Elon Musk and Tesla fight off accusations of fraud using Dogecoin

Elon Musk and his electric vehicle company Tesla managed to get a class action lawsuit dismissed, the authors of which accused them of fraud by manipulating the price of the Dogecoin cryptocurrency. The decision to dismiss the lawsuit was made by Manhattan District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

Image source: KNFind / pixabay.com

Investors accused the businessman of using messages on the social network Twitter, appearances in various shows, and other “advertising stunts” to provoke an artificial increase in the value of the Dogecoin cryptocurrency. According to the plaintiffs, the businessman used these manipulations to ensure profitable trading of digital assets through cryptocurrency wallets that belong to him and Tesla.

At the same time, Musk was accused of deliberately raising the Dogecoin rate by more than 36,000% over two years, and then allowing the cryptocurrency to fall. Additionally, in April 2023, Musk changed the Twitter logo to the Dogecoin logo, which led to a 30% jump in the value of the cryptocurrency. Due to this, Musk was able to sell digital assets worth $124 million.

During the trial, the judge noted that Musk’s tweets that Dogecoin would become the main cryptocurrency on the planet and with its help it would be possible to buy a Tesla electric car or literally fly to the moon were “ambitious and pretentious,” but did not prove the fact of falsification. The judge noted that “no reasonable investor could rely on tweets” to sue someone for fraud. He also added that the court failed to understand investors’ claims regarding market manipulation and insider trading in digital assets.

The judge rejected the investors’ claim and they will not be able to file it again. Let us remember that initially the plaintiffs demanded to recover $258 billion from the businessman, but over two years of proceedings they made adjustments to their claim four times. “This is a very good day for Dogecoin,” Musk’s lawyer Alex Spiro commented on the issue. Official representatives for the plaintiffs declined to comment.