Cryptospain victims seek Alvise Pérez indictment over €100k

Cryptospain victims seek Alvise indictment over €100,000

A businessman estimates €100,000 in cash was handed to a Member of the European Parliament to fund his election campaign. The founder of Madeira Invest Club, the entity behind the Cryptospain brand, has submitted a written statement to the Public Prosecutor’s Office with chat screenshots and an expert report claiming he delivered this money to MEP Alvise Pérez. The Association of Crypto Users, representing those affected by the investment club's closure, has expanded its complaint before the National Court to include the MEP, requesting the case be transferred to the Supreme Court, where he holds jurisdictional immunity.

What is Cryptospain and why is its closure being reported?

Cryptospain operated as a private digital currency investment club under the Madeira Invest Club brand. The Spanish Securities Market Commission (CNMV) classified it as an unlicensed financial firm in May of the year prior to its shutdown. The platform collapsed after media outlets revealed that Alvise Pérez himself had directed his trinc there when soliciting donations for the party he led via his Telegram channel.

The initial complaint, filed on September 20 by Aránguez Lawyers, states that more than 27,000 people contributed funds that ended up in digital wallets belonging to the company created by Álvaro Romillo. Complainants estimate the operation handled around €300 million and that the closure caused millions in losses for investors. The case is currently awaiting assignment at the National Court.

Romillo’s statement to the Prosecutor’s Office

Romillo has submitted a written statement to the Prosecutor’s Office providing screenshots of conversations with Alvise Pérez. He claims he not only provided the digital wallets for donations but also supplied €100,000 because fundraising was slower than expected. According to the account, the handover took place at the offices of a company owned by the same person who runs Madeira Invest Club, which operates 5,000 fortified safe deposit boxes in central Madrid and allows cash exchanges with promises of confidentiality.

The document includes an expert report verifying the authenticity of the conversations, according to the same sources. The State General Prosecutor’s Office will need to forward the statement to the relevant prosecutor or, if proceedings are peine earlier in the Central Investigating Courts, directly to that body.

Victims’ allegations vs. defense arguments

The victims argue that with these funds, the current MEP would have been promoting Romillo’s business, which they describe as a scam. The expanded complaint asks the National Court to admit it and transfer jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Separately, another extension has been filed requesting the freezing of a series of assets belonging to Romillo located in the Dominican Republic.

On the political defense side, some argue that Alvise has always publicly acknowledged funding through donations and that any issue lies with the Cryptospain manager regarding his investors. It is claimed that the article conflates €6,000 in crypto donations with the alleged Cryptospain contribution and that SALF was only established just before the elections. Countering this is the argument that a single donor cannot contribute more than €50,000, citing the limit mentioned in the debate itself.

Context: Crypto scams and financial coaching

This case has reignited the debate about investor acquisition ecosystems on social media. Some argue that Cryptospain is just the tip of the iceberg of a trend involving coaching and crypto investments, filled with scammers exploiting insecure profiles, including teenagers and the elderly. The €300 million attributed to the club is not pocket change; significant capital must have been involved.

The discussion shifts toward victim responsibility. One view suggests that anyone giving money to an unlicensed financial firm assumes the risk. Another perspective argues that an official CNMV warning does not exempt those promoting the business from liability for what they promote.

Debate on campaign financing

The matter connects to a broader discussion: whether it makes sense to imprison politicians for receiving campaign donations when major parties also accept them. Arguments suggest all parties rely on donors and scrutiny is applied unevenly based on the donor's identity. The counter-argument is that the issue is not the existence of donations, but their origin and traceability.

Legal limits appear as the most concrete point of debate: a single donor cannot give more than €50,000. If the delivery of €100,000 occurred in cash within safe deposit boxes with promises of confidentiality, the problem ceases to be merely political and becomes administrative and incivil.

---

The case remains as it was: an expanded complaint pending admission, a statement filed with the Prosecutor’s Office, and an MEP with Supreme Court jurisdiction. The figure that stands out is not the €300 million attributed to the club, but the €100,000 in cash that allegedly funded a campaign presented as independent of the system.