OrionX partners accused of fraud take offense and denounce threats to sell their shares at a "vil price"

OrionX partners accused of fraud take offense and denounce threats to sell their shares at a " vil price" The founders of OrionX, Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz, filed a lawsuit against the current administration of the platform for fraud. They accuse the CEO, Joel Vainstein, of threatening them with criminal charges to force them to sell their shares. The company responded that the departure of shareholders "was evaluated in the context of preventive measures to promptly address a situation that could affect the interests of clients and investors." Last week, the cryptocurrency house partners, Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz, filed a criminal complaint with the 4th Guarantee Court of Santiago for the alleged crimes of fraud, misappropriation, breach of trust, and computer fraud against Rodrigo Caravantes, the former head of operations of the company, and against all those responsible. According to Zibert and Díaz, there is concrete evidence linking Caravantes to two "frauds" totaling $59 million, executed through his extensive IT and banking access in OrionX, which were omitted by the current administration in their complaints and audits. OrionX is a digital asset platform with a Latin American reach, claiming to have processed over US$2 billion in transactions over more than eight years of operation, and having registered over 140,000 users. Last September 3rd, the firm informed its clients of the closure of their operations and communicated that the plan for closing and restoring assets to investors was reported to the authority. Subsequently, the company led by its CEO Joel Vainstein, who assumed the position on January 15, 2025, filed a lawsuit against Zibert and Díaz, accusing them of carrying out a series of operations that involved diverting assets between 2018 and 2021 to accounts in other platforms. According to the writing, all these operations involved patrimonial damage amounting to almost US$7 million, basing the accusations on a forensic audit conducted by Deloitte. In response, Zibert and Díaz -advised by lawyer Pablo Gómez Edwards- filed a lawsuit in which they denounce not only the opacity in the internal investigation but also the pressure from Vainstein to sell their company shares. "Parallel to this biased investigation process by the company's administration, the parties suffered repeated pressure from the group controlling the administration to give up their shares at a vil price in the company, under the threat of taking legal action against them if they did not yield to such pressures," the lawsuit stated. The criminal action remains under reserve, as it has not yet been provisioned by the 4th Guarantee Court of Santiago. "The values that Vainstein and his lawyers from the Albagli Zaliasnik Firm wanted to impose on us at all costs were vile. The binding offer from Caymari SAS (an Ecuadorian company linked to Carlos Egas, one of the owners of Banco Pichincha with whom Joel Vainstein was negotiating), valued the company at US$24 million, so Zibert's shares would be worth USD 2.98 million ($2.905 million) and Díaz's shares would be worth USD 3.19 million ($3.113 million). Together they would be US$6.16 million ($6.018 million), in contrast to the US$1.5 million that Vainstein wanted to impose on us," he added. "In other words, we were constantly pressured, in this first 'offer', to give up our shares at 24.35% of their real value, under threat of bringing criminal charges against us," they denounced. On June 19, 2026, the CMF rejected the request for registration and authorization of Orionx SpA through Official Letter No. 104,672, within the framework of Law No. 21.521 (Fintech) and NCG No. 502. "A ridiculous offer" Subsequently, according to the lawsuit, the CEO of OrionX, Joel Vainstein, exerted continuous pressure on the founders Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz to force them to sell their shares. According to the lawsuit, in a proposal called "agreement terms," Vainstein demanded the total cession of their shares, the renunciation of their credits, the delivery of credentials and equipment, and the signing of a final settlement in all areas: labor, civil, criminal, and administrative. In return, the company offered a total of US$600,000 (a cash payment plus a deferred balance conditioned on the CEO's success) and the commitment to withdraw all legal actions against them to close the criminal proceedings. This amount represented only 9.74% of the real value of their shares according to the valuation of Caymari SAS, indicates. "We were constantly pressured, in this first offer, to give up our shares at 24.35% of their real value, under threat of bringing criminal charges against us," they denounced. Subsequently, on July 29, 2026, Vainstein's lawyers sent a final, even more intimidating proposal, reducing the payment to US$40,000 for each founder (US$80,000 in total) in exchange for dismissing legal actions, which was equivalent to 1.29% of the real value of their shares. "This last intimidating offer is for 1.29% of the value of our shares. A ridiculous offer under threat," they denounced. "None of these offers to buy our shares were accepted by the undersigned, both because they were made under threat and pressure to incriminate us for the discrepancy (a completely false matter used as pretext to pressure us), and because they were vile offers, at a price much lower than the value of our shares in the company," they concluded. Discharge From OrionX, they stated that "we have no record of this action and when we have it, we will evaluate the steps to follow, maintaining the line that has guided the company since the first day: clarify the facts, cooperate with the investigation, and seek the recovery of assets for the benefit of their clients and creditors." They also explained that "they reserve the right to exercise the actions corresponding to safeguard their interests." Regarding the departure of shareholders, they added that "this was evaluated in the context of preventive measures to promptly address a situation that could affect the interests of clients and investors. In this case, we conducted an external audit —commissioned to a consultancy of recognized prestige in the market— with the objective of clarifying the facts and having verifiable background."