Exposing the Truth: My Experience with Class Action Recovery Services: Legit or Fraudulent?

My name is Danny de Hek, widely recognized as The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger. I am a Cult Survivor, Public Speaker, and investigative satirist committed to exposing scams, sharing my story of resilience, and empowering others to stand against exploitation.
My experiences of overcoming the trauma inflicted by high-control religious environments and financial predators drive my mission to educate and protect others
For years, I’ve spent countless hours uncovering Ponzi schemes and helping victims understand the true nature of these scams. My goal has always been to empower people, helping them avoid losing their hard-earned money. However, my recent experience with an individual I’ll call “Craig” and his associate “Ben,” representing companies based in Austria and elsewhere, opened my eyes to a concerning aspect of the recovery services industry. This is my account, my observations, and my opinion, shared to provide cautionary insight to others.

Attending the Global Financial Crime Summit 2024
In November 2024, I attended the Global Financial Crime Summit at the InterContinental Sydney, a premier gathering of over 150 professionals from law enforcement, financial crime prevention, and cybersecurity. This prestigious event aimed to address the escalating threat of financial fraud, a critical issue in Australia, where reported scam losses exceeded $6 billion since 2022. The summit offered a vital platform for collaboration and the exchange of innovative ideas.

Some of the featured speakers included:

Ken Gamble, Executive Chairman, IFW Global
Dr. Mohamed Chawki, Associate Professor of Cybercrime
Erin West, Deputy District Attorney, REACT Task Force, USA
Chris Parrish, Resident Agent, U.S. Secret Service
Amit Levin, Global CTG & AML Advisor, Binance
The summit covered a range of topics, from real-world case studies and data-driven solutions to cross-border collaboration and strategies for building stronger defenses against financial crimes. I left the first day inspired by the shared commitment to tackling scams and cybercrime.

On the evening of the first day, I arranged to record a podcast with Craig, someone I had connected with through my work exposing scams. This was the second time I had met Craig face-to-face, and I saw it as an opportunity to get to know him better while discussing the insights shared at the summit.

The PODCAST That Raised Red Flags
Craig and I recorded the podcast at the Global Financial Crime Summit 2024 venue. Our discussion focused on the event itself—highlighting the insightful sessions, the innovative strategies shared by experts, and the critical importance of global collaboration in combating financial crime. Craig also brought along a cameraman to document the podcast, which turned out to be an effective way to capture and share the experience.

After the podcast, Craig posted photos and videos on social media, including images of himself standing at a podium with the summit’s signage prominently displayed in the background. To someone unfamiliar with the situation, these posts might give the impression that Craig was closely affiliated with the summit or had an official role as a delegate or speaker. In reality, Craig’s only connection to the event was being invited to record the podcast in the venue.

While the posts didn’t explicitly claim he was part of the summit, in my opinion, the way they were presented could mislead people into believing Craig was more involved than he actually was. At first, I thought little of it, assuming Craig was simply proud of being associated with such an important event. However, things began to shift after the podcast aired.

A week after I returned home, I started receiving emails from people who had seen the podcast. Many of these messages were supportive, but a significant number raised serious concerns about Craig. Several individuals claimed he was a scammer, warning me to be cautious. Others shared documents that painted a troubling picture of his professional activities.

These emails stopped me in my tracks. Until then, I had seen Craig as a fellow advocate for scam victims—someone committed to helping those who had been defrauded. But the allegations and evidence I was receiving suggested a different story.

The documents I received included:

Contracts and agreements related to recovery services that raised questions about transparency and fairness.
Complaints from individuals who claimed they had paid fees upfront but had seen no progress or results.
Information suggesting that Craig’s professional partner, Ben, and their organization were more focused on collecting fees than on delivering real outcomes.
What had started as an impromptu podcast to highlight the value of the summit quickly backfired on Craig. Instead of boosting his credibility, it prompted people to come forward with concerns and evidence that cast doubt on his intentions.

Returning Home: The Proposal That Changed Everything
Shortly after I returned to New Zealand, Craig reached out with a proposal that changed my perspective entirely. He explained that he had been discussing with Ben, his professional partner at their organisation, the idea of pursuing a recovery initiative for victims of Ponzi schemes, particularly HyperVerse. They wanted me to direct victims to their services and, in return, offered to pay me a flat-rate fee. Craig framed this as a way to “put me on the payroll” for all the work I had done exposing scams, emphasising that I could help victims while earning compensation for my efforts.

At first, this seemed like a reasonable acknowledgment of the value of my work. But as I thought about it more, I began to feel deeply uncomfortable. HyperVerse victims had already lost so much—how could I, in good conscience, direct them to a service charging a 15% recovery fee (9% upfront) without clear evidence of success? The idea that I might lend credibility to their operation by associating my name with it made me deeply uneasy.

HyperVerse: A Web of Scams
HyperVerse stands out as one of the most intricate and deceptive Ponzi schemes I’ve investigated. It operates within the HyperTech Group, a labyrinthine network of entities meticulously designed to obscure accountability. When Craig and Ben approached me about pursuing a class action lawsuit against HyperVerse, their initial approach left me stunned. They seemed to view the scam as a singular, tangible entity, suggesting they could simply identify the responsible company, track down the funds, and recover money for the victims.

This perspective grossly underestimated the convoluted nature of HyperVerse’s operations. To help them grasp the scale and sophistication of what they were dealing with, I shared a detailed historical timeline of the HyperTech Group. This timeline demonstrated how HyperVerse was merely the latest iteration in a long line of schemes, each designed to obscure accountability and deceive regulators.

HYPERTECH GROUP HISTORICAL TIMELINE:

2014: The saga began with the founding of Bitcoin Group in Melbourne, Australia, by Sam Lee, Allan Guo, and Ryan Xu.
2015: Ryan Xu launched Collinstar Capital, which later became a major shareholder in Blockchain Global, the rebranded Bitcoin Group.
2016-2018: Blockchain Global expanded its operations, acquiring Digital X’s bitcoin liquidity desk, launching new tokens like HCash and Molecular Future (MOF), and failing to complete a merger with US-based BCTS.
2018-2022: A pattern of rebranding emerged with the launch of HyperCapital, followed by HyperFund, HyperVerse, and finally HyperNation, each promising extraordinary returns but collapsing under scrutiny, leaving thousands of victims defrauded and confused.
This timeline illustrated how Hyperverse and its predecessors were deliberately structured to operate as a hydra—cutting off one head only resulted in another growing back. No singular entity existed that could be easily targeted for legal action, and each collapse left behind a tangled web of victims, worthless tokens, and elusive founders.

Despite this, Craig and Ben were undeterred. They appeared keen to press forward with plans for a class action lawsuit, urging me to leverage my platform to attract HyperVerse victims. This raised another significant red flag for me: their eagerness to proceed, even after being presented with evidence of HyperVerse’s complexity, suggested they were more focused on creating the appearance of action—marketing their services as a solution—than on addressing the root challenges of pursuing justice for the victims.

The reality of scams like HyperVerse is that they are not centralised operations with a straightforward chain of command. Instead, they are sprawling networks of shell companies, untraceable transactions, and key players who vanish into thin air. Even regulators and seasoned investigators have struggled to untangle the mess left behind by the HyperTech Group.

For me, this realisation cemented the fact that Craig and Ben’s approach lacked the rigor and depth required to tackle such a formidable opponent. It also highlighted how recovery services can exploit victims’ hope, offering promises that often fail to materialise. While they continued to promote their plans, I could not, in good conscience, support or recommend their services to the victims of HyperVerse or any other scam.

Investigating the Correspondence
As I delved deeper into my interactions with Craig and Ben, another unsettling pattern began to emerge. While I cannot confirm this, my gut instinct told me that the email correspondence I received from both individuals was strikingly similar—so much so that it raised the possibility that Craig and Ben could, in fact, be the same person.

To explore this theory, I asked ChatGPT to scrutinize the emails for linguistic similarities. The AI analysis revealed notable overlaps in writing style, tone, and phrasing. While this is not conclusive evidence, it added to my suspicions. Another red flag was the timeline of Craig’s communications with Ben. Craig often claimed he had just spoken to Ben for updates or decisions, but given the time zones, this would mean Ben, allegedly based in Austria, was holding discussions at hours that seemed improbable.

Craig also provided a video titled “Vorsicht Falle 2DF Cashback Pyramid Scheme Report Featuring Ben (30th January 2021)” to prove Ben’s authenticity. However, the video had been removed from the internet, which Craig claimed was due to routine media practices. This struck me as odd, especially since he could not provide a credible explanation for why such a critical piece of evidence was no longer accessible.

Additionally, I investigated Ben’s digital presence. Ben had two LinkedIn accounts, one of which was established in 2019 but had only 25 followers and no activity. The profile picture was of poor quality, and overall, there was a conspicuous lack of a digital footprint for someone allegedly leading a prominent international organization. The only high-quality piece of content linked to Ben was the aforementioned video, which had mysteriously disappeared.

This discovery led me to question the authenticity of their partnership and whether Craig might be using “Ben” as a fabricated persona to bolster his credibility. While I cannot definitively prove this, the circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in their narratives make it a possibility worth considering. If true, this would represent a deeply troubling tactic designed to manipulate trust and create the illusion of a broader, international effort.

Allegations and Red Flags Surrounding Derek’s Involvement
During all my correspondence with Ben and Craig, they consistently insinuated and alleged that the source of my questions was a man named Derek. This, however, is not entirely accurate. While I did receive the initial correspondence from Derek, I began conducting my own due diligence, following up on leads from people who had dealt with Craig and Ben. Here’s how it all began:

Derek’s Initial Message to Me

Derek reached out, stating,
“Noticed you on an interview with one of the biggest scammers in Australia. He masquerades as helping people, but all he is doing is collecting the 9% of their lost money as a fee. Ask him how many people he has recovered funds for in the last five years. If you are interested, I can hook you up with a long list of people he has scammed money out of. When they ask for a refund as per the agreement, there are so many reasons not to send it back to them that ‘it is just impossible at this time.’ This has been going on for years.”

This immediately piqued my interest. I responded,
“Okay, I’m all ears. I was under the understanding that if you paid a deposit, you could request it back at any time. Do you have a copy of a contract I could see?”

Derek’s Response

Derek replied promptly, attaching documents that were deeply concerning. He wrote:
“Many people have requested their deposit back, and no one has ever received it! Absolute Ponzi. I promoted them because of the money-back process. Now everyone is abusing me every time the scamming prick sends out an email telling everyone how great they are. I brought in millions in claims for them, thinking I was doing a good thing. He is a scamming prick, and I am trying really hard to be polite.”

This set the stage for further conversations. Over time, Derek shared additional documents, including contracts and spreadsheets detailing individuals who had paid Craig and requested refunds, often unsuccessfully.

My Voice Replies to Derek

As Derek continued sharing his frustrations, I replied via voice messages, explaining that I had already had conversations with Craig about how they handled victims of scams. Craig’s explanation of their process—taking 9% upfront and another 6% upon successful recovery—left me unclear and uneasy. Craig tended to talk in circles, which often made it hard to follow his reasoning.

Derek also provided a significant red flag:
“Please keep this confidential until I get the green light from a lady who wants her money back. I don’t think it will be a problem because she will definitely want the money back.”

Attached to this was a spreadsheet of others who had paid into the recovery service but had received little to no results.

Ben’s Threat of Legal Action

The situation escalated when Ben became aware of Derek’s cooperation with me. In a direct threat, Ben stated:
“I would like to point out that I have repeatedly been exposed to hostility from system operators over the last ten years. Nevertheless, we continue our work consistently. The claim that BE Conflict Management Inc. is inactive is demonstrably false – all ongoing proceedings are still in progress. The accusations made by Derek Miller or others are unfounded. Should this kind of discrediting continue, I will take legal action and publish the relevant counterevidence.”

This marked a turning point. Instead of viewing Craig and Ben as helpful advocates for scam victims, I began to see their actions in a different light. It became evident that Derek, who had once referred victims to Craig, was now being silenced because he started questioning their practices. This tactic raised a glaring red flag: were they trying to groom me into becoming their next referral source?

A Case Study in Red Flags: $80,000 Lost and $7,200 Paid for Nothing?
One case brought to my attention involved a woman who had lost $80,000 to an investment scam and subsequently paid $7,200 upfront to a recovery service in hopes of reclaiming her funds. This agreement, signed in 2019, outlined plans for legal action to recover the lost investment. However, as of today, no action appears to have been taken, and the funds remain unrecovered.

While I cannot categorically state that the company has not had successful cases in the past, I have asked for evidence of their track record. Their response has been that they are unable to disclose such information due to privacy concerns. This lack of transparency, combined with the following observations, has raised important questions about their practices.

First, the agreement includes a high upfront fee of AUD $7,200. While some legitimate recovery services do charge upfront, it is more common for fees to be based on successful recoveries. The document does offer a potential refund for “unsuccessful implementation,” but without a clear process or defined timeline, this assurance may be insufficient for clients seeking certainty.

The terms of the agreement are also ambiguous. For example, the “total fee” is listed as 15% of the recovered sum, but the calculation lacks clarity, and the relationship between this fee and the separate one-time service fee of 9% is not explicitly explained. Payments being routed through TransferWise to a third-party account further complicate accountability and raise concerns about standard business practices.

Another point of concern is the lack of verifiable company information. While a Vienna address and a generic email are provided, there is no detailed background or evidence of prior success publicly available. This, coupled with the absence of dispute resolution clauses or legal recourse mechanisms in the agreement, leaves potential clients with little to fall back on if issues arise.

This case underscores the importance of exercising caution when engaging with fund recovery services. While it’s possible the company has had successes, the lack of transparency and clarity in this instance highlights the need for individuals to thoroughly research and seek professional advice before proceeding with any recovery efforts.

The End of a Misguided Partnership
Upon reflection, it became evident that any continued collaboration with Craig and Ben would compromise my principles and the integrity of my mission. My intention in working with them was always rooted in my commitment to helping victims of scams. However, as our interactions progressed, I began to feel increasingly uncomfortable with the lack of transparency, the high fees, and the absence of concrete results in their recovery services.

Throughout this process, I have been threatened with defamation claims and legal action should I share any of the information I’ve uncovered. These threats serve to silence those who dare to question or scrutinize their operations—a tactic I have encountered many times while exposing scams. The fact that they have refused to provide verifiable evidence of their success, citing privacy concerns, only further fueled my doubts.

I want to make it abundantly clear that this is my personal account and opinion, not a definitive accusation. My experience leads me to believe that victims of scams should not invest further resources into services that promise recovery without demonstrable results. I also question whether class action lawsuits truly benefit victims or whether they primarily serve those facilitating them.

To my subscribers and followers, my message is simple: you’ve already lost your money, and chasing false hope with additional fees will likely only deepen your losses. The only surefire winners in these situations appear to be lawyers and service providers who collect fees upfront.

This experience has taught me a valuable lesson. I encourage anyone who has been scammed to focus on rebuilding and moving forward. Don’t let the allure of recovery services prey on your hope. While some may genuinely try to help, always demand transparency, verifiable evidence of success, and clear contractual terms before committing to any agreement.

My journey with Craig and Ben has come to an end, and I hope my story serves as a cautionary tale. Stay informed, stay vigilant, and above all, protect yourself from becoming a victim again.

A Naked Zoom Meeting and Smack Talk Entrepreneur Decision Maker Connector Podcaster EducatorA Naked Zoom Meeting and Smack Talk
One thing I could never agree on with Craig was multilevel marketing (MLM). I’ve always viewed MLM as a scam—even the so-called “legitimate” ones. Craig, on the other hand, often tried to defend MLMs, even going so far as to suggest Amway had “good people” in it. He even offered to secure speaking engagements for me at MLM events but expressed concerns I might criticize the industry too harshly. To be honest, I would have—I firmly believe MLM is a predatory business model, designed to exploit both sellers and consumers.

In our conversations, Craig’s ties to MLM became increasingly clear. He once served as the director of a company involved in one of the very MLM scams he now claims to advocate against. It’s baffling to me that someone who was deeply involved in promoting such schemes could later position themselves as a champion for victims of those same scams.

A particularly funny moment came up when Craig and I were discussing the lengths I go to in order to disrupt scammers. I jokingly mentioned that during a Zoom meeting for another failed Ponzi scheme, I appeared nude to disrupt the proceedings. Public nudity isn’t allowed on platforms like YouTube, and my tactic was to get the meeting flagged and taken down. While my strategy worked, the video’s resolution was so low that nothing inappropriate was visible. I have the screenshot to prove it—it’s so pixelated, you can’t see a thing!

However, since our fallout, Craig has latched onto this story and exaggerated it. He’s been telling people there’s a video of me naked on Zoom and has even got his associate George spreading this rumor in WhatsApp groups. It’s all part of their smear campaign, which has now escalated to filing defamation complaints with YouTube. Amusingly, none of my videos are blocked in Austria, where Ben allegedly resides, but several are blocked in Australia, Craig’s home base.

Here’s an excerpt from one of George’s messages:

George:

Team, I have not been around for ages since Danny de Hek published defamatory videos of me. Well, Danny has gone too far now. In his recent video, he defamed Craig Wotton and his law firm. They took immediate action, and YouTube has removed the offending video.

Craig can be contacted at +61 *** *** 051. He is willing to help anyone else defamed by Danny with the goal of having Danny removed from YouTube. If anyone has a recording of the Zoom where Danny appeared naked, that recording could be used to bring criminal nuisance charges against Danny. Please feel free to contact Craig or myself so we can get Danny removed.

It’s laughable, really, but it shows the lengths to which Craig and his associates will go to discredit me.

Successful Class Action Lawsuits Against Ponzi Schemes
There are several notable examples of successful class action lawsuits that highlight how victims of Ponzi schemes do not need to pay any money upfront to recover their funds. In the case of Bernie Madoff’s $64.8 billion fraud, the court-appointed trustee recovered over $14 billion through settlements and clawback lawsuits, with all costs covered by the recovered funds under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). Similarly, the Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme saw $1.5 billion recovered without victims paying any upfront fees, as recovery efforts were managed by a court-appointed receiver funded by the proceeds of settlements.

In the TelexFree scheme, which defrauded investors of over $3 billion, a trustee recovered $250 million, again deducting legal and administrative costs from the recovered funds rather than charging victims directly. These examples demonstrate that legitimate recovery efforts are transparent, court-managed, and funded through the proceeds of recovered money, ensuring victims are not further exploited. Any organisation demanding upfront fees should be treated with caution, as this is not standard practice in legitimate recovery efforts.

The Reality of Recovery Services
From my perspective, recovery services like these often prey on victims’ desperation. Here’s why:

False Hope: Victims are led to believe their money can be recovered, even when the chances are slim.
Upfront Fees: Charging fees before delivering results adds financial strain to people who have already lost so much.
Lack of Transparency: Craig and Ben provided no verifiable proof of their past recoveries, relying instead on vague claims and polished presentations.
My Message to Victims
If you’ve been scammed, I want you to know you’re not alone. But here’s my honest advice:

Be Cautious with Recovery Services: Ask for clear evidence of success before committing your money.
Beware of Upfront Fees: If a service demands payment before delivering results, proceed with caution.
Focus on Moving Forward: Sometimes, the best way to reclaim your power is to accept the loss and rebuild.
Conclusion
This blog is not about attacking individuals or organizations. It’s about sharing my experiences and observations to help others make informed decisions. Everything I’ve shared here is based on my personal encounters and opinions.

To victims of scams: Stay vigilant and demand transparency. To those offering recovery services: Be honest about your track record. And to everyone fighting financial crime: Let’s work together to protect those who need it most.