Anthony Mitchell's Renewed Second Amended RICO Complaint Against Andrew Tate and Associates
Plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's renewed second amended complaint alleges Andrew Tate, Tristan Tate, and associated entities operated a fraudulent enterprise through online subscriptions and a hackathon scheme with false prize representations.
If the PDF does not display in your browser, download the original file.
Read with context. This preserved document reflects its source and publication date. Check the linked source context page for corrections, replacements, or later developments.
About this document
A plain-language guide to the contents and context of this specific public document.
Alleged Enterprise Structure and Operations
The complaint describes an association-in-fact enterprise allegedly involving Andrew Tate, Tristan Tate, and 26 named defendants including individuals and corporate entities. According to the filing, this enterprise marketed recurring paid online subscriptions under brands including 'The Real World' (previously 'Hustlers University') since at least 2022. The document identifies nine core domains with specific functions: fundraiser.com for the hackathon, cobratate.com for branding, jointherealworld.com and university.com for subscriptions, and topg.com for merchandise. The complaint alleges these domains shared corporate infrastructure through overlapping registered agents and common control by defendant Valton Eason, who is listed as officer or manager for multiple entities including University.com TRW Inc. and War Room Inc.
Supported by PDF pages 1, 4, 5, 6, 7Hackathon Scheme Allegations
The complaint details allegations regarding a January 2025 'Hackathon' promoted at fundraiser.com/hackathon. The plaintiff alleges Andrew Tate announced via his @Cobratate account on January 12, 2025 a prize pool exceeding $1,000,000, expert judging, and up to $1,000,000 in venture funding. According to the filing, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell and his brother Bryan Mitchell developed the 'Bangchain' project, submitting it on January 29, 2025. The document states the project was showcased in first position on fundraiser.com but claims no judging occurred and no prizes were awarded. The complaint includes specific Telegram messages from January 30, 2025 between Bryan Mitchell and defendant Parsa Abbasie regarding cryptocurrency tokens bearing the Bangchain name that plaintiff alleges were unauthorized.
Supported by PDF pages 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 23Payment Processing and Monetization
The complaint describes allegations about the enterprise's payment infrastructure, naming defendants Thrifty Consulting LLC and Thrift Technologies LLC. The plaintiff claims these entities built a system that allegedly stored card credentials and rotated charges among different payment processors. According to the filing, this system allegedly helped keep individual processors' chargeback ratios below review thresholds. The document states proceeds were ultimately remitted to offshore destinations, with Defied Trust Digital Trading in the UAE identified as the alleged final recipient. The complaint references the enterprise's promotional content including domain banners.
Supported by PDF pages 3, 4, 26, 27, 28Federal RICO Claims and Predicate Acts
The complaint asserts violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), alleging a pattern of racketeering activity including wire fraud and money laundering. The document includes a table matching each defendant to two alleged predicate acts, such as Andrew Tate's January 12, 2025 hackathon announcement and Tristan Tate's claims about the subscription program. The plaintiff claims injury from development labor, paid subscription fees, and diminished commercial value of his Bangchain project from the alleged unauthorized token use. The complaint seeks treble damages under RICO for these alleged violations.
Supported by PDF pages 30, 31, 32, 38State Law Claims and Specific Allegations
The complaint includes nine state law causes of action against various defendant groups. For breach of contract, the plaintiff alleges the hackathon constituted a unilateral contract that defendants breached by not awarding promised prizes. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim cites alleged false statements about hackathon judging and sponsorship, including 'Main Sponsor' designations that allegedly misrepresented Tate-controlled brands as independent sponsors. The Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim references alleged representations about the subscription products. The conversion claim focuses on unauthorized use of the Bangchain project identity in cryptocurrency tokens. The document specifies which defendants are named in each count and notes these claims are brought in the alternative to federal claims.
Supported by PDF pages 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Requested Relief and Jurisdictional Basis
The complaint seeks multiple forms of relief including treble damages under RICO statutes, compensatory damages for state law claims, and equitable remedies. The plaintiff requests removal of his project from the hackathon showcase and publication of corrective notices about the alleged lack of judging. For jurisdiction, the complaint cites both federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and diversity grounds (28 U.S.C. § 1332), noting some defendants' alleged UAE residency. The document includes specific allegations about each defendant's forum contacts to support personal jurisdiction in Nevada, including claims that defendants solicited Nevada residents, accepted plaintiff's submission from Nevada, and charged Nevada payment cards.
Supported by PDF pages 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 38Document record
- Document type
- Civil complaint
- Category
- Civil
- Publication date
- 2026-07-19
- Court or office
- Not stated by source
- Case number
- 2:26-cv-00720
- Collected
- 2026-11-13
- Original filename
- gov.uscourts.nvd.180126.105.0.pdf
Source & integrity
This copy is preserved from the linked source record. The fingerprint below lets you verify that the bytes have not changed.
162a04d0461809d99f3ac4da274bcbf43c523cd2485deb80bea26082d73732c9ShareIt.onl is an independent public-document index and is not affiliated with CourtListener or any court. Documents are published here only after source and file-integrity review. Always use the linked source record for authoritative context and later updates.