The case surrounding Eyal Avramovich sits at the intersection of cryptocurrency mining, offshore banking, investor complaints and a $17 million civil claim that remains contested in the courts. It is important to separate what has been established by regulators and court records from what has been alleged by investors, journalists and litigants. There is no court judgment in the material reviewed that finds Avramovich personally guilty of fraud, and no credible source located in this review establishes that he has been criminally convicted or pleaded guilty to a financial crime. But the record surrounding businesses associated with him contains enough regulatory warnings and unresolved disputes to warrant close scrutiny.
Avramovich is an Israeli-born inventor and entrepreneur who moved into cryptocurrency mining after becoming interested in Bitcoin. His public biography says he began mining around 2015 or 2016 and founded MineBest in 2017. Before crypto, he was associated with consumer technology and inventions, including weighing systems, chargers, robotics and mobility products. Patent records independently identify him as an inventor, including patents involving weighing technology and robotic massage equipment.
His business network has included Mine Best Sp. z o.o. in Poland, where Polish corporate records identify Eyal Avramovich as a shareholder and member of the management board. One company database based on Polish registry records says Avramovich holds 100% of the shares in Mine Best Sp. z o.o. and identifies Przemysław Kondratowicz as a prokurent, or authorised commercial representative. MineBest itself says it was established by Avramovich in 2017 and continues to operate in cryptocurrency-mining infrastructure.
The more controversial part of the story involves Mining City, a cryptocurrency mining platform that sold mining plans and promoted returns connected to cryptocurrency mining and recruitment. Mining City promoted Bitcoin Vault, or BTCV, among its products. Public reporting connected Mining City with Prophetek Inc. and MineBest, while Mining City’s own materials identified Gregory Rogowski as its CEO. Avramovich’s own crypto biography says he was involved in the creation of Bitcoin Vault and later co-created Electric Cash, or ELCASH. Electric Cash’s website identifies him as CEO of Electric Vault and MineBest and describes him as a founder of Electric Cash.
Regulatory authorities did not treat the Mining City model as an ordinary unregulated technology venture. In September 2020, the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission warned the public about Mining City, describing the offering as an investment contract and saying it was not registered or authorised to solicit investments. The regulator said the structure showed indications of a possible Ponzi scheme, with new investors’ money potentially being used to pay supposed profits to earlier participants. The packages reportedly ranged from about $300 to $12,600 and were marketed with daily returns that could reach approximately $92, alongside referral rewards.
The Philippine regulator went further in a subsequent advisory after reports that Mining City or related entities had obtained SEC registration. The SEC said Mining City, Prophetek Mining City and related variations were not registered and had not received the secondary licence required to solicit investments. It warned that the promotion of such schemes could expose promoters to criminal penalties. Mining City, for its part, disputed the regulatory characterisation and said it was pursuing registration and compliance. BusinessWorld reported that the company said it had spoken with the SEC about obtaining a licence and intended to continue its compliance efforts.
The regulatory scrutiny did not stop in the Philippines. The Ontario Securities Commission issued an investor warning in December 2020 stating that Mining City was not registered in Ontario to engage in securities trading. The Canadian Securities Administrators continues to list that warning. In February 2024, Cyprus’ securities regulator, CySEC, placed miningcity.com on a formal warning list of websites that did not belong to an entity authorised to provide investment services or conduct investment activities under Cyprus law.
Those warnings matter because they provide something more concrete than online accusations: regulators in multiple jurisdictions independently concluded that Mining City was operating without the authorisations required for investment activity. They do not, however, amount to criminal convictions against Avramovich. Nor do they establish that every investor complaint or every allegation made against the businesses is true. That distinction becomes particularly important in the newest legal dispute.
On May 13, 2025, José Manuel Torres Martinez filed a civil claim in the High Court of Justice of Saint Christopher and Nevis naming Avramovich, Mine Best Sp. z o.o., Data Center Tec Limited and Hamilton Reserve Bank Ltd. The claim seeks approximately $17 million and alleges, among other things, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy and loss of business opportunity arising from Mining City mining plans. OffshoreAlert identifies the matter as a fraud-related civil complaint, but the allegations remain allegations rather than findings of the court.
The defendants have mounted a substantial procedural challenge. In June 2025, Data Center Tec applied for the Torres proceedings to be dismissed or stayed, arguing that Saint Kitts and Nevis lacked jurisdiction. Its filing says the Mining City agreement was between customers and Prophetek Inc. Ltd., trading as Mining City, and that the agreement selected Cyprus law and Cyprus courts for disputes. The defendants also argued that Torres had failed to establish contractual privity with them and had provided no documentary evidence supporting his claimed $17 million loss.
Avramovich has publicly denied the substance of the accusations. In a November 21, 2025 letter to OffshoreAlert, he said Torres’ filing had not been admitted to the merits and that there had been no adverse judicial finding against him. He described the allegations as unsupported and requested that the publication be temporarily removed. His lawyer, Przemysław Kondratowicz, subsequently argued that the coverage had omitted a parallel proceeding that he said fundamentally changed the context.
That parallel proceeding is Data Center Tec Ltd. v. Hamilton Reserve Bank. DCT filed a claim seeking $16,588,924.40, alleging that the bank had failed since June 2022 to honour instructions to transfer and close an account. The claim specifically cites an $800,000 wire-transfer request made on June 15, 2022 and seeks interest, damages and costs. Avramovich signed a certificate of truth as DCT’s director, confirming his belief that the facts in the claim were true.
The banking litigation has continued independently. The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court’s 2026 cause lists show DCT’s case against Hamilton Reserve Bank continuing, including a June 30, 2026 hearing. A February 2026 cause list classified the matter as a judgment-in-default hearing. That does not, by itself, establish that DCT ultimately recovered the money or that every allegation against the bank was proven; it establishes only that the litigation had progressed to that procedural stage.
The Torres case was also active enough to reach case management in September 2025. The court’s published cause list records José Manuel Torres Martinez v. Eyal Avramovich et al. as a case-management conference, with Avramovich represented by Dentons Delany and Stanbrook Prudhoe. No later public court record located in this review establishes a final judgment against Avramovich in that action.
There is also a significant question over where Avramovich is now based. The 2025 court filing describes him as residing in Żyrardów, Poland, while business databases continue to associate him with Warsaw. His current LinkedIn profile, however, displays Dubai, United Arab Emirates, as his location and shows him actively promoting MineBest’s cryptocurrency-mining infrastructure business. That profile also shows recent activity around MineBest’s expansion, institutional mining infrastructure and the 2026 Bitcoin conference. These sources establish his current public business presence, but not his precise physical whereabouts at any given moment.
Today, MineBest presents a sharply different picture from the controversies surrounding Mining City. The company says it no longer works with individual investors or offers public investment programmes and instead focuses on institutional cryptocurrency-mining infrastructure. Its 2026 materials describe continued development of facilities in North America. Avramovich remains identified as CEO. At the same time, MineBest acknowledges that customers of its partners have gone more than four years without mining rewards and says the company has pursued litigation in China over seized mining equipment and digital assets.
The investor complaints have not disappeared. Mining City’s Trustpilot profile currently carries a very poor rating, with numerous users reporting difficulties withdrawing funds, prolonged KYC processes and losses. Such reviews are not independently verified evidence of fraud, but they document the continuing consumer grievances surrounding the platform. Mining City has responded to some complaints, attributing withdrawal difficulties to KYC, compliance procedures and cryptocurrency-market volatility.
The broader lesson is not that every allegation against Avramovich has been proven. It has not. The more defensible conclusion is that a businessman with a substantial technology and cryptocurrency footprint became connected to a cluster of ventures that attracted repeated regulatory warnings, serious investor complaints and now a multimillion-dollar court battle. Regulators in several jurisdictions warned that Mining City’s investment activities were unauthorised; a claimant is seeking $17 million in damages; Avramovich has denied wrongdoing and challenged the jurisdiction and evidence; and a separate $16.6 million banking dispute remains tied to the same pool of funds. Until courts finally resolve the competing claims, the most important fact for investors is that the dispute is still unfinished. In an industry where sophisticated branding can make a risky financial proposition look like established infrastructure, regulatory status, verifiable revenue and the ability to withdraw money matter far more than the promises attached to the next mining plan, token or corporate rebrand.
Sorce:
OffshoreAlert
————-
Disclaimer:
Some content on Reportingscams.com is published under our guest post program and is provided by third-party contributors. Reporting scams does not create, verify, or take responsibility for the views, accuracy, or claims expressed in such content.
