Apertum proceedings in Texas: What the Texan judiciary is demanding!
The proceedings against Josip Heit and the Apertum Foundation are increasingly developing into an international legal marathon. In the previous article in our series, we shed light on the background and previous stages of the proceedings. It is now clear that the pressure on the accused is growing and the Texan authorities are pressing ahead with the proceedings with determination.
Compulsory presence in court: first setback for the defence
The case surrounding Josip Heit and the Apertum Foundation is developing into a long-running legal issue. After the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) decided on 12 May 2025 that the upcoming hearing against Heit and his co-defendants must take place in person, the balance of the proceedings shifted noticeably. The Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) had thus reached a first milestone. Heit, Zahlmann, Hughes and Loos would now be obliged to face the Texas authorities in person.
The defence reacted promptly and attempted to challenge this decision. In a joint motion, the defendants’ lawyers asked for clarification and a release from the obligation to attend – citing unreasonable travelling expenses and concerns about proportionality. However, the court rejected the application. Failure to appear could have consequences, even if it was not expressly stipulated in what form.
Consolidation of proceedings increases complexity
At the same time, the proceedings were further consolidated: The cases against Heit, Apertum, Zahlmann, Hughes and Loos were merged into consolidated proceedings. The aim of the TSSB: a standardised trial covering all aspects. However, this consolidation increased the complexity considerably – more defendants, more evidence, more witnesses. The originally planned period from 2 to 4 June proved to be insufficient.
For the first time, the TSSB itself requested a postponement of the hearing – citing the newly added elements of the proceedings as the reason. Ironically, Heit and his fellow campaigners had previously repeatedly asked for a postponement. Now, however, they were firmly against a further delay. Apparently, a change in defence strategy was emerging: It seemed as if they wanted to increase the pressure on the TSSB and push for an early conclusion. It is also possible that the defence wanted to prevent the investigating authority from examining additional evidence or contexts in greater depth.
Dispute over evidence: Defence under pressure
The battle over evidence became a central element in the further proceedings. The TSSB had announced its intention to introduce extensive new evidence. The defence requested that the usability of this evidence be restricted on several points. Technical details, wording issues, responsibilities and the legality of the evidence were in dispute.
These attacks on the presentation of evidence indicate how serious the defence obviously considers the situation to be. In addition, another attempt was made to end the proceedings prematurely by means of a ‘summary disposition’ – i.e. a written judgement without an oral hearing. However, this attempt was also unsuccessful.
Hearing in November: landmark date for Heit & Co
In the end, it was clear that the major hearing would take place from 3 to 7 November 2025. Five days that could have a decisive influence on the further legal assessment in the case of Josip Heit, the Apertum Foundation and the co-defendants. It will be the first full public hearing in which both sides will present their arguments, evidence and witnesses.
A crucial aspect is that the Texas authorities have announced that they will deepen their investigation and call additional witnesses. November could therefore mark a key phase in the proceedings. The procedural risks are increasing significantly for Heit and his team. The Apertum case has long since developed into an international legal marathon – from the original emergency injunction to complex proceedings involving numerous parties and a Texas authority that wants to enforce clear regulatory limits in the area of dubious financial products.
Note: This article is intended solely for information, journalistic analysis and independent opinion-forming within the meaning of Article 5 of the German Basic Law and Section 51 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) (right to quote). All information is based on publicly accessible sources, official communications and careful editorial research. Despite the utmost care, we assume no liability for the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the information contained herein.
The naming of companies, persons or projects is based on verifiable research and expressions of opinion clearly labelled as such. The publication is protected by the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press. Contributing sources are subject to editorial source protection in accordance with journalistic standards
Source:
Texas State Securities Board. (2025, April 4). Notice of hearing against Apertum Foundation and Josip Heit. https://www.ssb.texas.gov/news-publications/notice-hearing-apertum-foundation-and-josip-heit
Texas State Securities Board. (2025, March 20). Emergency cease and desist order No. ENF-25-CDO-1889. https://www.ssb.texas.gov/news-publications/josip-heit-accused-launching-new-fraudulent-investment-scheme
BehindMLM. (2025, May 22). Josip Heit ordered to attend Texas Apertum fraud hearing. https://behindmlm.com/companies/gspartners/josip-heit-ordered-to-attend-texas-apertum-fraud-hearing/
Newswire. (2025, May 16). The Apertum Foundation challenges Texas regulator’s crypto crusade. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/the-apertum-foundation-challenges-texas-regulator-s-misguided-crypto-crusade-820192229.html
Texas State Securities Board. (n.d.). Enforcement actions – administrative. https://www.ssb.texas.gov/news-publications/enforcement-actions-administrative
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!