Benthos Master Fund LTD Vs Tracy Evans

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2019 04:03 PM INDEX NO.
155574/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2019
supreme court of the state of new york

county of new york
x
Index No.
benthos master fund, ltd.,
jury trial demanded
Plaintiff,
summons
- against -
Plaintiff designates New York
tracy evans, County as the place of trial.
Defendant. Venue is proper pursuant to

CPLR §§ 503 and 509.
x
summons
to the above named defendant:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintiff’s attorneys an
answer to the Complaint in this action within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons,
exclusive of its day of service, or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if the
Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York. In the case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you on default for the relief
demanded in the Complaint.
Plaintiff designated New York County as the place of trial. Venue is appropriate in New
York County pursuant to CPLR § 503, as Plaintiff has designated New York County as venue for
this action, certain of the Defendants reside or have offices in New York County, and a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint
occurred in New York County, and pursuant to CPLR § 509, as Plaintiff has designated New
York County as venue for this action.
1 of 31
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2019 04:03 PM INDEX NO. 155574/2019
Dated: June 4, 2019

KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C.
By:
SpgvenR. Popofsky
oshua K. Bromberg
551 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10176
Telephone: (212) 986-6000
Facsimile: (212) 986-8866
Email: spopofsky@kkwc.com
Email: jbromberg@kkwc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

BENTHOS MASTER FUND LTD.
TO: Defendant Tracy Evans

2 Clara Court
Cortlandt Manor, New York 10567
2
2 of 31
supreme court of the state of new york

county of new york
x
benthos master fund, ltd.,
Plaintiff,
Index No.
- against -
tracy evans,
Defendant. complaint
Plaintiff Benthos Master Fund, Ltd. (“Plaintiff’ or “Benthos”), by its attorneys Kleinberg,
Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C., as and for its complaint against defendant Tracy Evans (“Evans”),
alleges as follows:
summary of the action
1. This action arises from a complex fraudulent scheme perpetrated upon Plaintiff by
Evans along with her co-conspirators, various members of the Austin family (Hugh Austin and
his sons Brandon and John Austin, referred to collectively as the “Austins”), a New York
attorney by the name of Aaron Etra (“Etra”), and other shadowy figures, including a purported
Russian oil billionaire by the name of “Dmitri Kaslov,” with whom Evans claims to have a
longstanding business relationship and for whom she claims to be a trusted agent.
2. Evans has a documented history of fraud going back decades. See People v.
Evans, 155 Misc.2d 348 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. 1992) (denying post-trial motion to dismiss
multiple felony convictions for Medicaid fraud); People v. Evans, 199 A.D.2d 191, 192 (1st
Dep’t 1993) (upholding convictions and holding that “in view of the long term, systematic and
sophisticated nature of defendant's offense ... and in view of the fraudulent and deceitful nature
3 of 31
of her conduct and the harm done to the Medicaid system thereby ... defendant's sentence and
the order requiring her to make restitution were neither harsh nor excessive.”)
3. In this case, Evans, Etra and the Austins held themselves out as dealmakers in the
world of Bitcoin, but in reality, they are merely a team of sophisticated con artists. Through a
series of misrepresentations made in July and August 2018, Evans, working in concert with Etra
and the Austins, fraudulently induced Plaintiff to enter into a purported “contract” for the
purchase of $5 million worth of Bitcoin. Plaintiff was thereby induced to transfer $5 million to a
purported “escrow agent” (the attorney Etra, who stood at the locus of the fraudulent scheme)
who then improperly disbursed the vast majority of Plaintiff’s $5 million to a destination
concealed at the time from Plaintiff, but now known to have been a bank account in Hong Kong.
4. When Plaintiff did not receive the Bitcoin for which it believed it had transacted,
it implored Evans, Etra and the Austins to either consummate the transaction or return its $5
million, as required by the contract. Rather than complying, the conspirators, including Evans,
provided increasingly desperate and implausible excuses for why Plaintiff’s money could not be
immediately returned, nor its Bitcoin delivered. Those excuses - which involved a mysterious
Bitcoin “storage facility” purportedly based in Dubai and accessible only by the elusive “Minh
Hoang Le,” claimed to be the “storage facilitator” for the Bitcoin assets owned by Kaslov (the
purported Russian oligarch) - persisted for months after Plaintiff’s money had disappeared.
5. Although the Honorable Deborah A. Batts of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York intervened in October 2018, in aid of a forthcoming arbitration,
and (on explicit threat of imprisonment) ordered Evans and Etra to provide certain information to
Benthos, and ordered the miscreant escrow agent Etra to return the $400,000 of Plaintiff’s money
that he was still holding in escrow, Benthos has been unable to recover the missing $4.6 million
balance of its funds (and has incurred substantial expenses in the quest to do so).
2
4 of 31
6. To this date, Evans and her co-conspirators have not revealed why Plaintiff’s
funds were sent to Hong Kong. Nor have they disclosed the nature of the relationships among
them, including why Evans, “Dmitri Kaslov” and “Minh Hoang Le” were so closely involved in
the purported attempts to consummate a transaction that was between Plaintiff and two shell
companies owned by the Austins, Valkyrie Group LLC (“Valkyrie”) and Valhalla Venture
Group LLC (“Valhalla”). Nor have they explained why they have refused to return Plaintiff’s
funds upon termination of the transaction and due demand. As Evans has evaded or ignored
every request by Plaintiff to be made whole, Plaintiff now commences this action against her to
recover the remainder of its stolen money and its associated losses.
the parties
7. Plaintiff Benthos, a private investment firm, is a Cayman Islands company with
its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Evans is an individual residing and
domiciled in the State of New York. Evans resides at 2 Clara Court, Cortlandt Manor, New
York.
jurisdiction and venue
9. This Court has jurisdiction over Evans pursuant to Section 301 of the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) and the common law.
10. Venue is proper in New York County pursuant to CPLR §§ 503 and 509 because
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in
New York County, and Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial.
3
5 of 31
factual allegations
The Austins Bait the Hook For The Scheme
11. Benthos is an investment fund that, during the course of 2018, was actively
seeking potential sellers of Bitcoin (or “BTC”) through various technology industry channels.
12. In or around July 2018, Benthos’s principals were introduced to Hugh Austin
(“Hugh”), who claimed to be the Chief Executive Officer of a company called “Small Cap
Nation [...] a Valhalla Venture Group Company.” Hugh held himself out to be an experienced
investment professional with deep connections in the world of family offices and ultra high-net
worth individuals. Hugh also claimed to be a broker capable of locating third parties to sell large
quantities of Bitcoin to Benthos.
13. On July 10, 2018, Benthos tasked Hugh with locating a seller to sell a large
quantity of Bitcoin to Benthos. Benthos provided proof of funds to Hugh to assure any
prospective seller that it had the ability to consummate a sale of up to $5.5 million worth of
Bitcoin in the first “tranche” of what it hoped to be a series of transactions.
14. On or about July 23, Hugh provided Plaintiff with a draft purchase contract
reflecting a proposed deal between Plaintiff and a limited liability company seller purportedly
located in the United Kingdom. Under that contract, Plaintiff was to purchase more than $5
million worth of Bitcoin from the seller over the course over 10 business days at a 3% discount
to the then-prevailing market price. Plaintiff signed the contract, and received from Hugh a copy
of the contract countersigned by the purported managing member and CEO of the seller. The
“deal” was scheduled to close on or about July 23, 2018.
15. Notwithstanding that the contract was fully executed and Benthos had made
preparations to fund the first “tranche” of the transaction, wire instructions were never received
by Benthos and the deal was never consummated.
4
6 of 31
16. Upon information and belief, unbeknownst to Benthos at the time, the initial
aborted “contract” was a sham for the purpose of testing Benthos’s willingness to enter into and
fund a transaction proposed by the Austins. Additionally, the Austins created the sham contract
to lull Benthos’ principals into a false sense of security, such that at a later date, when presented
with a better “deal,” they would be willing to part with all or most of the $5.5 million they had
shown the Austins.
Evans, Etra and the Austins Put the Scheme in Motion
17. On July 31, 2018 Plaintiff received an email from Hugh’s son Brandon Austin
(“Brandon”), who was purportedly a “Partner and VP of Marketing” for “SCN Corporate
Connect,” also a “Valhalla Venture Group Company.” Attached to Brandon’s email was a
contract for the purchase of 10,000 Bitcoin by Plaintiff from an unspecified seller at a 4%
discount to the then-prevailing market price, with the first “tranche” to be purchased by Benthos
under the contract being $5,000,000 worth of Bitcoin.
18. The draft contract provided that the escrow agent for the transaction would be
Etra, a New York attorney whose website at that time showed an office at 445 Park Avenue and
a home address at 985 Fifth Avenue, an exclusive luxury apartment building facing Central Park
with rents ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 per month.1 Etra’s website also touted his pedigree
as a graduate of Columbia Law School and his service to the United Nations and other
distinguished organizations.
1
Upon information and belief, Etra’s “office” at 485 Park Avenue was a co-working space
operated by Regus PLC at which he appeared only intermittently, and Etra no longer lived at 985
Park Avenue at the time he was introduced to the principals of Benthos.
5
7 of 31
19. Benthos was informed that the seller of the Bitcoin would be Dmitri Kaslov
(“Kaslov”) - purportedly a Russian oil oligarch who had amassed a large quantity of Bitcoin and
was looking to sell it quickly at a discount.
20. Evans, who was introduced by Etra and the Austins as an agent of Kaslov, was
closely involved in the negotiations. Evans claimed to have been in business with Kaslov for
nearly ten years and to have been acquainted with Etra for nearly as long. At that time (and for
some two months subsequent to contract signing, as detailed below) Benthos’s principals spoke
telephonically with Evans, after Evans provided a telephone number with a 212 area code.
21. When Benthos sought background information on Kaslov pursuant to standard
“Know Your Customer” and anti-money laundering procedures, Brandon unexpectedly revealed
that Kaslov would not be a contracting party and sent Benthos a revised version of the contract,
this time with Valkyrie inserted as the Seller (the “Bitcoin Agreement”).
22. Apart from the insertion of Valkyrie as the seller, the contract was otherwise
identical to the previous version shown to Benthos, calling for the purchase of 10,000 Bitcoin at
a 4% discount, with the first “tranche” of the transaction being for $5 million worth of Bitcoin.
23. Annexed to the Bitcoin Agreement was an accompanying “Escrow Agreement”
which provided that within 24 hours after execution, Benthos was to send $5 million to the
attorney escrow account of Etra, acting as Escrow Agent under the Escrow Agreement.
24. Hugh, the father of Valkyrie’s sole member Brandon, assured Benthos’s
principals that both he individually and his company, Valhalla (an affiliate of Valkyrie), would
guarantee that if Benthos had not received its Bitcoin within 15 business days of the release of
the funds from escrow, he or Valhalla would return the $5 million to Benthos.
25. The corresponding provision in the Bitcoin Agreement read as follows:
6
8 of 31
It is understood that Valhalla, represented by Hugh Austin and his estate, will
guarantee to make available to [Benthos] the sum of five million dollars USD, if
and to the extent that [Benthos] has not received the [Bitcoin] for which it has
provided the funds for this transaction within 15 business days . . . of such funds
being removed from escrow[,] Valhalla or Hugh Austin will make this payment
available to [Benthos] immediately after such period and without recourse.
26. On August 3, 2018, Benthos’s CEO met with Etra and a purported employee of
Valhalla in New York.
27. Based on the representations of Evans that she was acting as a representative for
Kaslov, who was a bona fide seller of Bitcoin and was ready, willing and able to deliver 10,000
Bitcoin in exchange for cash, the corresponding representations of the Austins that they were
ready, willing and able to deliver those same 10,000 Bitcoin to Benthos - through Valkyrie
commencing with an initial “tranche” of $5 million of Bitcoin, and upon Etra’s assurances that
the “contract” and the participants were legitimate and that he would fulfill his duties as an
escrow agent, Benthos entered into the Bitcoin Agreement and the Escrow Agreement (annexed
hereto collectively as Exhibit 1) on or about August 4, 2018. 2
28. Under the contracts, the Seller Valkyrie possessed the sole right to direct release
of money from escrow by Etra, provided the money was to be used by Valkyrie to obtain the
very Bitcoin that was to be delivered to Benthos under the agreement.
29. In sum, the Plaintiff contracted to provide $5 million in exchange for $5 million
worth of Bitcoin, the first tranche of what was to be 10,000 Bitcoin in total. Plaintiff’s $5
2
In an eleventh-hour effort to induce Benthos to sign, Brandon’s brother John Austin sent a
message to Benthos, offering an additional 1% discount on the Bitcoin purportedly for sale if
Benthos signed that day. John wrote “[W]e need to know by 2:30 if you guys are serious, we r
all trying to be as accommodating as possible but we don’t want to loose [sic] our relationship
with [Etra] or [Kaslov]. The best I can do is offer u an additional 1% discount so u are at 5[%].
But I need an answer by 2:30” At 1:56 p.m. that day, Benthos committed to signing.
7
9 of 31
million was required to be returned if the Bitcoin was not delivered within 15 business days (Ex.
1 at page 8).
30. The representations that Evans, Etra and the Austins had made to Benthos in
connection with the Bitcoin Agreement were false.
31. It eventually became clear that in reality, neither Evans nor the Austins had the
ability or the intention to sell Bitcoin to the Plaintiff; that there were not 10,000 Bitcoin (or any
Bitcoin at all) available to be sold; and that Evans, rather than somehow being the trusted agent
of a Russian billionaire and legitimate seller of Bitcoin, was merely a co-conspirator of the
Austins and Etra in a complex scheme to bilk Benthos out of $5 million.
32. Upon information and belief, the mysterious “Dmitri Kaslov” that Evans
purported to be speaking for does not exist, or (if he is a real person) is yet another co-
conspirator in the scheme to defraud the Plaintiff.
33. Upon information and belief, the inclusion of Etra as “escrow agent” under the
Bitcoin Agreement (which purported “agreement” was designed by Evans and the Austins in
consultation with Etra) was merely a sham to induce Plaintiff into believing that its money would
be secure until its Bitcoin were delivered. In reality Etra is a longtime confederate of Evans and
the Austins, intended to provide a veneer of respectability as a lawyer and to serve as conduit
through which Evans and the Austins would abscond with Plaintiff’s money, and then as a
diversion to keep Plaintiff at bay after its money had been stolen.
34. On or about August 5, 2018, Benthos’s CEO met with Hugh and Brandon at the
Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami, Florida. Hugh and Brandon again discussed how they were at the
center of very large Bitcoin transactions and that the transaction with Benthos would soon be
consummated. Hugh expressed certainty that Plaintiff’s initial $5,000,000 “tranche” would
8
10 of 31
swiftly be followed by additional tranches. Hugh further claimed that he trusted Etra and Evans
completely and that he had known Etra for a long time.
The Scheme Comes to Fruition:

The “Escrow Agent” Sends Plaintiff’s Money to Asia,
Without Contractual Authorization and Without Notifying Plaintiff
35. On or about August 6, 2018, Plaintiff wired $5,000,000 to Etra’s IOLA account,
as per the wire instructions provided in the Escrow Agreement.
36. Upon information and belief, on August 7, 2018, $3,000,000 was wired by Etra to
a then-undisclosed account, purportedly to obtain Bitcoin from a “storage facility” for the Seller
to deliver to Benthos.
37. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s $3,000,000 was sent to the account of
“HK Zhixuan Trading Limited” at China CITIC Bank International Limited in Hong Kong,
purportedly on the instructions of “Dmitri Kaslov” (not Valkyrie, as required by the contract).
38. Upon information and belief, Etra himself drafted, or participated in drafting, the
wire instructions upon which he purported to rely in sending the $3,000,000 to the Hong Kong
account. Those instructions were not in fact executed by Kaslov, but rather by Evans, who
claimed to have the authority to insert Kaslov’s signature on wire instructions (although, it bears
repeating, Etra was not authorized to take instructions from Kaslov in the first place).
Evans and Her Confederates Demand An Additional $850,000 from Benthos

In Order to Deliver the Contracted-For Bitcoin
39. Shortly after Etra released $3 million of Benthos’s money out of escrow based on
wire instructions never shown to Plaintiff and purportedly bearing Kaslov’s signature (but in fact
signed by Evans), Evans contacted Plaintiff to inform them that delivery of the Bitcoin would be
delayed. The stated reason was that Kaslov - purportedly the owner of a “Bitcoin-backed
instrument” from which Valkyrie intended to obtain the release of the Bitcoin it had contracted
9
11 of 31
to sell to Benthos was unable to obtain release of fewer than 1,000 Bitcoin from a certain
“storage facility” in any single transaction. The price of 1,000 Bitcoin then exceeded
$5,000,000, which, Evans claimed, made it impossible for Kaslov to withdraw “only”
$5,000,000 worth of Bitcoin (approximately 715 Bitcoin at the then-prevailing market price).
40. Accordingly, Evans claimed that the Bitcoin intended for Benthos could not be
obtained until Kaslov received another $2,850,000, in addition to the $3,000,000 that had already
been wired out of the escrow account by Etra. An e-mail purportedly from Kaslov and
forwarded by Evans stated that “[t]he accurate amount to be sent is [an additional]
$2,850,000.00, so the Buyer [is] to send another $850,000 for a total of $5,850,000”
41. Of course none of that was in the Bitcoin Agreement, which obligated the Seller
Valkyrie - and only Valkyrie - to deliver Bitcoin to Benthos in exchange for $5 million, not
$5,850,000, and which made no mention of Evans, Kaslov, a “storage facility” or any purported
minimum requirement for the release of Bitcoin from such facility.
42. Benthos declined to send another, extra-contractual, $850,000 in order to
supposedly obtain the release of the Bitcoin it had already contracted to purchase for $5,000,000.
The Charade Continues: The “Escrow Agent” Sends Another $1.6 Million
Of Plaintiff’s Escrowed Funds to Asia,
Again Without Contractual Authorization and Without Notifying Plaintiff
43. Upon information and belief, on or about August 24, 2018 - one business day
before expiration of the contractual 15-day period in which the Bitcoin was to be delivered or the
obligation to return the $5 million would be triggered Etra wired another $1,600,000 (in
addition to the $3 million of Benthos’s $5 million previously released from escrow), again
without contractual authorization and again to a then-undisclosed account, also later revealed to
be the account of “HK Zhixuan Trading Limited” in Hong Kong.
10
12 of 31
44. Etra wrote in an email that Kaslov had “enabled” him and Evans to speak with the
“transfer storage representative” to discuss what might be done to consummate the transaction
“notwithstanding the lack of available additional funds [...] [T]he gentleman said that he would
use his best efforts to secure the delivery of [Bitcoin] . . . within some 16-18 hours if funds
currently held in escrow were wired today.”
45. Upon information and belief, Etra again drafted the wire instructions on which he
purported to rely in sending $1,600,000 more of Benthos’s money to Hong Kong, and Evans
again claimed authority to, and did, affix Kaslov’s signature to the wire instructions.
46. After the additional $1,600,000 of Benthos’s money was transferred out of Etra’s
escrow account, Plaintiff received nothing - not in “16-18 hours” and not at all.
Evans and her Confederates Stymie Plaintiff’s Efforts

To Locate and Recover Its $5.000.000
47. On August 28, 2018, in an email from Benthos to Hugh, Brandon and Etra,
Benthos demanded “either that the Bitcoin to which [Benthos] is entitled be delivered by
Valkyrie according to the terms set out in the agreement, or, failing that, that $5,000,000 be
[returned] by Valhalla.”
48. The $5 million was not returned.
49. Around this time, Evans represented to the Plaintiff that Kaslov was undergoing
heart surgery and would be unreachable for an indefinite period of time. Evans further
represented to Plaintiff that, rather than communicating directly with Kaslov, with Kaslov’s
permission she would be communicating with the unnamed “storage facilitator” for the Bitcoin
assets purportedly held by Kaslov in an undisclosed location.
50. Sure enough, the following day, Evans forwarded a message purporting to be
from the so-called “storage facility.”
11
13 of 31
51. The message forwarded by Evans stated, “Good Morning Ms Tracy. . . . As
confirmed by our Account Department the funds arrived and I was so pleased and have set open
the transfer windows, We expect results in the next 16 hours.”
52. 16 hours later, Plaintiff had received no Bitcoin.
53. On August 30, 2018, Evans forwarded another message purportedly from the
storage facility representative, whom she now identified as “Mr. Hoang.” An email message
from “Minh Hoang Le” (“Hoang”) posted below Evans’ message stated cryptically:
I have been in dubai to activate the payment delivery of the BTC and after exactly
13 hours and 20 minutes,there was an error detected: "Wallet Amputate amount
not sufficient" Balance Amount of $940,250. I tried all my best to manipulate the
digital system but the fire wall would not allow me break through the LIMIT set
for minimum 1000 BTC and this had be done right from the day Mr Dmitri
Kaslov the owner of the wallet gave a signed agreement for 3000 BTC, now the
system is rejecting the current input amount.
I need to reach out to Mr [Kaslov] Asap.
54. Evans carefully deleted the purported e-mail address of Hoang before forwarding
his supposed email to Plaintiff. On telephone calls with Benthos’s principals held nearly every
day, both Evans and Etra repeatedly refused repeated requests to identify the “storage facility.”
They provided shifting reasons for that ongoing refusal, including fear that Benthos would reach
out directly to contact the purported facility to inquire into what was actually happening with
Benthos’s money.
55. On or about August 27, 2018, Benthos requested that Hugh confirm his intention
to return the missing $4,600,000 either through Valhalla or his personal estate (as specified in the
Bitcoin Agreement) if the transaction could not be consummated. Hugh stated that he would do
so, but he did not, and he repeatedly ducked Benthos’s calls thereafter.
12
14 of 31
56. After a series of text messages in which Hugh reassured Benthos that “[it] will all
work out,” Hugh scheduled a call with Benthos for the following day, August 31, 2018, at 11:30
a.m., at which time Benthos’s CEO called Hugh but received no answer, and no return call.
57. On August 31, 2018, following Hugh’s failure to answer the call he himself had
scheduled, Benthos through counsel demanded in writing, from the Seller (Valkyrie) and
guarantors (Valhalla and Hugh):
the immediate delivery of the [Bitcoin] owed to Benthos under the [Bitcoin]
Agreement or, in the alternative, the immediate return of the funds deposited by
Benthos into the Escrow Account [as required by the contract].
The Austins ignored that demand.
58. Also on August 31, 2018, Benthos’s then-counsel wrote to Etra as follows:
Benthos demands that you immediately provide us with all details

concerning the release of the Escrow Funds including but not limited to all
banking and wire instructions, the identity, address and bank account
information of all recipients of any portion of the Escrow Funds, all
communications between or among you, Valkyrie Group LLC, Valhalla
Venture Group LLC, Brandon Austin and Hugh Austin or any of their
affiliates or representatives concerning the [Bitcoin Agreement] or monies
held in escrow. Please also provide any information in your possession,
custody or control regarding (i) the storage capacity housing the [Bitcoin] and
the instrument backed by the [Bitcoin] and (ii) Mr. Dmitri, including full
name, address and passport information.
59. Notwithstanding his status as an Escrow Agent, and therefore a fiduciary, and as a
New York lawyer who had received and disbursed escrow funds into and out of his IOLA
account, Etra refused to provide any of the information and documentation sought by Benthos.
60. Instead, he defiantly informed Benthos’s then-counsel that “your actions and
demands will require me to engage counsel, whose costs and expenses will be for the account of
your client who has precipitated the need for my doing so. I will be calling on your client to
meet these obligations, including any retainer from said counsel, before proceeding further.”
61. Benthos’s counsel responded:
13
15 of 31
Given the current circumstances, which indicate possible fraudulent activity, you
cannot release any escrowed funds. You have obligations to the Buyer here, who
clearly has been victimized.
In addition, the terms of your escrow appear to be unconscionable, as no escrow

agent in these circumstances can justify the fee you purport to charge [$50,000].
As an attorney, I trust you are aware of your professional obligations. . . .
. . . We suggest that you work toward getting the Seller to honor its obligations
rather than your own self interest.
62. In reply, Etra characterized Benthos’s reasonable requests as “completely
unconstructive” and then complained that he was being e-mailed “on a legal holiday” (Labor
Day). In any event, he still provided no information and no documents concerning his
disbursements from the escrow fund and the parties with whom he was claiming to be dealing.
Evans, Etra, “Kaslov” and “Hoang” Interpose Themselves

Between Plaintiff and the Austins, Continuing to String Plaintiff Along
63. During September 2018 and thereafter - notwithstanding their previous direct
dealings with the Plaintiff, and notwithstanding that Plaintiff was in direct contractual privity
only with Valkyrie, Valhalla and Hugh - Etra, Evans, and the mysterious purported individuals
Kaslov and Hoang took a more prominent role in the “efforts” to consummate the already-failed
transaction, while the Austins took a back seat and let their co-conspirators run interference with
Plaintiff on an almost-daily basis. In doing so the Austins relied upon the smoke-and-mirrors
excuse that the Plaintiff’s money was supposedly trapped in a “storage facility” controlled by
Kaslov and Hoang and because Kaslov had recently undergone heart surgery, it was left to only
Evans, Etra and Hoang to consummate the transaction.
64. Following Etra’s inexplicable early-September refusal to respond to Benthos’s
requests for documents and information, there ensued a series of increasingly convoluted and
decreasingly credible excuses, explanations and promises from Evans, Etra and Hoang (who was
supposedly traveling between Dubai and Sydney and who claimed to have “so many other jobs
14
16 of 31
at hand” that he was only intermittently available by email, and never by phone, and whose e-
mail address was always concealed from Plaintiff by his co-conspirators). During that period the
Austins simply went silent and disappeared, as noted above, and continued to rely on Etra and
Evans to speak for them.
65. Those stories, reflected in numerous phone conversations and emails between
Benthos, Etra and Evans, involved primarily the supposed search for and negotiations with a
purported “second buyer” unidentified, of course supposedly coming in to provide the
additional $850,000 allegedly required to obtain release of the Bitcoin for delivery to Benthos in
compliance with the already-breached Bitcoin Agreement.
66. On September 28, 2018, weeks after first requesting documents and information
from Etra and getting nowhere, Benthos tried again, in a letter from its litigation counsel to
Etra’s representative, to obtain information as to the status and whereabouts of the escrowed
funds:
Of the $5 million deposited by our client into Mr. Etra’s escrow account pursuant
to the Escrow Agreement, how much, if any, is Mr. Etra presently holding in
escrow, and is he willing to return those remaining funds to our client upon
demand?
If Mr. Etra is holding money in escrow and is not willing to return it to our client
upon demand, is he willing to commit in writing not to transfer any of that money
without our client’s written consent (or a court order?)
Identify all transfers or disbursements made to date from the $5 million escrowed
with Mr. Etra, including at a minimum (i) the recipients of each transfer, (ii) the
amount transferred on each occasion, (iii) the written instructions upon which
each transfer was made, (iv) written confirmation of each transfer, and (v) the
bank account information and wire transfer information (if any) associated with
each transfer.
67. Etra did not respond at all.
68. Benthos subsequently reiterated its requests in writing on October 1, 2018, and
continued to follow up again and again in the ensuing weeks, all to no avail.
15
17 of 31
Evans’ and her Co-Conspirators’ Ever-Shifting Excuses Become

Even More Incredible as Benthos Prepares to Take Legal Action
69. In October 2018, after Benthos had retained litigation counsel and threatened
court action, the representations became more frantic and more specific, and the timeframe for
purportedly consummating the transaction became imminent - yet the many representations were
all continually false.
70. Specifically, by way of example only, on October 1, 2018, Etra assured Plaintiff
that things would be “resolved one way or another” (meaning delivery of the Bitcoin or return of
the $5 million) “by the end of this week” (i.e., by October 5). On October 2, 2018, Etra
reiterated, again through his purported counsel, that the transaction would be completed “this
week,” which was then updated to “within 48 hours;” and Plaintiff was told that Etra had a
“signed contract” - which, of course, no one would allow Plaintiff actually to see from the
“second buyer” (a “woman,” unidentified of course), who was supposedly providing “additional
financing to complete the whole deal,” “probably tomorrow [Wednesday, October 3], at the
latest Thursday [October 4].”
71. On Wednesday, October 3, 2018, Evans confirmed to Benthos directly that “the
woman signed” the commitment to pay the additional $850,000. On Friday, October 5, 2018,
Evans told Benthos that the purported second buyer was “aiming to wire today.” On Monday,
October 8, 2018, Evans said the wire had been “initiated” on Friday the 5th into Etra’s IOLA
account, but would “not be received until Tuesday [the 9th]” and that Etra would send the money
to the “storage company” (to get the Bitcoin released) “on Wednesday [the 10th].”
72. On Wednesday, October 10, 2018, Evans reported that the funds still had “not
arrived.”
16
18 of 31
73. At that point Benthos asked Evans (who previously had refused to send the actual
purported contract committing the “second buyer” to send money to the “storage company”) to at
least confirm in writing that there was such a buyer who actually had signed such a contract.
Evans replied that she would “ask Aaron [Etra]” about doing so.
74. No such written confirmation was forthcoming. But on Friday, October 12, 2018,
Etra told Benthos directly that he had been “frequently talking with” the purported second buyer,
except that now Etra identified that “second buyer” as a man (“he”), whereas previously the
“second buyer” had been said to be “a woman.” In any event Etra told Benthos that the
additional funds required to obtain release of the Bitcoin funds which, it should not be
forgotten, had previously been stated to have been sent on October 5, 2018 - “should be sent on
Monday [October 15]”
75. After all of that, Benthos asked Etra to identify the purported “second buyer” by
name, or to provide some information about that individual and his or her supposed contract.
Etra refused.
76. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff sent a Notice of Termination of Escrow to Etra and
to Valkyrie in accordance with the notice provisions of the Escrow Agreement, terminating the
Escrow Agreement effective immediately and (again) demanding return of its funds.
77. The $5 million was not returned, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s clear contractual
entitlement to the immediate return of its money from Valkyrie, Valhalla, Hugh and/or Etra.
78. Throughout this period in September and early October 2018 - after no Bitcoin
had been delivered in exchange for Benthos’s $5 million and after Benthos had repeatedly
demanded return of its money to no avail - the Austins (as well as Kaslov and Hoang) remained
entirely silent, continuing to allow Etra and Evans to speak for them, and virtually every word
uttered by Etra and Evans during this period was false.
17
19 of 31
79. On or about October 22, 2018, shortly after filing an action in aid of arbitration
against Etra and Evans in federal court in New York (as further detailed below) Plaintiff made
one last attempt itself to contact the Austins, without counsel, and pleaded with them to make
good on the transaction. Plaintiff’s email to Hugh, John and Brandon stated:
This entire situation has been absolutely terrible. We’ve consistently asked for our
money back for months and have not received anything back. Since you are party
in this entire transaction it goes without saying that it does not look very good on
you or your company[.]
***
The action item here is very clear: you need to return our money. . . . We expect
a response by this Tuesday 11:59 PM EST showing actionable steps towards
getting our money back — otherwise you can assume that we will act very
aggressively [...] to protect our rights.
80. Hugh wrote back to Benthos the next day, continuing to propound the same
incredible story that the transaction would soon be consummated with a “new buyer” and falsely
promising that, absent such a new buyer, Plaintiff’s money would be promptly returned:
I understand that Benthos is tired of waiting, and so are we. What I would suggest
is give the new buyers until Tuesday [October 30] to deliver. We are actually
fairly certain that the new buyers will be moving forward with the purchase by the
end of this week. I have spoken to Aaron [Etra], and he agrees if the buyers fail to
deliver by this deadline, we would begin the process of unwinding the transaction,
arranging for the return to Benthos of the purchase funds advanced by Benthos as
expeditiously as possible.
I hope that we will be able to finalize the transaction with one of the new buyers
and that we will be able to put this tranche behind us. We appreciate the severity
of the situation and I believe this is the ideal way to proceed.
81. Unsurprisingly at this point, despite Hugh’s representations, no “new buyer” ever
materialized, the transaction was not “unwound” and Benthos’s money was never returned.
Indeed the Austins have never been heard from since, continuing to allow Etra and Evans to
speak for them, while Etra and Evans point the finger at Kaslov and Hoang.
18
20 of 31
A Federal Judge Threatens To Jail Evans and Etra,

Which Shakes Loose Some Money and Information For Plaintiff
82. On October 15, 2018, Benthos filed a Petition For Preliminary Injunctive Relief
In Aid of Arbitration against Evans and Etra in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Benthos Master Fund Ltd. v. Etra, Case No. 18-cv-9401.
83. In its Petition, Benthos sought relief from the Court to “(i) preserve the status quo,
by temporarily restraining Etra from disbursing the $400,000 he still holds in escrow; and (ii)
help ensure that any arbitration award will not be ineffectual, by requiring Etra and Evans to
disclose critical information including where the $4.6 million stolen from Plaintiff was sent, and
where it is now, such that Plaintiff can seek to recover it and/or try to prevent its further
dissipation and removal from the reach of the law.”
84. On the same date, the Honorable P. Kevin Castel signed an Order to Show Cause
requiring Evans and Etra to appear before Judge Deborah Batts on October 25, 2018 and in the
interim, enjoining and restraining Evans and Etra “and their agents, servants, employees,
attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them” (i.e. the Austins) “from
directly or indirectly transferring or continuing to transfer any portion of the $5 million
previously deposited by [Benthos] into Etra’s IOLA account[.]”
85. On October 19, 2018, Judge Batts entered an Order adjourning the scheduled
October 25, 2018 hearing to November 15, 2018, and requiring Evans and Etra to “submit all
information ordered in the [Order to Show Cause] on or before Friday, October 26, 2018 at 6:00
pm.”
86. Evans and Etra produced no information on October 26, 2018 or at any time prior
to the hearing.
19
21 of 31
87. At the hearing on November 15, 2018, Etra initially claimed to the Court that he
had recently retained counsel, who was purportedly unable to appear because “yesterday he was
completely laid low [by illness] and has been unable to communicate except via e-mail.”
88. Evans, for her part, submitted a letter requesting that the Court “dismiss this case
because I am not a party to the contract with Benthos Master Fund[.]”
89. Unmoved by Etra’s and Evans’ flimsy excuses, Judge Batts ordered them to
produce certain information requested by Benthos and previously ordered to be produced by
Judge Castel, on pain of sanctions for contempt of court. Judge Batts addressed Etra and Evans
and stated that they “have given the Court no reason - no reason - to expect that [you]’re going
to obey Court orders. Everything that has been ordered by either Judge Castel or by me you
have ignored. . . . [I]t seems to me that you are [both] in contempt of Court. . . . Flagrant ignoring
of Court orders [is] inappropriate, unacceptable and will be dealt with accordingly,” and she
directed Plaintiff’s attorneys to file a motion to hold them in contempt of court.
90. The judge further cautioned Evans and Etra:
You don't want to go to jail, you tell them everything that you were supposed to
tell them weeks ago. If you don't do that, they make the motion [and] if you don't
respond, their motion will be unopposed, I will grant it, and you will be going to
jail. Do you understand this?
91. Even in open court, Etra was refusing to voluntarily return the $400,000 of
Plaintiff’s money still held in his escrow account, so Judge Batts ordered him to do so
“immediately.”
92. Etra did comply with that order, to avoid incarceration, but with respect to the
Court’s order to produce documents, he produced only a smattering of emails (16 pages), and for
the first time produced the purported wire instructions indicating that on the supposed wire
instructions from Kaslov (which had in reality been drafted by Etra and signed by Evans) he had
20
22 of 31
sent Plaintiff’s $4,600,000 to “HK Zhixuan Trading Limited” in Hong Kong. Two near-identical
disclosures made by Etra and Evans at that time claimed that Hoang - the purported “storage
facilitator” for Kaslov - was an agent or representative of that company.
93. Petitioner filed its motion for civil contempt and Etra subsequently produced
another batch of emails. These documents, however, consisted almost entirely of Mr. Etra’s
correspondence with Benthos. Strategically omitted from the emails were Etra’s substantive
communications with his other co-conspirators from the July through October 2018 time period.
The False Representations and Excuses Continue,

In Federal Court and Thereafter,
But the $4.6 Million Balance of Plaintiff’s Funds Remains Stolen
94. Even during the federal court hearing itself, Evans continued to peddle the story
that there was a purported second buyer with - again - a purported “signed contract” that would
make Plaintiff whole. She told Judge Batts:
[Y]esterday, . . ., they did give us a signed contract last night . . ., so therefore

they could go forward and everybody would get their Bitcoins and this would be
over. This happened last night, they're not aware of it, but we didn't have a signed
contract until last night.
95. Of course no such “signed contract” was ever consummated.
96. Furthermore the charade that there is still a legitimate transaction here to be
salvaged has continued unabated. On December 4, 2018, notwithstanding Benthos’s formal
termination and repeated unequivocal statements that it merely wants its money back and
notwithstanding that three weeks earlier, Etra and Evans had told Judge Batts that they had a
“signed contract” with a purported new buyer - Etra claimed that:
3
As Evans appeared (at least superficially) to have provided all of the information required by
the October 19, 2018 order of Judge Batts, Plaintiff opted not to seek an order of contempt
against Evans, and proceeded solely against Etra. That motion is sub judice before Judge Batts.
21
23 of 31
I am cooperating fully with the efforts of Valkyrie and the BTC owner [Kaslov]
and his reps (including Tracy Evans) in finding buyers who will provide the funds
to pay Benthos. . . . Valkyrie is working with three potential buyers who will
accomplish this result and others have approached the BTC owner.
97. Evans for her part continued to make excuses and attempt to string Plaintiff along
in emails sent well into 2019, in response to Benthos’s repeated inquiries as to what efforts were
being made to recover Plaintiff’s missing $4,600,000. For example, on December 19, 2018,
Evans wrote:
Please be assured that almost every single day effort is being made on this
transaction, to complete this transaction, not only by me, but by Valkrie [sic] and
Attorney Etra, with every intention to make Benthos whole. We will continue to
do so and not give up until we have succeeded.
98. Of course, nothing was received from Evans for several weeks, so Benthos’s
counsel inquired again in January. Evans responded:
I am out of the office until Tuesday [January 8, 2019] and will write you or call
you then. Am working on this even when away but others are away as well until
next week. Bear in mind that we all have the same goal to make Benthos whole
and get their $4.6m back. Will check my email again then.
99. After a week of silence, Evans resurfaced on January 10, 2019 to claim that she
was severely ill and not physically able to answer Benthos’s simple questions:
I caught some kind of bug and am out of commission and bedridden for a few
more days Did not want you to think I would not answer your question.
I will get in touch with you as soon as I am physically able.
100. One week later, on January 16, 2019, she still claimed to be severely ill: “[I] am
still ill. . . . will be in touch as soon as [I am] stronger.”
101. As recently as May 22, 2019, Evans claimed that a deal with a “second buyer”
was imminent, this time because Kaslov had purportedly agreed to and the Austins had
purportedly applied for - a $10,000,000 insurance bond that would result in personal liability to
Kaslov in the event of a default. Evans insisted that the application for a bond represented
22
24 of 31
“major progress” in the effort to return Benthos’ $4,600,000, but she was unable to identify what
liquid assets of Kaslov would supposedly collateralize the purported bond.
102. Notwithstanding all of the prior communications with Evans and her co-
conspirators, nothing has ever materialized; not a single one of the representations made to
Plaintiff has ever proven to be true; the location of Plaintiff’s remaining $4.6 million remains
unknown; Kaslov and Hoang have never surfaced; and everyone involved continues to give
Benthos the runaround.
103. Upon information and belief, on or about January 25, 2019, HK Zhixuan Trading
Limited, the shadowy Hong Kong company that received $4,600,000 of Plaintiff’s money
without authorization and has not sent a single penny back to Plaintiff, was dissolved and struck
off the Hong Kong Companies Registry.
conspiracy
104. Upon information and belief, the actions and omissions alleged herein to have
been undertaken by Evans, Etra, the Austins and (to the extent that these individuals actually
exist) Kaslov and Hoang were part and parcel of a conspiracy and a scheme to defraud the
Plaintiffs, a goal toward which not only Evans, but her co-conspirators Etra, the Austins, Kaslov
and Hoang worked in concert at all times to accomplish.
105. Upon information and belief, each of Evans, Etra, the Austins, Kaslov and Hoang
agreed to work in concert to create the illusion of a legitimate transaction for the purchase of $5
million of Bitcoin, for the express purpose of defrauding Benthos and for no other purpose.
106. Upon information and belief, each of Evans, Etra, the Austins, Kaslov and Hoang
knowingly and intentionally took various overt acts in furtherance of this scheme to defraud
Benthos, including but not limited to those overt acts detailed herein. Certain other overt acts
23
25 of 31
taken by the co-conspirators have been concealed from Benthos and will be revealed in
discovery and legal proceedings against others, after which this Complaint may be amended.
107. As the Austins, Etra, Kaslov and Hoang at all times knowingly participated in and
materially assisted Evans’ fraud with Evans’ full knowledge, consent and participation, their
statements and actions in furtherance of that fraud are legally attributable to Evans.
108. As a result of the overt acts and misrepresentations by Evans, Etra, the Austins,
Kaslov and Hoang in furtherance of their conspiracy to defraud Benthos, Benthos was damaged
as set forth herein.
first cause of action
(Fraud)
109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
108 above as though fully set forth herein.
110. Evans willfully concealed, omitted, suppressed and misrepresented material facts
from Plaintiff with the intent to deceive and thereby defraud Plaintiff.
111. For example and as detailed above, Evans falsely told Plaintiff that she was an
agent for a seller, Kaslov, and that Kaslov was a Russian oil tycoon and a legitimate participant
in the over-the-counter market for Bitcoin, when in fact Evans was merely engaging, with the
Austins, in a scheme to deceive and defraud Plaintiff. Evans falsely represented to Plaintiff that
her purported principal, Kaslov, was a bona fide seller of Bitcoin with 10,000 (over $70 million
worth) of Bitcoin available to be sold, and that he intended and was ready, willing and able to
deliver 10,000 Bitcoin to Benthos (with Valkyrie as a conduit) in exchange for cash,
commencing with an initial “tranche” of $5 million of Bitcoin.
112. Upon information and belief, neither Evans nor her purported principal Kaslov
ever had the intention, or the ability, to deliver a single Bitcoin to Plaintiff.
24
26 of 31
113. Upon information and belief, Kaslov either does not exist or is merely a co-
conspirator in Evans’ scheme with the Austins and Etra to steal Plaintiff’s money.
114. In reasonable and justifiable reliance upon Evans’ intentional misrepresentations
and omissions of material facts, Plaintiff wired $5,000,000 to the attorney escrow account of
Aaron Etra, following which Etra improperly and extra-contractually wired $4,600,000 of
Plaintiff’s money to a Hong Kong account.
115. For months after Evans and/or her co-conspirators had absconded with Plaintiff’s
money, Evans continued to make various misrepresentations to Plaintiff, falsely representing,
among other things, that Plaintiff’s money was being held in a “storage facility” awaiting an
additional infusion of cash (either from Plaintiff itself or from the “second buyer,” who was
alternately female or male and who had “signed” a contract that no one could see) that would
enable Plaintiff’s contracted-for Bitcoin to finally be released and delivered as promised. Evans,
along with her co-conspirators Etra and the Austins, continued to represent to Plaintiff for
months that they were in the process of securing the “second buyer” and that the Bitcoin would
be delivered if only Plaintiff would wait patiently for a few more days. Of course, none of these
representations were true and they were merely designed to stall Plaintiff, who reasonably relied
(for some time) on the representations that the co-conspirators were engaged in good faith efforts
to consummate the Bitcoin Agreement, while in fact the co-conspirators further transferred and
dissipated the $4,600,000 they had received from Plaintiff and sent to Hong Kong.
116. As a result of Evans’ fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff has
suffered substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than the stolen
$4,600,000 and several hundred thousand dollars in additional costs, together with interest
thereon. Plaintiff is further entitled to punitive damages based upon Evans’ outrageous and
morally offensive misconduct and her willful, wanton and gross disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
25
27 of 31
second cause of action
(Aiding and Abetting Fraud)
118. The Austins, Valkyrie, Valhalla and Etra, among others, engaged in a fraud upon
Plaintiff, which caused Plaintiff substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no
less than $4,600,000 and several hundred thousand dollars in additional costs, together with
interest thereon.
119. Evans rendered substantial assistance in the commission of the fraud, through her
close involvement in the negotiation of the Bitcoin Agreement enabling the Plaintiff’s funds to
be absconded with, and making false representations regarding the purported Bitcoin assets held
by her purported principal Kaslov, in order to induce the Plaintiff to enter the Bitcoin Agreement
and part with its $5 million.
120. For the course of months after Plaintiff’s money had been transferred by Etra to
Hong Kong, Evans continued to lend substantial assistance to Valkyrie, Valhalla, the Austins and
Etra in the commission of their fraud by, on a near daily basis, corresponding and speaking to
Plaintiff telephonically and by email in an effort to reassure Plaintiff that nothing was amiss and
that Plaintiff should merely sit patiently and wait for its Bitcoin to be delivered.
121. At all times Evans had actual knowledge that the purported “Bitcoin Agreement”
and “Escrow Agreement” were in fact part and parcel of a fraudulent scheme being perpetrated
upon the Plaintiff, and that no Bitcoin was ever intended to be, or would be, transferred.
122. As the direct and proximate result of Evans’ aiding and abetting this fraud,
Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than
$4,600,000 and several hundred thousand dollars in additional costs, together with interest
26
28 of 31
thereon. Plaintiff is further entitled to punitive damages based upon the Evans’ outrageous and
morally offensive misconduct and her willful, wanton and gross disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
thtrd cause of action
(Prima Facie Tort)
124. By participating knowingly in the acts and omissions described herein, Evans
intentionally committed a wrong against Plaintiff.
125. Evans’ actions and omissions described herein were made with a malicious intent
or disinterested malevolence, for the purpose of stealing $5,000,000 from Plaintiff and for no
other purpose.
126. There was no legitimate excuse or explanation for Evans’ conduct alleged herein.
127. Evans’ tortious conduct consisted of conduct that was otherwise lawful.
128. Evans’ actions and omissions described herein caused special damages to
Plaintiff, in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than the stolen $4,600,000 and several
hundred thousand dollars in additional costs, together with interest thereon. Plaintiff is further
entitled to punitive damages based upon Evans’ outrageous and morally offensive misconduct
and her willful, wanton and gross disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
fourth cause of action
(Unjust Enrichment)
27
29 of 31
130. Upon information and belief, as a result of the tortious actions of the Austins,
Valkyrie, Valhalla, Etra and others in absconding with Plaintiff’s $4,600,000, Evans has
benefited by receiving some portion of the stolen funds, either directly or indirectly.
131. As a result of the conspirators’ wrongful and fraudulent misappropriation of
Plaintiff’s $4,600,000, Evans was unjustly enriched at Plaintiffs’ expense.
132. It would be against equity and good conscience to permit Evans to retain or
benefit from any portion of Plaintiff’s $4,600,000 either directly or indirectly.
prayer for relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Evans as follows:
(a) On the First Cause of Action, awarding to Plaintiff all compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages in an amount as yet unknown to be determined at trial, but
in no event less than $4,600,000, plus interest;
(b) On the Second Cause of Action, awarding Plaintiff all compensatory,
(c) On the Third Cause of Action, awarding to Plaintiff all compensatory,
(d) On the Fourth Cause of Action, awarding to Plaintiff all compensatory,
(e) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just, fair and equitable under the
circumstances, including an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements.
28
30 of 31
Dated: June 4, 2019

KLEINBERG, KAPLAN, WOLFF & COHEN, P.C.
By:
£feven R. Popofsky
Joshua K. Bromberg
551 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10176
Telephone: (212) 986-6000
Facsimile: (212) 986-8866
Email: spopofsky@kkwc.com
Email: jbromberg@kkwc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

BENTHOS MASTER FUND LTD.
29
31 of 31

Benthos Master Fund LTD Vs Tracy Evans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benthos Master Fund LTD Vs Tracy Evans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/04/2019 04:03 PM INDEX NO.

supreme court of the state of new york

Defendant. Venue is proper pursuant to

to the above named defendant:

demanded in the Complaint.

York County as venue for this action.

Dated: June 4, 2019

551 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TO: Defendant Tracy Evans

supreme court of the state of new york

benthos master fund, ltd.,

summary of the action

7. Plaintiff Benthos, a private investment firm, is a Cayman Islands company with

its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Evans is an individual residing and

jurisdiction and venue

The Austins Bait the Hook For The Scheme

quantities of Bitcoin to Benthos.

Bitcoin in the first “tranche” of what it hoped to be a series of transactions.

“deal” was scheduled to close on or about July 23, 2018.

by Benthos and the deal was never consummated.

shown the Austins.

Evans, Etra and the Austins Put the Scheme in Motion

under the contract being $5,000,000 worth of Bitcoin.

was looking to sell it quickly at a discount.

21. When Benthos sought background information on Kaslov pursuant to standard

23. Annexed to the Bitcoin Agreement was an accompanying “Escrow Agreement”

25. The corresponding provision in the Bitcoin Agreement read as follows:

Valhalla in New York.

hereto collectively as Exhibit 1) on or about August 4, 2018. 2

very Bitcoin that was to be delivered to Benthos under the agreement.

connection with the Bitcoin Agreement were false.

Austins and Etra in a complex scheme to bilk Benthos out of $5 million.

conspirator in the scheme to defraud the Plaintiff.

completely and that he had known Etra for a long time.

The Scheme Comes to Fruition:

as per the wire instructions provided in the Escrow Agreement.

Evans and Her Confederates Demand An Additional $850,000 from Benthos

minimum requirement for the release of Bitcoin from such facility.

42. Benthos declined to send another, extra-contractual, $850,000 in order to

be the account of “HK Zhixuan Trading Limited” in Hong Kong.

currently held in escrow were wired today.”

Evans and her Confederates Stymie Plaintiff’s Efforts

48. The $5 million was not returned.

assets purportedly held by Kaslov in an undisclosed location.

from the so-called “storage facility.”

51. The message forwarded by Evans stated, “Good Morning Ms Tracy. . . . As

the transfer windows, We expect results in the next 16 hours.”

52. 16 hours later, Plaintiff had received no Bitcoin.

I need to reach out to Mr [Kaslov] Asap.

guarantors (Valhalla and Hugh):

The Austins ignored that demand.

Benthos demands that you immediately provide us with all details

61. Benthos’s counsel responded:

In addition, the terms of your escrow appear to be unconscionable, as no escrow

62. In reply, Etra characterized Benthos’s reasonable requests as “completely

Evans, Etra, “Kaslov” and “Hoang” Interpose Themselves

Evans, Etra and Hoang to consummate the transaction.

64. Following Etra’s inexplicable early-September refusal to respond to Benthos’s

Evans to speak for them.

purported “second buyer” unidentified, of course supposedly coming in to provide the

compliance with the already-breached Bitcoin Agreement.