FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Massachusetts Man Sentenced to Prison for $350,000 Cryptocurrency Investment Fraud

Luciano Schipelliti was sentenced to one year and one day in prison for fraudulently obtaining investor funds.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 9:21 a.m. ET
On August 11, 2026, 29-year-old Luciano Schipelliti of Haverhill, Massachusetts, was in federal court in Boston to one year and one day in prison for fraudulently obtaining $350,000 in investor funds, according to official court records released by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. The case remains open as a developing matter. U.S. Senior District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ordered Schipelliti to serve the prison term followed by two years of supervised release with six months of home confinement, and to pay $350,000 in restitution. Schipelliti was charged in March 2026 and pleaded guilty in April 2026 to one count of wire fraud. According to official court documents, Schipelliti established the Superstars Fund in the fall of 2018 and raised roughly $275,000 to invest in cryptocurrency. By 2019, he lost all of the money through bad investments. He did not disclose the losses to investors and instead sent monthly newsletters starting in approximately November 2020 that falsely reported the fund continued to grow. In approximately February 2021, Schipelliti launched the TTM Fund based on the misrepresented performance, raising approximately $350,000 to invest in cryptocurrency, all of which was lost by September 2021. Charging documents state that he lost most of the TTM Fund in cryptocurrency investments and used some funds in a manner inconsistent with its operating agreement. United States Attorney Leah B. Foley and FBI Special Agent in Charge Ted E. Docks of the Boston Division announced the sentence. Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin A. Saltzman of the Securities, Financial & Cyber Fraud Unit prosecuted the case.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 13:21current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.