New York Seeks $1.37bn From NovaTech as 11,000 Victims Await Any Payout

New York Attorney General Letitia James has asked a state court to order cryptocurrency investment firm NovaTech, its founders Cynthia and Eddy Petion, and affiliated companies to pay $1,367,023,585, including interest. The 22 October filing follows a default ruling on liability issued in 2025.

The request moves the state's case for victims forward, but it is a demand rather than a judgment. According to CryptoSlate, nothing in the filing shows that the sum has been awarded, collected or paid out to anyone.

From liability ruling to a damages figure

The current filing builds on a default order dated 4 August 2025. That order found the defendants liable and directed them to pay investor damages and disgorgement, the legal remedy that requires wrongdoers to give up money obtained through fraud.

The court did not fix the amounts at the time. Instead, it left the figures to be settled through written submissions, which is the stage the attorney general's office has now reached.

A default ruling typically arises when defendants fail to respond to or participate properly in litigation. It establishes liability without a full trial on the merits, but the claimant must still justify the size of any monetary award.

How the state reached $1.37bn

The state's disgorgement calculation begins with roughly $1.161bn in identified cryptocurrency deposits made by investors. From that, it subtracts about $26m that was sent to the trading platform.

The result is a principal figure of $1,134,549,691. The office then adds $232,473,894 in interest, producing the total of just over $1.367bn.

A central element of the state's argument concerns money that flowed back out to participants. The attorney general's office contends that payments to investors and promoters were funded by deposits from other investors, the defining feature of a Ponzi-style arrangement. On that basis, it argues that such withdrawals should not be deducted from the amount NovaTech must surrender.

That position matters for the arithmetic. If withdrawals were netted off, the disgorgement figure would shrink. By treating those payouts as recycled victim money rather than genuine returns, the state seeks to keep the full deposit base as the starting point.

Gaps in the records

The filing acknowledges significant limits on what the available data can show. Most deposit usernames cannot be reliably linked to real individuals without a court-ordered accounting, which the defendants have not supplied.

Wallet withdrawal records present a similar problem. Most do not name the recipient, which restricts how far those records can be used to establish what any individual investor lost.

This is a familiar difficulty in crypto fraud cases. Blockchain transactions are publicly traceable, but wallet addresses and platform usernames are not inherently tied to identities. Without cooperation from the operators, or internal records obtained through discovery, reconstructing individual losses can be slow and incomplete.

The practical consequence is that even a large aggregate figure does not translate easily into a list of who is owed what. Any eventual distribution would likely depend on resolving those identification questions.

Who was targeted

According to the state's lawyers, upwards of 11,000 residents of New York collectively lost tens of millions of dollars through NovaTech and a related operation known as AWS Mining.

According to the state, the schemes focused on immigrant and religious communities, with Haitian New Yorkers particularly affected. Recruitment allegedly took place through prayer groups, social media and WhatsApp.

The reported pattern reflects what regulators often describe as affinity fraud, in which promoters exploit trust within close-knit communities. Such schemes can spread quickly through personal networks and may go unreported for long periods, as victims are reluctant to accuse people they know or worship alongside.

The gap between the statewide loss estimate of tens of millions of dollars and the $1.37bn total reflects the different scope of each figure. The disgorgement calculation is based on the full pool of identified investor deposits, while the loss estimate relates specifically to New York residents.

Promoter settlements and their terms

Alongside the main damages request, the 22 October announcement listed nearly $6m in obligations owed by four promoters for the benefit of victims: Frantz Ciceron, James Corbett, Ricardo Roy Sr. and Martin Zizi.

The agreements were reached at different points. According to the filing, Roy's assurance dates back to June 2024, Zizi's stipulation is dated 25 November 2025, and Corbett's is dated 20 October 2026. Ciceron's was dated 14 May and filed on 19 May 2026.

Ciceron's settlement is the most detailed of those described. The announcement puts his total obligation at $2m. That comprises $1.35m of further cash relief plus a handover to New York of the rights he and his entities hold to present and future payouts from the EminiFX receivership, a separate proceeding.

The cash element is structured as follows:

• $850,000 due within 30 days of court execution
• Four instalments of $125,000, each due on 31 December from 2026 to 2029

Both Ciceron and Kings Multi Services Agency LLC settled without admitting or denying what the complaint alleged. That formula is common in enforcement settlements, allowing defendants to resolve claims without a formal admission that could be used against them elsewhere.

The promoter agreements are modest relative to the headline figure, but they may prove more tangible. Negotiated settlements with identifiable individuals, backed by payment schedules, are often easier to collect than large judgments against companies whose founders have not participated in proceedings.

Risks and open questions

The most immediate caveat is that the $1.37bn figure remains a request. The court must still decide whether to accept the state's methodology, including its argument against deducting withdrawals.

Even if the court grants the full amount, collection is a separate challenge. A judgment's value to victims depends on whether assets can be located and recovered, and the defendants' failure to provide a court-ordered accounting suggests limited cooperation so far.

The record-keeping problems also raise questions about how any funds would be allocated. Without reliable links between usernames, wallets and real people, establishing individual claims may require further work.

Neither the announcement nor Ciceron's payment schedule gives a completed total for victim payouts or a date for individual distributions. For the more than 11,000 New Yorkers the state says were harmed, that leaves the timing of any compensation uncertain.

What to watch next

The next step is the court's ruling on the damages and disgorgement amounts sought in the written submissions. Its treatment of the withdrawal question will shape the final figure.

Observers will also watch whether the defendants eventually produce the accounting the court ordered, which could help match deposits to individual investors.

On the promoter side, the first significant test is Ciceron's $850,000 payment, due within 30 days of court execution, followed by annual instalments through 2029. Any recoveries from the EminiFX receivership rights transferred to New York would add to the pool available for victims.

Until a distribution plan is announced, the case illustrates a recurring pattern in crypto enforcement: liability can be established relatively quickly, while returning money to those who lost it takes considerably longer.