Mauricio Umansky pleaded with the court to prevent the names of the investors involved in his controversial $32 million mansion purchase from being released, and only RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal details of his desperate bid.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge recently granted a motion filed by the Dancing with the Stars hunk to seal court documents revealing the names of the investors implicated in the money-making deal — described by one angry developer in a lawsuit as an alleged “fraud.”
Kyle Richards’ estranged husband was sued by the developer and realtor for allegedly ignoring their $40 million bid to purchase the seized home of Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, the sticky-fingered son of the president of the oil-rich African nation Equatorial Guinea who was caught embezzling millions.
Umansky was contracted by the U.S. Department of Justice to sell the Malibu spread but instead purchased it himself with partner Mauricio Oberfeld. The duo then resold the mansion for nearly $70 million a year later, netting a tidy $37 million profit.
Court documents revealed Umansky and Oberfeld convinced others to contribute money to the scheme that unfolded between 2016 and 2017.
In a desperate bid to get the case tossed, Umansky’s team also filed a motion to seal portions of the exhibits revealing the names of the so-called “passive investors” claiming he wants to protect their privacy.
Judge Mark H. Epstein agreed to temporarily hide the names following a November 17, 2023 hearing where ordered Umansky and the plaintiffs, developer Sam Hakim and realtor Aitan Segal to file more “robust” legal briefs in favor or opposed to exposing the investors.
“After all, the court has some doubt as to whether the names of the investors are all that critical to the motion or opposition, and if that is correct, the court might grant the motion in that respect,” the judge wrote in his opinion. “But the court is not sure of that. Defendants have already suggested that all of the investors were mere passive investors although that was at least arguably not the case.”
“As to the settlement, the court will need to better understand what the nature of the privacy right is other than that the parties would like to keep the document confidential (and the court is not even sure of that, as not all of the parties to the settlement have weighed in on the motion),” he wrote in court documents.
The case is ongoing.
