The saga surrounding the OneCoin scandal has taken an unexpected turn in London, where a solicitor who once acted on behalf of the project is now facing professional misconduct charges.
The case has drawn attention not for cryptocurrency fraud, but for the way legal threats were allegedly deployed during OneCoin’s rise.
Key Takeaways
A UK regulator is prosecuting lawyer Claire Gill over a threat she sent while representing OneCoin.
Authorities say she issued the takedown demand despite signs the project was fraudulent.
Gill’s defense argues she acted properly based on client instructions and no lawsuit followed.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority claims that Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck, crossed professional lines when she sent a takedown demand to Jennifer McAdam, a Scottish woman who had publicly criticized OneCoin after losing her inheritance to the scheme. The letter, sent in 2017, warned of defamation proceedings if McAdam continued posting videos documenting her experience.
Regulators say this warning amounted to an abuse of legal process because Gill should have realized she was defending a project that already showed clear signs of illegitimacy. OneCoin’s founder, Ruja Ignatova, vanished a few months later and has since been accused by U.S. authorities of extracting billions of dollars through fictitious digital tokens. She remains on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.
Defense: “We Acted on Client Instructions”
Gill’s legal team is pushing back aggressively. At a hearing this week, they asked the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to dismiss the case entirely. Their argument centers on the idea that a solicitor is allowed to rely on a client’s account unless there is definitive proof it is false. According to filings from Gill’s lawyers, OneCoin insisted the accusations circulating online were untrue, and Gill had no obligation to independently investigate them.
They further argued that using defamation law to safeguard a client’s image — especially one under intense public scrutiny — does not automatically constitute misconduct. No lawsuit was ultimately filed against McAdam.
The regulator, however, alleges that Gill was not acting in good faith. They say she was already aware that OneCoin faced serious fraud allegations and that her threat letter targeted someone who was emotionally vulnerable. The tribunal has the authority to either fine her without limit or remove her from the legal profession if it agrees with the regulator’s assessment.
Pressure Builds as UK Rethinks Reputation Management Tactics
The proceedings are unfolding while the UK government considers new measures aimed at curbing “lawfare” — legal intimidation tactics used to silence critics or investigative reporting. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy recently signaled that stronger safeguards are on the way to discourage firms from filing or threatening lawsuits primarily to manage reputational risk.
Carter-Ruck, one of the best-known names in reputation management, has not commented publicly. Gill’s defense argues that the regulator is responding to this heightened political climate and that the case reflects broader tensions about the legal profession’s role in high-profile PR disputes.
OneCoin’s Collapse Continues to Reverberate
Between 2014 and 2016, OneCoin generated over €4 billion in revenue, despite having no functioning cryptocurrency and no legitimate market value, according to U.S. prosecutors. The scheme’s co-founder Karl Sebastian Greenwood has already been sentenced to 20 years in prison after admitting he helped promote OneCoin as a Bitcoin rival he knew was entirely fabricated.
Documents disclosed during the tribunal show that Gill sought guidance from Ignatova before sending the takedown letter. In one message, she remarked that issuing a legal threat could help signal that OneCoin was taking action even though the situation surrounding the allegations was “not straightforward.”
McAdam later told regulators that the letter caused significant distress at a time when she was struggling with the consequences of the scam. Her refusal to be intimidated, regulators say, does not diminish the seriousness of the conduct.
As the tribunal proceeds, the case has become less about crypto fraud itself and more about how far lawyers can go in defending clients whose reputations are already collapsing — and whether the industry is prepared to draw clearer boundaries in the wake of one of the largest financial hoaxes of the digital age.
