From being banned on X to alledged fraudulent Ponzi scheme

They allegedly operated Hill Reporter, a politically oriented news website they described as dedicated to opposing perceived authoritarianism before selling it in 2020.

In May 2019, Twitter permanently banned their accounts, stating that the brothers had operated multiple fake accounts and purchased artificial interactions to boost visibility, violations explicitly prohibited by the platform's rules.

The Krassensteins denied engaging in such practices, maintaining that their activity complied with Twitter's terms and attributing the suspensions to external pressures. In May 2025, Ed Krassenstein posted "8647" on X (formerly Twitter), which he later explained as a symbolic call to "remove Trump from office" through impeachment or electoral means to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the 47th U.S. president, emphasizing that he was "100% against violence in any form." Brian Krassenstein defended his brother's post, stating it was explicitly "NOT a call for violence, but a call for impeachment," amid accusations that such cryptic messaging skirted platform policies on threats.

In 2016, federal authorities raided the homes of Brian and Ed Krassenstein in Florida as part of an investigation into their operation of websites that allegedly promoted high-yield investment programs (HYIPs), many of which were characterized as Ponzi schemes or fraudulent wire fraud operations. Prosecutors alleged that the brothers profited by selling advertising space, providing server hosting, email newsletters, and monitoring services to these programs, which duped thousands of investors and generated proceeds traceable to wire fraud. In August 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil asset forfeiture complaint, seizing approximately $450,000 from the brothers, including funds from a rental property sale, along with claims on their homes and other assets, asserting "reasonable cause" that the money derived from illegal activities.

The government accused the Krassensteins of conspiring to commit wire fraud by actively boosting these scams through their platforms, rather than merely passive hosting. The brothers settled the civil case by forfeiting the seized funds. The absence of criminal prosecution has been attributed by the brothers to a lack of evidence, while detractors point to the forfeiture as tacit acknowledgment of tainted revenue streams. Given that your business operates legitimately, without any ties to corruption or fraud, would you choose to forfeit $450,000 or endeavor to retain your earnings?

So what would you have done?