PART XI: Why Conferences like DGFI, formerly DeGameFi, Should Not Support Bad Actors Such as Self-Confessed Criminals like Cal Evans of Gresham International – Dunsmoor Law

PART XI of Cal Evans is a Scammer Series

DISCLOSURE: DUNSMOOR LAW IS CLOSED AS OF NOVEMBER 2, 2023. SEE DUNSMOOR.IO. THIS INFORMATION IS TO PROTECT THE INVESTING PUBLIC. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE IS LEGAL, FINANCIAL OR INVESTMENT ADVICE.

Disclaimer: This article is directed at the bad actors associated with DGFI and not all organizers, sponsors, or speakers of the event other than keynote speaker Cal Evans and the organizers Marie Giorgobiani and Mikheil Didebulidze.

Author’s Note: I discovered this bad actor in 2021 and his lies corrupting the industry I love. I will not stop until legal justice has been served and he is no longer a threat to this industry and the public at large until then, the best I can do is warn the public of this scammer, self-confessed criminal and fraud.

This article builds on our Understanding Basic Due Diligence series, particularly the November 10, 2024 article examining what Cal Evans teaches us about conference speaker research. (See Understanding Basic Due Diligence: What the Crypto Con Lawyer* Cal Evans Teaches Us About the Importance of Conference Speaker Research, https://www.dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/11/understanding-basic-due-diligence-what-the-crypto-con-lawyer-cal-evans-teaches-us-about-the-importance-of-conference-speaker-research/10/)

I. Cal Evans: A Scammer, Self-Confessed Criminal, and Fraud

There is no doubt anymore that Cal Evans is a scammer, self-confessed criminal, and fraud because his own words and court filings have condemned him.

Without repeating all 143 lies and misrepresentations I’ve found regarding Evans’ career (insert source – link to full list), here are the key points:

He is a scammer because he is actively trying to claim in the Aubit/Freeway fraud case in Wyoming that he was registered as in-house counsel for Wisconsin in June 2024 when, in reality, he surrendered his limited in-house practice rights in Wisconsin in May 2024. This is important because his lawyer later claimed in their Motion to Dismiss (which was subsequently denied) that he was still licensed in Wisconsin. (See Section III, 2; Part 4: A Real Lawyer vs a Glorified Paralegal – Cal Evans of Gresham International’s TRO and Injunction DENIED & Why This Case is Absurd, https://www.dunsmoorlaw.com/2025/09/part-4-a-real-lawyer-vs-a-glorified-paralegal-tro-and-injunction-denied-why-this-case-is-absurd/11/)
He is a self-confessed criminal because he admitted in his self-published book, “The Little Book of Crypto: A No BS Introduction To Crypto,” to bootlegging Microsoft Windows so extensively that he was able to pay a substantial part of his law school tuition with proceeds from that crime. (Section V, Id.) The real crime, however, is that this type of activity falls under a special question in his immigration process in which he would have been required to admit that he committed a crime for which he was not prosecuted or arrested. I spoke with multiple immigration lawyers and used to practice immigration law myself. If he had said yes and told the truth about this incident, he would not have been allowed to be naturalized. If he said no, then he lied on a government form, and with the DOJ memorandum from June 10, 2025, that alone is enough grounds for deportation and denaturalization. (See https://www.justice.gov/civil/media/1404046/dl?inline)
He is a fraud because he continues to this day to claim that he is licensed in the Dubai International Financial Center, even on his LinkedIn and Gresham International’s company page. This is completely false as seen by DIFC’s public directory and confirmed in writing twice by DIFC’s registrar. (See Section III, 1; Part 4: A Real Lawyer vs a Glorified Paralegal – Cal Evans of Gresham International’s TRO and Injunction DENIED & Why This Case is Absurd and https://eregistry.difccourts.ae/practitioners#)

II. DGFI’s Deliberate Choice to Platform a Self-Confessed Criminal

DGFI, formerly DeGameFi, continues platforming Cal Evans for the third consecutive year despite extensive documentation of his self-confessed criminality and ongoing fraud. Their DEF-AI 2025 agenda lists him on “The Evolution of Digital Finance” panel with executives from NBG, Tether, VS1, and Mastercard, and provides him a solo segment on crypto IPOs, a topic he is not legally able to speak on as a lawyer in England (his country of origin), Georgia, or the United States. (DGFI agenda: https://www.dgfi.io/conference/def-ai-2025)

The core issue is simple: DGFI received warnings in 2023 about Evans’ documented fraud, including his false claims to have worked for Facebook’s Libra, and chose to ignore them. As seen here:

Note that they later removed me from the conference due to Evans’ complaints and his sponsoring the conference as a “law firm” unable to practice in Georgia. I warned them again in 2024 when I began my exposé on all his fraudulent activity, including the 143-item list of fraud and misrepresentations. (The Crypto Con Lawyer*: A Comprehensive List of Fraudulent Activities by Cal Evans of Gresham International (So Far), https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/08/30/draft-the-crypto-con-lawyer-the-complete-list-of-lies-fraud-and-deception-of-cal-evans-of-gresham-international-so-far/) When warned again in 2025, DGFI’s response revealed an organization that prioritizes deflection and intimidation over protecting attendees from documented fraudsters.

(The use of “obsession with one of our speakers”, the use of “prerogative”, the fumbled words of “We have spoken with our lawyers who has began speaking with lawyers in the American State of South Carolina” and the email without a signature or name is proof this was written by Cal Evans himself. Sun Tzu says know your enemy, this weird phrasing, the failure to state his name in his own email including in signing it, is all proof this was written by Evans. The New York Fourth Department has even remarked that he doesn’t sign his own name.)

III. Evans’ Self-Confessed Criminal Conduct and Lack of IPO Qualifications

Evans markets himself as a “Multi-Award (sic) winning (sic) Digital Asset Lawyer” despite lacking credentials to support such claims, including his purchased so-called “awards.”

(See https://www.dgfi.io/conference/def-ai-2025)

(Note the awkward use of “multi-award” and failure to capitalize “winning” means Evans wrote it. Definitely not someone you want doing your IPO. See PART I: Cal Evans of Gresham International is a Scammer, https://www.dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/05/part-i-cal-evans-of-gresham-international-is-a-scammer/28/)

He has publicly confessed to criminal conduct in his own book, describing sales of computers with pirated Windows software while in law school. A blatant written admission to criminal copyright infringement while claiming to have been at Microsoft’s Headquarters in Seattle and owing “Bill [Gates] a coffee.”

(See Section V; Part 4: A Real Lawyer vs a Glorified Paralegal – Cal Evans of Gresham International’s TRO and Injunction DENIED & Why This Case is Absurd, https://www.dunsmoorlaw.com/2025/09/part-4-a-real-lawyer-vs-a-glorified-paralegal-tro-and-injunction-denied-why-this-case-is-absurd/11/)

Evans has no authority to conduct IPO work anywhere in the world. His limited credential as a CILEx Chartered Legal Executive provides limited practice rights only in England and Wales for basic legal matters. This credential does not authorize him to:

Advise on U.S. securities regulations
Conduct IPO work in Georgia or any U.S. market
Practice securities law in the United Kingdom
Provide legal guidance on public offerings in any jurisdiction

This matters because his conference topic is “Blockchain Companies Going Public: The Emerging Trend of Crypto IPOs,” and he markets himself as the “Original Crypto Lawyer” (despite only being licensed since 2019 while Bitcoin was created in 2009).

(See https://sessionize.com/speakers-directory/law-regulation?page=1; Notice he claims he is a “Dubai lawyer” here too.)

A competent securities lawyer is required to conduct an Initial Public Offering (IPO), yet his self-described “largest crypto only law firm in the world” lacks this basic qualification. (See him claim to be the “largest crypto only law firm in the world here” BlockDown 3.0 video: https://youtu.be/NNcu8OSSzQE?t=109)

It should be noted that this YouTube “conversation” was about Money Laundering and his new service, Gresham International Privée, which sounds suspiciously like helping wealthy people hide their money.

(See https://www.gresham-international.com/services-3)

This is even more damning given he is hosting an unregistered charity event in Cannes, France on September 22 for his Gresham International Foundation which appears not be registered anywhere in the United States, the United Kingdom, or France.

(This was provided to me by one of the lawyers suing him since he has blocked me on LinkedIn but it should be under his post unless his lawyers are continuing their own fraud in accepting money laundered funds.)

IV. Proof DGFI Knows and Does Not Care

Message to Mikheil Didebulidze of VS1 warning about Evans

As I believe in full transparency, here is the full conversation with Mikheil is at the end of this post.

(Clip referenced in messages: https://x.com/DunsmoorEsq/status/1783874810637897939)

DGFI’s Response:

We have been informed that you are contacting speakers of DGFI regarding your personal legal case with one of the speaker. Please note that this behavior is inappropriate and unrelated to the purpose of our event.

We require that you cease all further attempts to involve our conference, its speakers, or attendees in your personal matter.

This response exposes DGFI’s true priorities. Rather than investigating legitimate concerns about platforming a self-confessed criminal with no IPO qualifications, DGFI chose to:

Mischaracterize factual warnings as a “personal legal case”
Threaten the source of warnings rather than address the substance
Attempt to silence critics instead of protecting attendees

What is truly interesting is that DGFI’s response tacitly accepts Evans is a self-confessed criminal but then states he is “not wanted by the authorities” later in the conversation (see below). How do they know he’s not? Even if someone is a self-confessed criminal, do they still want them at their event? For advanced technology? The same thieving behavior that has caused companies to fold because of bootlegging software?

By refusing to deny the documented facts about Evans’ criminal admissions and lack of IPO qualifications, DGFI effectively acknowledges these points while choosing to deflect rather than defend their decision on its merits. This puts all attendees and sponsors at reputational risk of being lied to or associated with a known fraud and self-confessed criminal.

V. The Broader Implications

1. Truth and Reputation

Truth and reputation work hand in hand. When someone has publicly confessed to criminal conduct and court records document fraudulent activities, discussing these facts serves the legitimate purpose of protecting potential victims. DGFI’s attempts to characterize such warnings as inappropriate demonstrate contempt for attendee safety.

2. Mounting Legal Troubles

Evans’ own legal troubles continue mounting. As documented in the Part 4 court decision, his attempts to silence critics through claims of harassment have been rejected by the very Wisconsin court set to hear his defamation case. (See Court Decision; https://www.dunsmoorlaw.com/2025/09/part-4-a-real-lawyer-vs-a-glorified-paralegal-tro-and-injunction-denied-why-this-case-is-absurd/11/) His self-confessed crimes are becoming more widely known with increasingly damaging consequences for those who continue platforming him.

3. Regulatory Implications

With so many big names associated with the conference in their third year and first under the rebranding, the regulatory implications for anyone associated with this conference and its careless attitude toward bad actors puts the industry at risk as another place for bad actors to hide and fear no repercussions.

4. Conference Selection Criteria

Industry professionals should evaluate conferences based on their response to credible warnings about speaker qualifications and criminal histories. DGFI’s pattern reveals an organization that:

Ignores documented warnings about criminal speakers
Platforms unqualified individuals as legal experts
Threatens critics rather than investigating concerns
Prioritizes suppressing inconvenient facts over attendee protection

VI. Conclusion

DGFI’s response to warnings about Cal Evans exposes an organization that accepts they are platforming a self-confessed criminal with no IPO qualifications while choosing deflection over accountability allows bad actors to thrive. (Just as Evans himself warned here: https://x.com/DunsmoorEsq/status/1783874810637897939)

Their threats against critics, combined with their refusal to address the substance of legitimate concerns, reveal priorities fundamentally incompatible with attendee protection and industry integrity.

Evans himself provides the standard that should apply: “bad actors should not be given an avenue.” (https://x.com/DunsmoorEsq/status/1783874810637897939) DGFI’s choice to ignore this guidance while providing exactly such an avenue demonstrates either profound incompetence or deliberate disregard for basic due diligence principles and ethics. When conference organizers prioritize suppressing inconvenient truths and their own financial benefits over protecting attendees from documented criminals, they forfeit their claim to professional credibility. The crypto industry cannot afford to normalize such behavior.

Entire conversation with Mikheil Didebulidze: