mean any entity, business, or project doing business under the

name Sidepay, including but not limited to PlexCorps, PlexCoin, Sidepay.ca and Sidepay Ltd., as

well as any entities in which Sidepay has or has had a controlling interest, any subsidiaries,

predecessors, successors or affiliated entities and any present of former directors, officers,

shareholders, general partners, limited partners, principals, employees, agents, attorneys,

consultants, representatives and independent contractors of the foregoing entities, and all aliases,

code names, trade or business names used by the foregoing.

F. “Defendants” shall mean and refer to Lacroix, Paradis-Royer, PlexCoin, and

Sidepay.

G. These Interrogatories are continuing and, to the extent that Defendants’ answers

may be enlarged, diminished or otherwise modified by information acquired by any of them

subsequent to the service of their response hereto, Defendants should promptly serve supplemental

responses reflecting all subsequently acquired information.

H. If any of these Interrogatories cannot be answered in full, answer to the extent

possible, specifying the reason for your inability to answer the remainder and stating any

information, knowledge or belief you have concerning the unanswered portion.

I. Assertions of any claim of privilege shall be governed by Local Rule 26.2.

2
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-4 Filed 09/25/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 5849

J. Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period for each Interrogatory shall be

January 1, 2017 through the present.

INTERROGATORIES

1. Identify all information Defendants collected with respect to any actual or potential

purchaser of PlexCoin, including, but not limited to, through the entity known as Stripe, through

any of Defendants’ websites, or through any payment processing or collecting service such as

Kraken, PayPal, or Wave, for any actual or potential purchaser whose billing address was in the

United States.

2. Identify the total number of all PlexCoin purchasers and the total amounts of such

purchases.

3. Identify all accounts used by Defendants in connection with the PlexCoin initial

coin offering, including, but not limited to, bank accounts, digital asset exchange accounts,

blockchain accounts, payment services accounts, domain hosting or registration accounts, and

online services accounts.

4. Identify all of Defendants’ employees or agents, their duties, and the physical

location of their assignments.

5. Identify all payments made to Facebook, Inc., with respect to advertisement for

PlexCoin, and all the terms, conditions, and scope of any such advertisement purchases, including

but not limited to all advertising contracts or agreements with Facebook, Inc.

6. Identify all vendors, including but not limited to web-hosting services, advertising

services, phone services, payment services, and payment collection services, used by Defendants

in connection with PlexCoin.

7. Identify all statements by you to any potential or actual purchaser of PlexCoin.

3
Case 1:17-cv-07007-CBA-RML Document 91-4 Filed 09/25/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5850