Fact check: Why is the trump crypto scam not being criminally investigated

1. Lawsuit paints a vivid playbook — what plaintiffs allege and when

Plaintiffs in the October filings describe a repeatable six-step pump-and-dump playbook that allegedly engineered price spikes in $MELANIA before orchestrated sell-offs caused investor losses, asserting the creators used celebrity branding to gain trust and liquidity ^{[2] [4]}. The complaint frames Melania Trump’s public association as a credibility tool rather than evidence she knowingly participated in fraud, saying she was used as “window dressing,” and requests civil remedies for millions in alleged damages. These are civil allegations as documented in the October 22–23 reporting; they are not criminal convictions or indictments ^{[4] [1]}.

2. Media reporting shows scale of crypto involvement by the Trump family

Investigative coverage dated October 16 reports that the Trump family and affiliated entities realized at least $1 billion in crypto-related revenue over roughly a year, emphasizing the scale and commercial centrality of crypto ventures to the family’s finances ^[3]. That reporting does not assert criminal wrongdoing; it focuses on revenue flows and possible regulatory gaps. The juxtaposition of high revenues and civil fraud claims invites scrutiny but does not substitute for law-enforcement action. The reporting is useful for context about the economic stakes involved and why the memecoin lawsuit attracted attention ^{[5] [3]}.

3. Why no criminal probe is visible in public records yet

As of the cited articles, there is no public federal or state criminal complaint or indictment tied directly to the $MELANIA memecoin matter; the record shows only civil litigation alleging fraud ^{[4] [2]}. Criminal investigations often begin confidentially and can take months or years, and prosecutors require evidence of criminal intent, coordination, and statutory violations. Civil plaintiffs can pursue restitution while law enforcement weighs whether evidence meets criminal thresholds. The absence of a disclosed criminal probe in news coverage to date does not prove prosecutors are not examining the facts confidentially ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Different actors and standards: civil plaintiffs versus prosecutors

Civil lawsuits pursue damages and record discovery under lower legal thresholds—preponderance of evidence—than criminal prosecutions, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and must meet statutes such as wire fraud or securities laws adapted to crypto contexts. Plaintiffs allege a scheme and seek compensation; prosecutors would need to show intentional deception and jurisdictional hooks. The October filings therefore set a public factual record that could feed investigations, but they do not automatically trigger criminal charges or substitute for prosecutorial decisions ^{[4] [2]}.

5. Potential obstacles for criminal investigators in crypto pump-and-dumps

Prosecutors face hurdles including anonymity of token creators, cross-jurisdictional blockchain transactions, and evolving legal frameworks for tokens that are not clearly securities, which complicates evidence collection and charge selection. The memecoin plaintiffs allege orchestrators used repeatable tactics, but proving who controlled wallets and who executed selling patterns can require subpoenas, cooperation from exchanges, and forensic blockchain analysis. Those processes can be lengthy and require multi-agency coordination, which helps explain why civil suits may appear first in public ^{[2] [1]}.

6. What the available reporting omits or leaves open

The cited coverage documents allegations and revenue figures but does not include statements from prosecutors or law enforcement confirming investigative status, nor does it provide access to non-public subpoenas or forensic blockchain reports that would be probative for criminal charges ^{[3] [4]}. Public sources also do not contain responses from all named defendants or detail of Melania Trump’s contractual role beyond plaintiffs’ characterizations. These omissions matter because they limit the public’s ability to assess whether evidence of criminal intent exists beyond the civil complaint’s assertions ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Paths forward: discovery, regulatory scrutiny, and possible outcomes

Civil discovery from the lawsuit can produce transactional records, communications, and wallet linkages that may enable regulators or prosecutors to assess criminal culpability; regulators could also pursue administrative or enforcement actions depending on token classification and conduct. Alternatively, cases may settle or reveal insufficient evidence for criminal charges. The October filings and reporting increase transparency and pressure on exchanges, counsel, and regulators to respond, but actual criminal charges would require an independent prosecutorial determination based on evidentiary standards ^{[2] [4]}.

8. Bottom line for readers tracking accountability

The public record through mid-to-late October shows serious civil allegations of a pump-and-dump using the $MELANIA token and significant crypto revenue tied to the Trump family, but no publicly announced criminal investigation into the memecoin as reported in these sources; the difference between civil claims and criminal probes explains why the question arises and why prosecution may not yet be visible ^{[1] [3]}. Observers should watch for subsequent filings, law-enforcement statements, or regulatory actions that could change the legal landscape.