COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters *Carebourn Capital, L.P. v. DarkPulse, Inc. On or about January 29, 2021, Carebourn Capital, L.P. (“Carebourn”) commenced an action against the Company in Minnesota State Court. Carebourn alleged that the Company was in breach of certain securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes sold to Carebourn on or about July 17, 2018 and July 24, 2018. On or about August 31, 2021, the Company answered Carebourn’s complaint and interposed affirmative defenses, including that Carebourn was an unregistered “dealer,” as such term is defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and, therefore, all contracts between the parties arising from or related to the securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes sold to Carebourn on or about July 17, 2018 and July 24, 2018 were void pursuant to the Exchange Act. The Company also asserted counterclaims against Carebourn under the Minnesota Securities Act. On or about April 21, 2023, the State Court ruled in the Company’s favor on its motion for partial summary judgment on its Exchange Act defense, holding that (i) Carebourn is a “dealer” under the Exchange Act in violation of the mandatory registration requirement imposed thereby, and (ii) all contracts between the parties are void. On or about November 17, 2023, the State Court ruled in the Company’s favor on its motion for summary judgment on its Minnesota Securities Act counterclaims against Carebourn and awarded damages for Carebourn’s violation of Minn. Stat. § 80A.76(d) in the amount of $124,012.91, attorney’s fees in the amount of $239,923.33 and costs in the amount of $23,757.24 (or a total award in the amount of $387,693.48). As of the date hereof, the final judgment remains unsatisfied by Carebourn. DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available to it to collect the amounts awarded should Carebourn fail to voluntarily pay the same. More Capital, LLC v. DarkPulse, Inc. et al* On or about June 29, 2021, More Capital, LLC (“More”) commenced an action against the Company in Minnesota State Court. More alleged that the Company was in breach of a certain securities purchase agreement and convertible promissory note sold to More on or about August 20, 2018. On or about September 3, 2021, the Company answered More’s complaint and interposed affirmative defenses, including that More was an unregistered “dealer,” as such term is defined in the Exchange Act and, therefore, all contracts between the parties arising from or related to the securities purchase agreement and convertible promissory note sold to More on or about August 20, 2018 were void pursuant to the Exchange Act. The Company also asserted counterclaims against More under the Minnesota Securities Act. On or about December 11, 2023, the Minnesota State Court ruled in the Company’s favor on its motion for summary judgment on its (a) Exchange Act defense, holding that (1) More is a “dealer” under the Exchange Act in violation of the mandatory registration requirement imposed thereby, and (ii) all contracts between the parties are void, and (b) Minnesota Securities Act counterclaims against More and awarded damages for More’s violation of Minn. Stat. § 80A.76(d) in the amount of $300,809.39, attorney’s fees in the amount of $110,029.00 and costs in the amount of $210.25 (or a total award in the amount of $412,048.64). As of the date hereof, the final judgment remains unsatisfied by More. DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available to it to collect the amounts awarded should More fail to voluntarily pay the same. *Carebourn Capital et al v. Standard Registrar and Transfer et al* On or about May 20, 2022, Carebourn and More (More, together with Carebourn, the “Noteholders”) commenced an action against the Company, certain members of the Company’s executive team and board of directors and Standard Registrar and Transfer Company, Inc., the Company’s transfer agent, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The Noteholders’ complaint alleged various causes of action arising from certain securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes the Company sold to the Noteholders. On or about November 1, 2023, the Noteholders moved to dismiss the action. On or about November 2, 2023, the Company moved for sanctions against the Noteholders and their counsel of record. On or about December 4, 2023, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of the Noteholders’ claims with prejudice. The Court acknowledged that notwithstanding its dismissal of the Noteholders’ claims, the Court continues to retain jurisdiction over the Noteholders because of DarkPulse’s pending motion for sanctions against the Noteholders and their attorneys. On September 10, 2024, the Court entered an order granting in part the Company’s motion for sanctions against the Noteholders and their counsel of record. As of the date hereof, the Court has not yet rendered its decision on the amount sanctions that will be imposed against the Noteholders and their counsel of record and awarded to the Company. *DarkPulse, Inc. v. FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC, and Eli Fireman* On or about December 31, 2021, the Company commenced an action against FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC (“FirstFire”) and its control person, Eli Fireman (“Fireman,” and together with FirstFire, the “FirstFire Defendants”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On or about May 5, 2022, the Company amended its complaint against the FirstFire Defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the FirstFire Defendants were liable to the Company for rescission of certain convertible promissory notes and transitions effected thereunder and damages pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). On or about January 17, 2023, the Court granted the FirstFire Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s operative pleading. On the same day, the Company appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”). On March 28, 2024, the Second Circuit issued its decision and found that the District Court (a) properly found that the Delaware forum-selection clause was enforceable but, thereafter, (b) improperly made a ruling on the merits of the Company’s claims for relief. As a result, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in part, vacated in part and remanded the case back to the District Court for transferring to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On September 9, 2024, the FirstFire Defendants filed their opening memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss. Shortly thereafter, the Company opposed the FirstFire Defendants’ motion and the FirstFire Defendants filed their reply in further support. As of the date hereof, the Court has not scheduled oral arguments on the FirstFire Defendants’ motion to dismiss or rendered its decision thereon. The Company remains committed to actively litigating its claims for relief against the FirstFire Defendants. *DarkPulse, Inc., et al v. Crown Bridge Partners, LLC, et al* On or about September 23, 2022, the Company, Social Life Network, Inc. and Redhawk Holdings Corp. commenced an action against Crown Bridge Partners, LLC (“Crown Bridge”) and its control persons, Soheil Ahdoot and Sepas Ahdoot (collectively, the “Crown Bridge Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Crown Bridge Defendants are liable to each of the plaintiffs for damages pursuant to RICO. On or about September 29, 2023, the Court granted the Crown Bridge Defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. On October 23, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”). On August 19, 2024, the Second Circuit issued its decision and found that the District Court erred when granting the Crown Bridge Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its decision. On September 30, 2024, the District Court entered a scheduling order, setting forth deadlines for discovery and dispositive motion practice. The Company is actively litigating its claims for relief against the Crown Bridge Defendants. *GS Capital Partners, LLC v. DarkPulse, Inc.* On June 2, 2023, GS Capital Partners, LLC (“GS Capital”) commenced an action in the Supreme Court for New York County against the Company through the filing of motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint. The motion claims that the Company is in breach of a convertible promissory note, dated July 14, 2021, and accompanying securities purchase agreement, dated the same. The motion claims that GS Capital is entitled to an award of $2,407,671, plus prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements. On July 27, 2023, the Company moved to set aside the default judgment entered in favor of GS Capital and against the Company on July 25, 2023. GS Capital’s opposition thereto is due on or before August 31, 2023. Thereafter, DarkPulse’s reply is due on or before September 6, 2023. Oral arguments are currently not scheduled on the Company’s motion. On or about September 27, 2023, the Company and GS Capital confidentially settled the dispute. On or about October 3, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation with the court to vacate the judgment entered against the Company and in favor of GS Capital, vacate the motion filed by the Company, and discontinue the action. On or about October 9, 2023, the court vacated the judgment and the action was dismissed. The Company defaulted upon the settlement and, on July 24, 2024, the Company and GS Capital entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the Company entered into a confession of judgment in favor of GS Capital in the amount of $2,673,423.19 (the “Balance”). Upon approval of the court on August 19, 2024, the Company will issue to GS Capital free-trading and unrestricted shares of Common Stock pursuant to drawdown requests in the amounts determined by GS Capital, subject to a 4.99% beneficial ownership limitation. The shares will be issued a price per share equal to the average of the three lowest VWAPs for the five prior trading days. GS Capital will be allowed to sell, the greater of (1) in one week, no more than 1% of the total outstanding shares of the Company on a non-cumulative basis at the “ask” price, and (2) 15% of the daily trading volume of the Common Stock on any single trading day. Each drawdown will reduce the Balance. The Company is required to reserve 2,500,000,000 shares of Common Stock. *TJM West, Inc v Thomas J McCarthy Family Limited Partnership* On or about July 25, 2023, TJM West filed an action in Maricopa court against its landlord for illegal lockout from the company’s facilities. On or about August 18, 2023, TJM West’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order was granted. September 27, 2023, TJM West counsel motion to withdraw was accepted. On or about October 6, 2923, TJM West hired new counsel to assist with a short deadline to file answers to landlords motion. On or about November 6, 2023, TJM West and its counsel mutually agreed to a withdrawal. On or about November 6, 2023, TJM West engaged new counsel. On or about May 8, 2024, TJM West dropped its motion for Temporary Restraining Order. On or about May 24, 2024, TJM West counsel filed motion to continue discovery. On or about May 24, 2024, TJM West’s counsel left the firm handling the litigation it was determined in the best interest of the company to terminate its relationship with the law firm. As of the date hereof, the Company is interviewing new counsel and evaluating its claims against landlord to determine if it’s financially responsible to incur additional fees related to exercising TJM’s rights against the landlord for terminating the lease. On or about June 28, 2024, the Company discussed with possible new counsel the feasibility of recovering its damages utilizing the courts. At that time, it appeared the cost of recovery would exceed the recoverable amount should the Company be successful in its litigation. TJM West is awaiting updates from the court in Maricopa County as to the status of the case. The facilities in question had served as TJM West’s manufacturing facility and is located at 2640 W Medtronic Way Tempe, AZ 85281. Currently, we do not have access to the facility nor have we signed a new lease signed with the landlord. In addition to the foregoing Legal Proceedings, we are also actively investigating potential legal claims, including but not limited to stock fraud, market manipulation, and/or defamation, against certain Twitter accounts, websites, and social media channels. The investigation is ongoing and should potential claims be identified, we will evaluate commencing formal litigation proceedings. From time to time, we may become involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. We are not currently involved in any pending legal proceeding or litigation and, to the best of our knowledge, no governmental authority is contemplating any proceeding to which we are a party or to which any of our properties is subject, which would reasonably be likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

Carebourn Capital, L.P. v. DarkPulse, Inc.

On or about January 29, 2021, Carebourn Capital, L.P. (“Carebourn”) commenced an action against the Company in Minnesota State Court. Carebourn alleged that the Company was in breach of certain securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes sold to Carebourn on or about July 17, 2018 and July 24, 2018.

On or about August 31, 2021, the Company answered Carebourn’s complaint and interposed affirmative defenses, including that Carebourn was an unregistered “dealer,” as such term is defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and, therefore, all contracts between the parties arising from or related to the securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes sold to Carebourn on or about July 17, 2018 and July 24, 2018 were void pursuant to the Exchange Act. The Company also asserted counterclaims against Carebourn under the Minnesota Securities Act.

On or about April 21, 2023, the State Court ruled in the Company’s favor on its motion for partial summary judgment on its Exchange Act defense, holding that (i) Carebourn is a “dealer” under the Exchange Act in violation of the mandatory registration requirement imposed thereby, and (ii) all contracts between the parties are void.

On or about November 17, 2023, the State Court ruled in the Company’s favor on its motion for summary judgment on its Minnesota Securities Act counterclaims against Carebourn and awarded damages for Carebourn’s violation of Minn. Stat. § 80A.76(d) in the amount of $124,012.91, attorney’s fees in the amount of $239,923.33 and costs in the amount of $23,757.24 (or a total award in the amount of $387,693.48).

As of the date hereof, the final judgment remains unsatisfied by Carebourn. DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available to it to collect the amounts awarded should Carebourn fail to voluntarily pay the same.

More Capital, LLC v. DarkPulse, Inc. et al

On or about June 29, 2021, More Capital, LLC (“More”) commenced an action against the Company in Minnesota State Court. More alleged that the Company was in breach of a certain securities purchase agreement and convertible promissory note sold to More on or about August 20, 2018.

On or about September 3, 2021, the Company answered More’s complaint and interposed affirmative defenses, including that More was an unregistered “dealer,” as such term is defined in the Exchange Act and, therefore, all contracts between the parties arising from or related to the securities purchase agreement and convertible promissory note sold to More on or about August 20, 2018 were void pursuant to the Exchange Act. The Company also asserted counterclaims against More under the Minnesota Securities Act.

On or about December 11, 2023, the Minnesota State Court ruled in the Company’s favor on its motion for summary judgment on its (a) Exchange Act defense, holding that (1) More is a “dealer” under the Exchange Act in violation of the mandatory registration requirement imposed thereby, and (ii) all contracts between the parties are void, and (b) Minnesota Securities Act counterclaims against More and awarded damages for More’s violation of Minn. Stat. § 80A.76(d) in the amount of $300,809.39, attorney’s fees in the amount of $110,029.00 and costs in the amount of $210.25 (or a total award in the amount of $412,048.64).

As of the date hereof, the final judgment remains unsatisfied by More. DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available to it to collect the amounts awarded should More fail to voluntarily pay the same.

Carebourn Capital et al v. Standard Registrar and Transfer et al

On or about May 20, 2022, Carebourn and More (More, together with Carebourn, the “Noteholders”) commenced an action against the Company, certain members of the Company’s executive team and board of directors and Standard Registrar and Transfer Company, Inc., the Company’s transfer agent, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The Noteholders’ complaint alleged various causes of action arising from certain securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes the Company sold to the Noteholders.

On or about November 1, 2023, the Noteholders moved to dismiss the action.

On or about November 2, 2023, the Company moved for sanctions against the Noteholders and their counsel of record.

On or about December 4, 2023, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of the Noteholders’ claims with prejudice. The Court acknowledged that notwithstanding its dismissal of the Noteholders’ claims, the Court continues to retain jurisdiction over the Noteholders because of DarkPulse’s pending motion for sanctions against the Noteholders and their attorneys.

On September 10, 2024, the Court entered an order granting in part the Company’s motion for sanctions against the Noteholders and their counsel of record.

As of the date hereof, the Court has not yet rendered its decision on the amount sanctions that will be imposed against the Noteholders and their counsel of record and awarded to the Company.

DarkPulse, Inc. v. FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC, and Eli Fireman

On or about December 31, 2021, the Company commenced an action against FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC (“FirstFire”) and its control person, Eli Fireman (“Fireman,” and together with FirstFire, the “FirstFire Defendants”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On or about May 5, 2022, the Company amended its complaint against the FirstFire Defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the FirstFire Defendants were liable to the Company for rescission of certain convertible promissory notes and transitions effected thereunder and damages pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

On or about January 17, 2023, the Court granted the FirstFire Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s operative pleading. On the same day, the Company appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”).

On March 28, 2024, the Second Circuit issued its decision and found that the District Court (a) properly found that the Delaware forum-selection clause was enforceable but, thereafter, (b) improperly made a ruling on the merits of the Company’s claims for relief. As a result, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in part, vacated in part and remanded the case back to the District Court for transferring to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

On September 9, 2024, the FirstFire Defendants filed their opening memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss. Shortly thereafter, the Company opposed the FirstFire Defendants’ motion and the FirstFire Defendants filed their reply in further support.

As of the date hereof, the Court has not scheduled oral arguments on the FirstFire Defendants’ motion to dismiss or rendered its decision thereon. The Company remains committed to actively litigating its claims for relief against the FirstFire Defendants.

DarkPulse, Inc., et al v. Crown Bridge Partners, LLC, et al

On or about September 23, 2022, the Company, Social Life Network, Inc. and Redhawk Holdings Corp. commenced an action against Crown Bridge Partners, LLC (“Crown Bridge”) and its control persons, Soheil Ahdoot and Sepas Ahdoot (collectively, the “Crown Bridge Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Crown Bridge Defendants are liable to each of the plaintiffs for damages pursuant to RICO.

On or about September 29, 2023, the Court granted the Crown Bridge Defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.

On October 23, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”).

On August 19, 2024, the Second Circuit issued its decision and found that the District Court erred when granting the Crown Bridge Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

On September 30, 2024, the District Court entered a scheduling order, setting forth deadlines for discovery and dispositive motion practice.

The Company is actively litigating its claims for relief against the Crown Bridge Defendants.

GS Capital Partners, LLC v. DarkPulse, Inc.

On June 2, 2023, GS Capital Partners, LLC (“GS Capital”) commenced an action in the Supreme Court for New York County against the Company through the filing of motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint. The motion claims that the Company is in breach of a convertible promissory note, dated July 14, 2021, and accompanying securities purchase agreement, dated the same.

The motion claims that GS Capital is entitled to an award of $2,407,671, plus prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements.

On July 27, 2023, the Company moved to set aside the default judgment entered in favor of GS Capital and against the Company on July 25, 2023. GS Capital’s opposition thereto is due on or before August 31, 2023. Thereafter, DarkPulse’s reply is due on or before September 6, 2023. Oral arguments are currently not scheduled on the Company’s motion.

On or about September 27, 2023, the Company and GS Capital confidentially settled the dispute. On or about October 3, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation with the court to vacate the judgment entered against the Company and in favor of GS Capital, vacate the motion filed by the Company, and discontinue the action.

On or about October 9, 2023, the court vacated the judgment and the action was dismissed.

The Company defaulted upon the settlement and, on July 24, 2024, the Company and GS Capital entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the Company entered into a confession of judgment in favor of GS Capital in the amount of $2,673,423.19 (the “Balance”). Upon approval of the court on August 19, 2024, the Company will issue to GS Capital free-trading and unrestricted shares of Common Stock pursuant to drawdown requests in the amounts determined by GS Capital, subject to a 4.99% beneficial ownership limitation. The shares will be issued a price per share equal to the average of the three lowest VWAPs for the five prior trading days. GS Capital will be allowed to sell, the greater of (1) in one week, no more than 1% of the total outstanding shares of the Company on a non-cumulative basis at the “ask” price, and (2) 15% of the daily trading volume of the Common Stock on any single trading day. Each drawdown will reduce the Balance. The Company is required to reserve 2,500,000,000 shares of Common Stock.

TJM West, Inc v Thomas J McCarthy Family Limited Partnership

On or about July 25, 2023, TJM West filed an action in Maricopa court against its landlord for illegal lockout from the company’s facilities.

On or about August 18, 2023, TJM West’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order was granted.

September 27, 2023, TJM West counsel motion to withdraw was accepted.

On or about October 6, 2923, TJM West hired new counsel to assist with a short deadline to file answers to landlords motion.

On or about November 6, 2023, TJM West and its counsel mutually agreed to a withdrawal.

On or about November 6, 2023, TJM West engaged new counsel.

On or about May 8, 2024, TJM West dropped its motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

On or about May 24, 2024, TJM West counsel filed motion to continue discovery.

On or about May 24, 2024, TJM West’s counsel left the firm handling the litigation it was determined in the best interest of the company to terminate its relationship with the law firm. As of the date hereof, the Company is interviewing new counsel and evaluating its claims against landlord to determine if it’s financially responsible to incur additional fees related to exercising TJM’s rights against the landlord for terminating the lease.

On or about June 28, 2024, the Company discussed with possible new counsel the feasibility of recovering its damages utilizing the courts. At that time, it appeared the cost of recovery would exceed the recoverable amount should the Company be successful in its litigation. TJM West is awaiting updates from the court in Maricopa County as to the status of the case.

The facilities in question had served as TJM West’s manufacturing facility and is located at 2640 W Medtronic Way Tempe, AZ 85281. Currently, we do not have access to the facility nor have we signed a new lease signed with the landlord.

In addition to the foregoing Legal Proceedings, we are also actively investigating potential legal claims, including but not limited to stock fraud, market manipulation, and/or defamation, against certain Twitter accounts, websites, and social media channels. The investigation is ongoing and should potential claims be identified, we will evaluate commencing formal litigation proceedings.

From time to time, we may become involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. We are not currently involved in any pending legal proceeding or litigation and, to the best of our knowledge, no governmental authority is contemplating any proceeding to which we are a party or to which any of our properties is subject, which would reasonably be likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.