Adrien Castellani’s Role in the Crypto4Winners Scandal

The recent Crypto4Winners scandal has left many victims seeking answers. Adrien Castellani, one of the central figures in this case, has faced numerous questions about his involvement. Here, we address some of the most pressing questions with verified information.

 

1. How Did Adrien Meet Luc Schiltz?

Adrien Castellani was introduced to Luc Schiltz through a client from the bank where Adrien was employed. This introduction marked the beginning of their business relationship.

 

2. Did He Know of Luc’s Criminal Background?

Yes, Adrien was aware of Luc’s criminal background. He acknowledged Luc's past openly in various forums, including emails, meetings, and webinars. Adrien’s awareness of Luc’s history raises questions about why he chose to engage in a business partnership with someone with a known criminal record.

 

3. How and Why Did They Engage in a Business Partnership?

Initially, Adrien was brought on to manage clients, a role similar to his previous banking career. However, his responsibilities quickly expanded, and he soon became an associate and general manager. Based on company extracts, Adrien was officially listed as the CEO and financial beneficiary of Crypto4Winners. This elevation in role indicates a deeper level of involvement and commitment to the company's operations.

 

4. What Were Their Respective Roles and Responsibilities in C4W?

Luc Schiltz was the creator of the Crypto4Winners platform. Adrien joined the company and soon took on significant responsibilities, eventually becoming the CEO and economic beneficiary through a Swedish trust company. Although Adrien now claims he was merely an employee of Big Wave Development, this contradicts earlier public statements where he positioned himself as a key figure in Crypto4Winners.

 

5. Why Did Only Luc Have Access to Client Funds?

In December 2022, an anonymous document surfaced, and Adrien publicly responded, claiming that Luc was merely a trading advisor and no longer in charge of the company. He assured clients that Luc did not have access to the funds and that multi-signature protocols were in place to secure client assets. However, these assurances were inconsistent, with Adrien giving different explanations to different clients. This lack of clarity has contributed to the confusion surrounding the management of client funds.

 

6. What Checks and Balances Did Adrien/C4W Have Over the Activities of Its Traders?

There appear to have been no effective checks or balances. The traders mentioned in company documents may not have existed, leaving Adrien without any oversight over trading activities. He either trusted Luc implicitly or intentionally covered for him. The judge will need to determine whether Adrien’s actions were due to negligence or complicity. His failure to raise red flags earlier could suggest a lack of proper oversight or a deliberate choice to ignore potential issues.

 

7. How Did Adrien Not Know C4W Was a Ponzi Scheme?

Adrien was heavily involved in Crypto4Winners but was also engaged in other projects like Crypto4Wealth, which did not perform well, and Colossos, a legitimate project that demanded significant attention since early 2023. This divided focus may have prevented him from recognizing the signs of a Ponzi scheme. However, his previous experience and knowledge of Luc’s history should have made him more vigilant.

 

8. Assuming Adrien Wasn’t Part of the Fraud, How Did He Become Alerted to It and What Actions Did He Consequently Take?

Adrien supposedly realized the extent of the fraud only after Luc’s accident, which left him without access to the funds. Over the years, he had received inquiries about Luc’s past frauds but made no changes or took any actions to address these concerns. This inaction has led to speculation about his true role. If he was unaware of the fraud, why did he not act sooner when suspicions were raised?

Conclusion: Is Adrien Castellani a Fraudster?

Adrien Castellani's profile does not fit the typical image of a fraudster. However, given the numerous red flags, inconsistencies, and false information, there are only two plausible explanations: either he was complicit or extremely negligent. The court will ultimately determine his level of involvement.