Arizona Orders $1.4 Million Restitution in Massive Crypto Fraud Case

Arizona ACC says NovaTech and HyperFund pitches were misrepresented

According to the ACC’s findings, Boisselle and Wealthwise presented the programs as “safe” and “secure,” with funds available for withdrawal, while omitting key risk disclosures as outside regulators began issuing warnings tied to NovaTech in 2022.

The order states Boisselle continued solicitations after registration issues surfaced, including periods when Wealthwise and Boisselle were no longer properly registered in Arizona. The agency also imposed a permanent cease-and-desist order tied to state securities and investment-management rules.

Both NovaTech and HyperFund were promoted to retail audiences using familiar marketing language around passive income and account growth. In practice, regulators in multiple jurisdictions later described those structures as Ponzi-like or fraudulent, where incoming investor money was used to satisfy earlier payout expectations rather than transparent underlying trading profits.

Arizona’s findings do not claim every investor was pitched the exact same script, but the pattern in the order is consistent: sales assurances centered on safety and access, while material risk signals were either not disclosed or not emphasized.

These fact patterns mirror a broader class of crypto distribution risk: losses often begin at the advisory or referral layer, before users ever see on-chain data. It is a different tactic from outright brand impersonation, but the trust exploit is similar to the fake product-announcement pattern seen in ‘CircleMetals’ USDC Gold and Silver Swaps Scam.

Timeline: from 2021 solicitations to Arizona’s 2026 default order

The ACC said solicitations ran from November 2021 through April 2023. By August 2022, state-level warnings about NovaTech were already emerging, but Arizona alleged those warnings were not disclosed to clients. Arizona then issued a temporary cease-and-desist order in August 2025, followed by formal allegations, and finalized the restitution order on Feb. 4, 2026.

The Arizona case also lines up with federal actions against the same ecosystem. The SEC said in 2024 that NovaTech and related parties operated a $650 million fraud affecting investors in the U.S. and abroad, according to the agency’s press release. Separately, U.S. prosecutors said HyperFund-linked defendants were charged in an alleged $1.89 billion global scheme, according to the Department of Justice.

Procedurally, the Arizona order matters because default outcomes can still carry full monetary relief and permanent conduct restrictions when respondents do not participate. That can accelerate finality for victims compared with prolonged contested hearings, although actual recovery still depends on collections and asset availability.

Taken together, these actions suggest regulators are targeting not only offshore platforms but also domestic distribution channels, including local advisors and unregistered sales activity. For markets, that usually means tighter onboarding checks and higher compliance friction around retail crypto products.

Red flags for investors after Arizona’s $1.4 million crypto fraud ruling

The Arizona order lands as consumer-protection agencies report rising crypto-enabled scam losses. The Arizona Attorney General said Arizonans lost about $177 million to cryptocurrency-related fraud in 2024, including ATM-linked scams, in a state consumer alert. Nationally, reported losses tied to cryptocurrency fraud reached more than $5.6 billion in 2023, according to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center 2023 report.

For readers evaluating advisor-led crypto opportunities, the highest-signal checks are simple:

• Verify registration status and disclosure history using FINRA BrokerCheck.
• Treat “safe with guaranteed returns” language as a major risk flag.
• Ask whether funds move directly to a licensed custodian or through personal/intermediate accounts.
• Confirm whether any state or federal regulator has already issued warnings on the product.
• Document all written claims about liquidity, lockups, and withdrawal terms before sending funds.

Investors should also ask who controls private keys and who signs off on compliance at the advisor’s firm. If those answers are vague, change over time, or rely on offshore entities that are hard to verify, risk is usually higher than the pitch implies.

What remains unclear is whether additional private litigation or criminal proceedings will follow this Arizona order; those outcomes were not disclosed in the ACC summary. The next concrete marker for investors is enforcement follow-through, including restitution collection updates and any parallel actions tied to the same sales network.