USSEC exposes Ash Mufareh’s OnPassive ecosystem, a multimillion dollar scam from India to Dubai

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (USSEC) has filed a comprehensive legal complaint against Ashraf “Ash” Mufareh, ONPASSIVE LLC, and his spouse Asmahan Mufareh. The filing tears the mask off the so called OnPassive ecosystem, revealing a meticulously engineered, multimillion dollar scam that siphoned money from hopeful investors across India and promoted an aura of legitimacy that stretched to Dubai. For readers asking OnPassive real or fake, the facts outlined by regulators are unambiguous.

OnPassive ecosystem: real or fake

The USSEC complaint, lodged in the Middle District of Florida, describes a multi level marketing pyramid disguised as an AI venture. Since July 2018, ONPASSIVE, also marketed as GoFounders and O founders, sold the dream of high returns and passive income powered by a suite of AI apps. The pitch likened the OnPassive ecosystem to the innovations of global technology leaders. The reality, according to the SEC, was a recruitment driven money funnel rather than a product driven technology company.

$97 Founder fee, the pyramid’s entry ticket

The complaint details how investors were told to pay $97 for a “Founder” position that promised superior placement and enhanced returns inside the structure. It states that “Investors taking advantage of this early bird promotion…were assured a higher placement in the pyramid and higher returns than later investors.” The design rewarded recruitment and hype, not software or customers.

Over $108 million collected, no paid products, no commissions

By March 2023, ONPASSIVE had amassed more than $108 million from the sale of over 1.12 million Founder positions worldwide. The SEC filing notes a stark truth, “As of June 30, 2023, ONPASSIVE had not yet launched any product for a fee or paid any commissions to investors.” For those evaluating OnPassive real or fake, this single sentence is devastating.

Dubai, crypto, and the OnPassive money trail

The alleged scheme did not stop at the US or India. The complaint explains how investor funds moved in ways that implicate international flows and crypto asset conversions, including to Dubai linked accounts. It states, “Specifically, Mufareh transferred investors’ funds to his wife Asmahan Mufareh, including transfers into bank account or accounts held jointly by the Mufarehs or held in Asmahan Mufareh’s name only, or over which Asmahan Mufareh exercised authority.” It further alleges that “the Mufarehs converted a considerable portion of investor funds into crypto assets under their exclusive personal control.”

Legal implications and investor alert

The USSEC’s charge sheet is exacting. The complaint accuses the defendants of violating the registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, the anti fraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Rule 10b 5. The filing warns, “Unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined, they are reasonably likely to continue to engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint.”For investors weighing the OnPassive ecosystem, this is a siren. Glossy branding and AI rhetoric cannot substitute for real products, real revenues, and transparent governance. If a program emphasizes tiers, placements, and recruitment rather than paying customers and shipped software, the risk profile is obvious.

From India to Dubai, and now Bangladesh

As The Eastern Herald reported, OnPassive’s tactics migrated, with branding drives in Dubai and a predatory footprint across India, and later signs of activity in Bangladesh. The pattern is consistent, an emphasis on recruitment, fast money promises, and a lack of organic product demand. According to Bangladeshi newspaper Blitz, the model mirrored a Ponzi structure, dependent on enrolling new members rather than selling viable AI tools.

Is OnPassive real or fake, a clear answer

Regulatory filings, not marketing videos, decide outcomes. The USSEC complaint paints a picture of an OnPassive ecosystem that is recruitment first and product last. The takeaway for readers asking OnPassive real or fake is clear. The legal record describes a pyramid, not a platform.

Key facts at a glance

• Launch period: July 2018, pitched as AI driven OnPassive ecosystem under GoFounders and O founders labels.
• Entry price: $97 Founder fee, marketed as priority placement and higher returns.
• Funds raised: $108 million+ by March 2023 from 1.12 million+ Founder positions.
• Delivery failure: as of June 30, 2023, no paid product launches, no commissions to investors, per the USSEC complaint.
• Money flows: transfers to accounts controlled by the Mufarehs, plus conversions to crypto assets, with Dubai in the promotional orbit.
• Legal charges: alleged violations of Securities Act Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a), and Exchange Act Section 10(b), Rule 10b 5.

Primary source, read the USSEC complaint

For readers who want the primary document, review the official complaint here: USSEC v. ONPASSIVE LLC et al. It is the definitive text for understanding how regulators evaluated OnPassive, the OnPassive ecosystem, and the pitch to investors.

Investor checklist for any “AI ecosystem” pitch

• Is there a shippable, paid product with real customers and reviews.
• Are revenues from sales, not recruitment fees, tiers, or placements.
• Do founders provide audited financials and clear regulatory compliance.
• Do claims rely on affiliates and webinars rather than demos and product documentation.

Frequently asked questions about OnPassive, the OnPassive ecosystem, and whether OnPassive is real or fake

Reporting tip: If you suspect you have been recruited into a similar program, document payments, emails, and agreements, then consult counsel and contact your local regulator. Skepticism and documentation protect capital.