Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Unicoin against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
These findings are produced by an automated reviewer, and its results vary between runs: the same page, checked three times on the same day, came back with 15%, 20% and 34% of its claims disputed, mostly because each run extracted a different number of claims. Treat what follows as leads, not rulings.
“Disputed” means the reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. It does not mean the claim is false. “Unverifiable” means no reachable source settled it either way.
Nothing here changes the page on its own. A proposed correction is applied only after a human moderator approves it; until then the page reads as it did when reviewed.
disputed
1 claimThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #1[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Company Background and Token Launch
“The company's official planned token launch is listed as September 28, 2026.”
reviewerThe company's official planned token launch date is September 28, 2026The cited official site gives November 24, 2026, not September 28, 2026. The date is also a forward-looking company claim and may change.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The company's official planned token launch is listed as November 24, 2026.citedunicoin.com/
unverifiable
4 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Company and Executive Responses
“As of June 2026, the motion to dismiss remains under judicial review in the Southern District of New York; no ruling has been publicly reported.”
reviewerMotion to dismiss filed in August 2025 and still pending with no ruling as of June 2026The filing is supported. The pending status is an absence-of-news claim that I could not check against the docket. The review date is October 2026, so the 'as of June 2026' status is possibly stale. - #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Company and Executive Responses
“The SEC had issued a Wells notice to Unicoin in December 2024 indicating its intent to file enforcement action.”
reviewerWells notice December 2024; April 2025 settlement meeting declinedI did not fetch the CoinDesk article, so the exact Wells notice date and the April 18 meeting date are not independently confirmed. - #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Company Background and Token Launch
“Unicoin, Inc. traces its corporate origins to a software company founded in 2015.”
reviewerUnicoin was founded in 2015 as a software companyNot checked against the cited DL News article. The complaint refers to Moschini's role from 2015, but I did not confirm the founding claim. - #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: CEO Background: Alex Konanykhin
“accumulating an estimated net worth of approximately $300 million by his mid-20s”
reviewerKonanykhin biographical details (Russian Exchange Bank, $300 million net worth, 1999 asylum, TransparentBusiness $1 billion valuation)Biographical claims about a living person, sourced to Wikipedia and Crunchbase. I did not verify them. They are tangential to the SEC case.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #6[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: SEC Civil Fraud Complaint
“former President and Board Member Maria Silvina Moschini”
reviewerMoschini is a former President and Board Member'Former President' is correct, but the release describes her as a current board member, so 'former ... Board Member' is questionable. The release's wording may not reflect later changes.
confirmed
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: SEC Civil Fraud Complaint
“(Case No. 1:25-cv-04245)”
reviewerSEC filed complaint May 20, 2025 in SDNY, Case No. 1:25-cv-04245, against Unicoin and executivesThe case number matches the complaint caption itself. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Core Allegations: False Asset Backing and Inflated Sales Figures
“the SEC alleges the actual amount raised was no more than $110 million”
reviewerMore than $3 billion claimed vs no more than $110 million raised; over 5,000 investorsMatches the SEC press release. The press release says over 37.9 million certificates, consistent with 'nearly 38 million'. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Real Estate Fraud
“the actual combined fair market value of the four properties did not exceed $300 million”
reviewerProperties in four countries with purported appraised value above $1.4 billion; actual value no more than $300 millionSupported by the complaint. The complaint's wording is 'actual combined value', not 'fair market value', which is a minor paraphrase. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Richard Devlin Settlement
“a civil penalty of $37,500”
reviewerDevlin settled for a $37,500 civil penalty and permanent injunctionConfirmed by the SEC.