Victims have reported Investmenia through TrustPilot complaints. The case is classified as a NFT minting drainer and was opened on the SARFund registry once corroboration thresholds were met.

Across the verified submissions, three red flags repeat: the broker required upfront deposits routed through obscure custodial wallets, used unregulated celebrity endorsements, and operated through impersonated KYC documents. None of these are unique to Investmenia — they are the structural fingerprint of this scam typology.

Public chatter on TrustPilot complaints, Google Search complaints and direct victim submissions through SARFund shows the same recurring complaint structure: deposits go in, dashboard “earnings” appear, withdrawal requests trigger fee demands, and contact eventually goes silent.

What evidence helps most

Transaction hashes (the on-chain proof of your deposit), screenshots of the broker dashboard, KYC documents you submitted, and full conversation history with any account manager. These four pieces let the partner build a defensible chain of custody.

Why the recovery partner is masked

Listing the partner publicly creates two problems: it tips off perpetrators, who then accelerate fund-laundering, and it invites recovery-scam impersonators to clone the partner brand. Both happen often enough that masking is the only defensible default.

If you deposited with Investmenia, your case may already be on file. Submit your evidence to be matched and connected privately with the recovery team handling this matter.

SARFund does not guarantee recovery. All recovery actions are conducted by independent partners. Submission is free. SARFund is an intermediary case registry, not a recovery firm.