In recent days, the Brazilian community has been closely following a new episode involving the suspected financial pyramid scheme linked to Conta Rico.
The company is run by Marlon Klein, who is accused of leading a “tokenized pyramid scheme.” Klein, who was present at meetings of Drex’s pilot project, Real Digital, denies the accusations and claims his innocence.
Startup default?
Through his lawyer, Fernando Lopes, the CEO of Conta Rico alleged that the amount of R$1.5 million was invested in a startup that did not fulfill its commitments. Klein's defense claims that the executive is not responsible for the project's failures, since the investment was made in a company not regulated by Brazilian authorities.
In this way, Klein transferred responsibility for the financial crisis to the startup in question, whose lack of regulation would have contributed to the failure of the investment.
What did the CEO of Conta Rico say?
The BeInCrypto report spoke with Marlon Klein, CEO of Conta Rico, and his lawyer, Fernando Lopes, from Zorzo Advogados, as well as sources linked to the case, who preferred not to be identified.
Meanwhile, victims continue to report the platform's lack of service on the Reclame Aqui website. So far, there have been almost 50 complaints from customers waiting for their deposits to be returned. When asked how a company that “sells” itself as a regulated tokenizer deposits R$1.5 million to a “bank” that doesn’t even have a license from the Central Bank to operate as such, the company responded:
Startups sell services that aren't even available yet, such as Drex-related products, which are still being tested. As was the case, said Lopes. In other words, the company sold a service, which, in practice, did not even have authorization to operate. But it sells itself as a legal financial institution.
The lawyer also highlighted that, if at the time the contract between Web Dev and IHold was signed he had been the company's legal representative, he would not have allowed the formalization of this agreement.
Return of resources in April 2025
In this case, Marlon accuses WE DEV GROUP LTDA and IHOLD BANK CORRESPONDENTE BANCARIO LTDA of not transferring the funds to Rico as agreed in the contract. And therefore, failed to honor the commitments to its clients.
Rico's defense revealed that Web Dev and Ihold Bank will return the amount of R$1.5 million in April of next year.
We are within the deadline to challenge this. We will say that the services were not provided, and that the amount must be returned immediately, so that the tokens can be repurchased by dissatisfied customers, thus resolving all these issues. We will request expert evidence regarding the allegation of provision of services, given the complex technological nature, adds the lawyer.
How it all began
Suspicions about Conta Rico being a supposed financial pyramid scheme began in August 2024. At the time, Marlon Klein suspended withdrawals, leaving many customers without receiving the promised profits.
Complaints began to appear on Reclame Aqui, as reported by the LiveCoins website. Among the accusations, promises of returns of up to 3% per month caught people's attention. Something that, in the view of Klein's own legal representative, is financially unfeasible.
After the accusation of the alleged pyramid scheme, the repercussions spread across social media and WhatsApp groups. Marlon attended meetings of regulators and companies involved, such as the Drex pilot. The executive circulated freely among authorities and major players in the country's financial industry.
One of the people Marlon consulted revealed to us that, about two weeks ago, the CEO of Conta Rico wanted more technical details on how to create a token. Something unusual for someone who runs a tokenization company and also won a National Treasury hackathon, according to the source, who preferred to remain anonymous.
“Now he says he was scammed and that he was selling tokens. All of this is blatant and he tries to pass himself off as a victim, says the source’s message.”
Defendants do not speak out
We contacted representatives from Web Dev and Ihold Bank, but no one responded to the report. However, there are images in the process that prove that representatives from Web Dev responded that when Rico “needed some amount, it would only be necessary to schedule it in advance and make withdrawals of the investment”.
Legal explanations about the operation of the Rico Account
According to Fernando, Marlon is innocent of the accusation of committing crimes, and the “contract with the clients itself proves this”. This is because it is clearly a token purchase and sale contract, with the possibility of staking, with the income offered being paid in the token itself, a perfectly legal and common practice in the tokenization market.
An example of a company that adopts this practice of offering returns on its own token is compound finance, a decentralized finance protocol. Although Conta Rico is not an automated market maker, like Compound, the case serves as an example to demonstrate the familiarity of users of the tokenization market, which is a niche, with this practice, he says.
Rico Account wants to buy back tokens and honor commitments
Although the contract does not contain an obligation to repurchase the tokens, the usual practice of repurchasing may generate this obligation, in accordance with the principle of good faith, explains Marlon's lawyer.
Therefore, the defense's guidance is to buy back the tokens from all customers who may not have understood the exact scope of the contractual terms. Regarding the credibility of the company we dev, it presents itself as a large economic group, capable of offering complex services, according to the service provision contract, explains Lopes.
Conta Rico requested the termination of the contract and immediate return of the funds.
Earlier, in an interview with the BlockNews website, Klein reported raising R$4 million, for which he delivered Rico tokens to investors. He reportedly bought back R$2 million and “there are now 168 clients who have requested the buyback, totaling a commitment of R$678 thousand”.
Contract for the provision of services for use and “uóleti”
The report had access to the process, currently being processed in the 4th court of Itajaí, no. 5029197-30.2024.8.24.0033 and found some basic terms written incorrectly.
In this case, the English word for wallet was written and registered as UÓLETI. When asked about such a gross error, the lawyer explained that he had only recently been hired and would never approve the signing of a contract like that.
We only became aware of this contract when the collection action was filed. It is a service provision contract, drawn up by the company being sued. They probably confused Wallet with UÓLETI, which is an indication that they were not prepared to provide the complex services offered.
source: Conta Rico
In another error of values in the same document, what is written in full does not correspond to the value.
source: Conta Rico
And finally, Lopes warns other businesspeople not to make the same mistake.
Don’t start your business before hiring a specialized firm. The rules applicable to the crypto market are highly complex and can only be understood by specialists.
The article Conta Rico: accused of pyramid scheme, CEO blames suppliers and pleads not guilty was first seen on BeInCrypto Brasil.