New York Seeks $1.3 Billion From NovaTech Founders In Crypto Fraud Case

TL;DR: New York’s attorney general is seeking $1.3 billion in monetary relief in the NovaTech case and has announced nearly $6 million in promoter settlements. The larger sum is a request to the court, not money recovered for investors.

New York’s effort to recover losses from the NovaTech cryptocurrency scheme has reached a new stage, with Attorney General Letitia James asking a court to impose roughly $1.3 billion in damages and disgorgement.

The October 22 announcement also disclosed nearly $6 million in settlements with four promoters. Those are separate from the much larger claim involving founders Cynthia and Eddy Petion. The announcement does not establish that either amount has already reached victims.

The case concerns investment packages sold through NovaTech and an earlier business, AWS Mining. According to the attorney general, the schemes targeted Haitian and other immigrant communities through religious networks, social media and messaging groups.

An affirmation filed on October 22 supports the request for monetary relief. It records that New York sued in June 2024 and that the defaulting defendants did not respond or appear. The court entered a default order and judgment on August 4, 2025.

The latest motion asks the court to determine the financial consequences. It should not be confused with a new criminal conviction, a completed recovery or a guarantee that a judgment can be collected. Those distinctions are particularly important when the sums sought are much larger than the settlements announced alongside them.

The promoter figures listed by the attorney general are $2.9 million from Martin Zizi, $2.05 million from Frantz Ciceron, $750,000 from James Corbett and $275,861 from Ricardo Roy Sr. All four face permanent bans from the securities, commodities and cryptocurrency industries.

The timing also needs care: the Zizi consent papers were filed in November 2025. This week’s announcement brings the settlement figures together; it does not mean every agreement was signed this week.

The original mining operation offered high returns and recruiting bonuses, according to the court affirmation. NovaTech later marketed cryptocurrency trading packages. The cryptocurrency label described how investors supplied money, but the underlying issue was what operators actually did with it.

That is a useful distinction for readers assessing similar pitches. An account balance on a website does not establish that assets exist, that trades occurred or that withdrawals can be honored. Nor does a familiar community connection answer questions about custody and control of funds.

For affected investors, the next substantive development will be the court’s decision on monetary relief and any subsequent recovery process. The announced settlements and the requested award address different defendants and different steps in that process; combining them into a headline recovery figure would overstate what has happened.

Related reading: How crypto exchanges work.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.