Beware of Options Rider – Review

To one count of wire fraud, Haojia Miao has entered a guilty plea.

Miao, also known as Haljia Miao and Stan Miao, is a Ponzi scheme operated by Kristijan Krstic. In October 2020, police in California detained him.

Miao admits in count one of his indictment that he

Option Giants, Options Rider, Banc de Options, Aeon Options, Banking Option, Instant Options, Fast Options, Elite Options, and others were among the fraudulent investment platforms that they helped develop, sell, advertise, and coordinate.

The fake investment platforms from China, Australia, the Philippines, and Serbia were developed, advertised, sold, and organized by Miao and others.

By his plea deal, Miao faces

Up to 20 years behind bars, a maximum $250,000 fine, or double what he gained or what his victims lost, up to three years of supervised release, compensation to his victims, and property confiscation are all possible sentences.

Prosecutors will suggest Miao get a sentence of no more than 84 months under the terms of the plea deal (7 years).

The plea deal for Miao was submitted on December 8th. The arrangement has not yet received court approval.

Kristijan Krstic, the head of Miao, is charged with running a $70+ million Ponzi scheme.

Krstic was supposed to be returned to the United States. Krstic was instead freed by Serbian authorities in July, and he immediately left.

Nobody knows where Krstic is right now. He and the other accused will go on trial in March 2019.

9th February 2022 update Miao’s admission of guilt has been accepted. His sentencing is presently set on May 26, 2022.

Updated on August 23, 2022. The only thing I know about Miao’s sentence is that it is still “planned” for after May 26th.

On August 17, Miao requested a modification to his bail terms. The curfew was in force, and Miao wanted it lifted.

The defendant will be able to use the freedom to travel around the State of California for business or other activities that were previously granted to him by the Court when the curfew restriction is lifted.

However, if the offender has to go outside of the state, probation must still provide its clearance.

A Magistrate Judge was consulted on Miao’s motion; on August 18, the judge rejected the request.

In this case, the previous magistrate court determined that the curfew was necessary to reasonably assure the defendant’s attendance as needed and the community’s or another person’s safety. It is noteworthy that the defendant does not mention any specific hardship brought on by the curfew.

And as the defendant’s motion reveals, the defendant has already pled guilty and is awaiting punishment.

I’ll keep an eye on the court docket for developments.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *