Man Sues Citibank After Sending Millions to Fake NFT Site

I once heard someone say the most dangerous scams do not start with a fake website, but with a friendly conversation. That is how it began for one man in Texas—through a casual chat on Facebook that turned into a nightmare involving $20 million and a lawsuit against Citibank.

Good to know

• A Texas man wired $20 million to accounts linked to a fake NFT platform.
• Citibank allegedly received $4 million of those funds.
• The lawsuit claims the bank ignored obvious red flags and helped the fraud continue.

Michael B. Zidell says he met someone online in early 2023 who introduced herself as Carolyn Parker, a business owner in California. They kept in touch, and Parker eventually brought up her success investing in NFTs on a website called OpenrarityPro.com.

Trusting her claims, Zidell says he followed her lead. He wired money 43 times to different accounts, totaling $20 million. One of the main recipients was a Citibank account under the name Guju, Inc., which alone received 12 transfers worth nearly $4 million.

Eventually, the site showed Zidell’s account holding over $300 million. But when he tried to withdraw funds, the platform asked for an additional payment called a “risk deposit.” Then, the site vanished.

Citibank’s Role Under Fire

Zidell is now suing Citibank, claiming the bank failed to catch serious discrepancies in the Guju account’s activity. According to the lawsuit, Guju told Citibank it would not receive wire transfers and expected less than $250,000 per month. In reality, it received multiple multi-million dollar wires—just from Zidell.

The lawyers argue that Citibank either knew or should have known something was wrong. They say the bank allowed unusual activity that clearly went against the account’s original documents, which should have triggered review or action.

Legal Arguments Ahead

Zidell’s team says Citibank “materially aided” the scam by providing services to Parker and her partners, and by failing to act on repeated red flags. They claim the bank bears responsibility as an aider and abettor to securities fraud.

As financial fraud grows more complex, the case raises a difficult question: where should the line of responsibility fall—on the victim, or on the institutions handling the money?