As a longtime financial reporter, I’ve covered countless investment fraud cases, but few match the bizarre blend of cryptocurrency, alleged psychic manipulation, and high-society drama currently unfolding in federal court.
Crypto heiress Larissa Markus has filed a stunning lawsuit against her former friend Dennis Gorodetsky, claiming he orchestrated an elaborate $80 million fraud scheme by exploiting their friendship and manipulating her through claims of psychic abilities.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, alleges Gorodetsky convinced Markus he possessed supernatural powers that could protect her investments while secretly diverting her funds for personal use. According to court documents I’ve reviewed, Markus claims she transferred cryptocurrency valued at approximately $80 million based on his guidance.
What makes this case particularly notable is Markus’s background. As the ex-wife of cryptocurrency entrepreneur Eduard Ifraimov, she had accumulated substantial digital assets that became the target of the alleged scheme. The legal complaint details how Gorodetsky allegedly played on Markus’s spiritual beliefs and trust to gain control over her finances.
The Federal Trade Commission has been increasingly concerned about cryptocurrency-related fraud. Their data shows consumers reported losing more than $1 billion to cryptocurrency scams in 2021 alone, with numbers continuing to climb. This case represents just one high-profile example of how personal relationships can be weaponized in sophisticated financial deceptions.
“Affinity fraud—where scammers exploit relationships and trust within communities—has found new life in the cryptocurrency space,” explains Melissa Sanders, financial crimes specialist at Columbia Business School. “The unregulated nature of digital assets makes them particularly attractive to fraudsters looking to operate with minimal oversight.”
According to the lawsuit, Gorodetsky allegedly convinced Markus that her cryptocurrency holdings faced supernatural threats, claiming he could protect her wealth through his psychic abilities. Over time, he allegedly gained control of her digital wallets containing Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other digital assets worth tens of millions.
Court filings suggest Gorodetsky used the misappropriated funds to purchase luxury real estate in Miami, high-end vehicles, and extravagant travel—all while maintaining the pretense of safeguarding Markus’s wealth from otherworldly dangers.
The case highlights the unique vulnerabilities in cryptocurrency transactions. Unlike traditional banking, which offers fraud protections and transaction reversals, cryptocurrency transfers are typically irreversible and pseudonymous, making recovery challenging once funds leave a victim’s control.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has recently intensified its focus on cryptocurrency fraud. Last quarter, the agency brought enforcement actions against several major players in the digital asset space, signaling heightened regulatory attention that many industry analysts believe is overdue.
“The intersection of high-net-worth individuals, cryptocurrency, and alleged psychic manipulation creates a perfect storm for sophisticated fraud,” notes Richard Levin, chair of the fintech and regulation practice at national law firm Nelson Mullins. “These cases are particularly complex because they blend technical sophistication with psychological manipulation.”
Gorodetsky’s legal team has denied the allegations, calling them “fantastical” and suggesting the transfers were legitimate business arrangements. They’ve filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the transactions were documented with proper contracts.
What’s particularly striking about this case is how it exemplifies the evolving nature of financial fraud in the digital age. Traditional investment scams have found new vectors through cryptocurrency’s technical complexity and the absence of established regulatory frameworks.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office declined to comment on whether they’re investigating criminal charges related to the allegations, but sources familiar with the matter suggest authorities are monitoring the civil proceedings closely.
For everyday investors, this case serves as a sobering reminder that cryptocurrency investments remain vulnerable to both technical exploits and old-fashioned confidence schemes. Basic security practices—including skepticism toward investment advice tied to supernatural claims—remain essential regardless of how sophisticated the underlying technology.
As cryptocurrency continues its march toward mainstream adoption, cases like this highlight the growing pains of an industry still finding its regulatory footing. The blockchain technology underpinning digital assets may be revolutionary, but human vulnerability to manipulation remains unchanged.
The case is scheduled for preliminary hearings next month. Whatever the outcome, it serves as a cautionary tale about the unique risks at the intersection of wealth, technology, and trust—a story that seems almost designed for our current moment of financial innovation and uncertainty.
