A. Executive Summary
1. The auditor explicitly excluded very important subjects from the scope of the audit, for instance:
- The auditor has performed no procedures and does not express any assurance or opinion whether coin amount transfers from the old OneCoin blockchain (“Version 1”) to the new OneCoin blockchain (“Version 2”) are correct and whether transferred amounts are identical with the previous ones. In other words, the auditor did not check the consistency between the OneCoin End Balance of Blockchain Version 1 on 30 September 2016 and the Start Balance of Blockchain Version 2 on 1 October 2016 in the accounts of OneLife members.
- The consistency of the audited blockchain data with the information and data visible on the front-end websites onelife.eu and onecoin.eu is explicitly excluded.
NB: we found that the block height numbers (block sequence numbers) mentioned in the Audit Reports, match with the Block height numbers which are visible on the Blockchain browser screens in the onelife.eu back-office.
2. The auditor accepts the data provided by One Network Services Ltd as correct and denies any responsibility concerning the data correctness.
3. There is no statement whatsoever of checks of the consistency between the OneCoin transactions in the Blockchain on the one hand and the OneCoin Transactions in the OneCoin and Coinsafe Accounts of OneLife members on the other hand.
4. The auditor states in his “opinion” that all transactions are recorded in the blockchain and are consistent, but taking all these limitations in consideration, this opinion has no value whatsoever.
Conclusions on the Audit Reports and the auditor:
a. All Audit Reports are worthless.
b. By explicitly limiting the scope of the audit, and assuming that the data provided by One Network Services Ltd are correct, the auditor could produce his reports without lying.
c. The audit firm S Systems Ltd as well as the auditor have zero credibility (we don’t know if this “Atanas Lazarov” really exists, as there is no proof that he has ever shown his face in public on any OneCoin/OneLife event).
B. Analysis of Audit Reports
These are screenshots of Page 2 and 4 of the October 2016 Audit Report:
After the launch of the “new and greatly enhanced blockchain” (according to OneCoin news that is) on 1 October 2016 it took more than six months until new Audit Reports were published.
Note: All Audit Reports are available for everybody who has a onelife.eu account. After login, go to > Information Center > COMPLIANCE > AUDIT, or use this hyperlink: COMPLIANCE/AUDIT (opens in new window, login required).
The “S Systems” company logo, the name of the auditor “Atanas Lazarov” and the stamp with signature are pixel-perfect copies of the Audit Reports which cover OneCoin Blockchain Version 1 in the period July 2015 till September 2016.
Note: Only the Audit Reports of April 2015 till June 2015 have allegedly been produced by Dian Dimitrov of Semper Fortis, although there are strong indications that Dimitrov also has created a number of Audit Reports which are signed by Atanas Lazarov.
Apart from Version Dates and “ultimo month block height numbers” (we will explain this term below) all reports are identical, so we will only discuss the October 2016 Audit Report in detail.
Report fragment – Part 1
“Our engagement as stated in the contract with One Network Services Ltd. is to perform audit of the OneCoin block chain in order to:
1) assess the consistency of the block chain and
2) verify that there are no transactions not included in the block chain.”
Conclusion – Part 1
Sub 1): Our own investigations reveal that the OneCoin “Blockchain” is internally consistent, by which we mean:
- There is a continuous chain of Blocks, connected by “next” and “previous” hyperlinks, which can be browsed through back and forth from the very first “genesis block” with Block height #0 until the most recently created Block.
- Each block contains 1 and only 1 transaction with 50,000 newly “mined” OneCoins (the mining process is fake though).
- Every “Input” amount of a Transaction can be traced back to an “Output” amount of an earlier Transaction. The original “source” of all OneCoins always is a 50,000 ONE mining transaction or the genesis block, if you follow the trail to earlier Transactions.
- We never found an Output amount that was used more than once as an Input amount in later Transactions. In general cryptocurrency terms: there are no “double spends” (permanent double spends are illegal by definition in any cryptocurrency, double spends may only exist temporarily).
Remark: the Transactions in the Blockchain have no connection whatsoever with the OneCoin transactions in the OneCoin and Coinsafe Accounts of OneLife members.
Sub 2): this is an incorrect and nonsensical statement, as our own investigations and tests with OneCoin transactions in OneLife members accounts have provided irrefutable proof that none of these Transactions is visible in the Blockchain. In other words: it is a fact that there are OneCoin transactions which are not included in the blockchain.
Example of a Transaction to illustrate the concept of Transaction Inputs and Transaction Outputs. Transaction in Block 17357
Report fragment – Part 2
“We have performed automated tests on the block chain and transactions databases provided to us by One Network Services Ltd. as of block with height 42 801 (forty-two thousand eight hundred and one).”
Conclusion – Part 2
The Block with height 42801 which is visible in the Blockchain viewer has Date/Timestamp 01/10/2016 23:59:58 so this is indeed the last block created in October 2016. See direct hyperlink (login required): Block height #42801
The same goes for the block height numbers mentioned in the five Audit Reports from November 2016 till March 2017, they always refer to the last Transaction created in the month or on the day after. This makes it very likely that the auditor has seen the same data which are visible on the Blockchain screens.
Screenshot of Block Height Number #42801 mentioned in the October 2016 Audit Report. Note the Date/Timestamp: 31/10/2016 23:59:58
This table gives a summary of the Block Height Numbers mentioned in the Audit Reports, the Date/Timestamp of the corresponding Block on the Blockchain Simulator screen and a direct hyperlink to the Block.
|Audit Report||Block Height
|Date/Timestamp||Hyperlink to Block|
|31 October 2016||42801||01/10/2016 23:59:58||Block height #42801|
|30 November 2016||84890||01/12/2016 00:00:37||Block height #84890|
|31 December 2016||129205||01/01/2017 13:16:22||Block height #129205|
|31 January 2017||171066||31/01/2017 09:02:39||Block height #171066|
|28 February 2017||209401||01/03/2017 00:00:51||Block height #209401|
|31 March 2017||252055||31/03/2017 23:59:02||Block height #252055|
Report fragment – Part 3
“As of 01 October 2016 a completely new block chain is used. This block chain (in effective use after 01 October 2016) is not related by any means to the old one (in use before 01 October 2016) and have no information for any transactions that have occurred before 01 October 2016. No direct link between the two block chains exist nor is subject of our tests.”
Conclusion – Part 3
This complies with our findings:
- The “genesis block” with height #0 in Blockchain Version 2 does not contain a “previous” hyperlink.
- The “genesis block” has only 1 Transaction; this Transaction does not have an Input amount, only an Output Amount (1,986,580,000 ONE).
- All old hyperlinks of blockchain Version 1 we have saved, don’t work anymore, i.e. old Block and Transaction data are currently not accessible.
Report fragment – Part 4
“The transfer (migration) of the coin amounts from the old to the current block chain is by pre-mining the relevant quantities in the genesis block of the current block chain.
We have performed no procedures and do not express any assurance or opinion whether the operation quoted (the coin amount transfer) is correct and the transferred amounts are identical with the previous ones.”
Conclusion – Part 4
The first thing a professional auditor should check is the consistency between the old (Version 1) and the new (Version 2) Blockchain because this is of utmost importance. The End Balance in each and every OneCoin and Coinsafe Account in Version 1 on 30 September 2016 must comply with the the Start Balance in Version 2 on 1 October 2016 (taking into account the “coin doubling” of the balance in existing OneCoin Accounts). However this auditor explicitly excludes this crucial subject from the scope of his investigations.
This is a screenprint of one of the OneLife accounts that we have used for our own investigations and tests:
On 5 December 2016 a new version of the onelife.eu backend was launched which only shows dates without timestamps, but this screenshot in the old layout above clearly shows that the transactions in the OneCoin Account have a Date & Timestamp 1 October 2016 00:00:01 and 00:00:02 GMT/UTC respectively, so directly after midnight. We have seen the same Date & Timestamp on screenshots and YouTube videos of other OneLife members.
The so-called “mining” of the genesis block took place 9.5 hours later at 09:31:13 GMT/UTC which is clearly visible in the timestamp on this screenshot of genesis Block – Block height #0 (login required):
This is irrefutable proof that the “mining” of the genesis block during the Bangkok event was one big show. According to Ruja Ignatova this genesis block contained all OneCoin transactions of 2.5 million OneLife members, i.e. OneCoins existing before 1 October, “doubling” of these coins, and the OneCoins belonging to Ultimate Packages bought by members in the period before 1 October 2016.
However, contrary to the opinion of the auditor there was no “pre-mining”, because all mining processes are FAKE. Transactions for migration of OneCoins and “coin doubling” transactions were already registered in the OneCoin Account of OneLife members before the genesis block was created, as the screenshot of our OneCoin Account above proves. The so-called “pre-mined genesis block” has no connection whatsoever with OneCoin and Coinsafe Accounts of OneLife members. This sentence in the Audit Reports is nonsense:
- “The transfer (migration) of the coin amounts from the old to the current block chain is by pre-mining the relevant quantities in the genesis block of the current block chain.”
Report fragment – Part 5
“Our tests are performed on the data provided to us by One Network Services Ltd. We accept this data as correct and we hold no responsibility concerning the data correctness. Our engagement is based only on the data provided by the Client and no third party sources are used.”
Conclusion – Part 5
The One Network Services Ltd company gives the auditor access to the Block and Transaction data of the OneCoin Simulator and the auditor, without any further investigation, assumes that these data are correct. This way he can write his Audit Reports without lying, sort of smart but also obvious if you see through the patterns.
Report fragment – Part 6
“We preform [sic] our tests on the data provided by One Network Services Ltd. and we perform no procedures nor express any opinion on whether the information subject of our tests (the block chain effectively in use after 01 October 2016) is consistent with the information and data visible on the front-end websites (onecoin.eu, onelife.eu or any other).”
Conclusion – Part 6
The websites onelife.eu and onecoin.eu contain detail data of OneCoin balances and transactions of individual OneLife Members. This Audit Report fragment is more evidence that the auditor has not done anything to check the consistency between the OneCoin blockchain and the information in the OneCoin and Coinsafe Accounts of OneLife members, which a professional auditor should do.
If an auditor examines FAKE blockchain data which – considered on its own – seem to be consistent and complete, the results are worthless Audit Reports that the auditor can create without lying.
Screenshot of Block Height Number #84890 mentioned in the November 2016 Audit Report (hyperlink)
Screenshot of Block Height Number #129205 mentioned in the December 2016 Audit Report (hyperlink)
Screenshot of Block Height Number #171066 mentioned in the January 2017 Audit Report (hyperlink)
Screenshot of Block Height Number #209401 mentioned in the February 2017 Audit Report (hyperlink)
Screenshot of Block Height Number #252055 mentioned in the March 2017 Audit Report (hyperlink)