The extradition of Peter Weinzierl, former CEO of Austria’s Meinl Bank, to the U.S. marks a dramatic chapter in a saga that has long cast a shadow over Austrian finance and politics. How did a once-prestigious Viennese bank, with deep ties to the country’s elite, become a focal point of global money laundering investigations? And why have Austrian authorities, despite years of high-profile probes, failed to bring the main actors to justice? Peter Weinzierl: From Vienna to New York – and the Long Arm of US Justice Peter Weinzierl, for years the head of Meinl Bank (later Anglo Austrian AAB Bank), is accused by US authorities of playing a central role in laundering hundreds of millions of dollars for the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht-one of the world’s largest bribery and corruption scandals. According to US indictments, Weinzierl and associates used Meinl Bank Antigua, then a subsidiary of the Vienna-based bank, to funnel illicit funds through sham transactions and offshore accounts, enabling Odebrecht to pay bribes to officials and evade taxes2312. After his 2021 arrest at a London airport, Weinzierl fought extradition for four years, arguing, among other things, that he had been “lured” to the UK by a US agent and that his human rights would be at risk in an American prison 1813. British courts, however, dismissed his appeals, and the European Court of Human Rights refused to block his transfer. Weinzierl now faces charges in New York that could bring up to 60 years in prison if convicted189. He maintains his innocence, claiming all transactions were legal and expressing hope for acquittal or a quick resolution. Read our reports on Peter Weinzierl here. Meinl Bank: From Viennese Prestige to European Pariah Meinl Bank, founded in 1956 and long led by Julius Meinl V, was once a pillar of Austrian private banking and investment1014. It played a major role in Central and Eastern European markets, advising on privatizations and managing billions in assets. But behind the scenes, the bank’s reputation was increasingly tainted by allegations of financial improprieties and money laundering. The Odebrecht affair was the final straw. European regulators stripped Meinl Bank of its license in 2019 after repeated anti-money laundering failures, a decision later upheld by the European Court of Justice6. The bank filed for bankruptcy, leaving creditors and depositors out of pocket. The collapse of Meinl Bank, once a symbol of Austrian financial prowess, now stands as a cautionary tale of regulatory failure and unchecked ambition. Karl-Heinz Grasser and the Austrian Connection: Politics, Power, and Impunity? The saga of Meinl Bank is inextricably linked to Austria’s political elite. Karl-Heinz Grasser, the flamboyant former finance minister, served as a consultant to Julius Meinl V after leaving government, earning millions in undeclared commissions routed through offshore accounts5. Grasser was recently sentenced to four years in prison for tax evasion and corruption in a separate case involving the sale of state-owned apartments, where he and associates pocketed millions in kickbacks. Notably, some of these funds reportedly passed through Meinl Bank, raising further questions about the institution’s role as a conduit for political money. Read more about the corruption case of Karl-Heinz Grasser. Judicial Inertia in Austria: Why No Accountability at Home? Despite years of investigations by Austria’s anti-corruption prosecutors (WKStA), all charges against Meinl Bank, Julius Meinl V, and Peter Weinzierl have been dropped in Austria. This lack of domestic accountability has fueled widespread cynicism. Julius Meinl himself famously paid a record sum as bail to avoid pre-trial detention. He had to deposit a record bail of €100 million to secure his release from detention after being arrested on charges including embezzlement, fraud, insider trading, and falsifying balance sheets. Ultimately, neither he nor Weinzierl faced trial at home. Why have Austrian authorities, despite ample evidence and international pressure, failed to secure convictions? Is it a matter of legal complexity, political protection, or simply a lack of will? Austrian Justice: Out of Step with the World? The contrast with US and international action is stark. While American prosecutors pursue Weinzierl with the threat of decades in prison, and European regulators have shuttered Meinl Bank, Austria’s judiciary appears to have quietly closed the book on its own investigations. Is this merely a reflection of differing legal standards, or does it suggest a deeper reluctance to confront financial crime at the highest levels? Conclusion: Open Questions in the Wake of the Meinl Bank Scandal Why did the Austrian judiciary drop all charges against the main actors, when international authorities found grounds for prosecution? How could a bank so central to Austria’s financial and political establishment collapse amid such scandal, with so little domestic reckoning? What does the Weinzierl extradition say about the limits of national justice in an era of global financial crime? The answers remain elusive. For now, it is the US courts-not Vienna’s-that will determine Peter Weinzierl’s fate. But the questions raised by the Meinl Bank affair continue to haunt Austria’s legal and political landscape. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCorruption Money Laundering ticker US DOJTagsAnglo Austrian BankJulius Meinl VKarl-Heinz GrasserOdebrechtPeter Weinzierl

1. Executive Summary April 2025 witnessed significant advancements in whistleblower protections and rewards globally. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued notable awards, while legislative bodies in the U.S., U.K., and Australia proposed or enacted laws to strengthen whistleblower rights. Law firms specializing in whistleblower cases remained active, and discussions around whistleblower compensation gained momentum in various jurisdictions.​ 2. Whistleblower Rewards and Enforcement Highlights United States SEC Awards: On April 21, the SEC announced a $6 million award to joint whistleblowers whose information led to a successful enforcement action. ​ IRS Whistleblower Program: The U.S. IRS released a new operating plan aiming to enhance the efficiency of its whistleblower program, emphasizing fair and timely awards. ​ DOJ: Pilot Whistleblower Program targets foreign bribery and healthcare fraud, with rewards for forfeitures >$1M. United Kingdom SFO Proposal: In the U.K., the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) considered implementing financial rewards for whistleblowers, potentially offering them a percentage of fines collected from corporate fraud cases. ​Latest news & breaking headlines 3. Legislative and Political Developments United States Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2025: Introduced to strengthen protections for federal employees who disclose information to Congress. SEC Whistleblower Reform Act: Reintroduced to restore anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers reporting internally within companies. ​ United Kingdom Office of the Whistleblower Bill (6th reading 25 April) proposes an independent oversight body and central reporting mechanism. Australia Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill: A bill was introduced to establish an independent authority dedicated to enforcing whistleblower protections. ​news.com.au 4. Noteworthy Whistleblower Cases Carlos Domenech Zornoza Case (Zornoza v. SunEdison): The former executive secured a $34.5 million settlement over whistleblower retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). ​Largest-ever SOX retaliation payout after 9-year litigation. Ayten Saridas Lawsuit: The former CFO of Oil Search sued her former legal advisors for failing to recognize her as a whistleblower, potentially affecting her legal rights. ​ Kong v. Gulf International Bank: Court of Appeal ruled dismissal was conduct-related, not whistleblower retaliation. 5. Legal and Compliance Sector Activity Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto: Continued advocacy for whistleblower protections and representation in high-profile cases. ​ Brown, LLC: Achieved significant settlements in whistleblower cases, including a $6.85 million False Claims Act litigation. ​ifightforyourrights.com WhistleblowersUK: Hosted panel with Dawn Butler MP, advocating for punitive damages and U.S.-style rewards. Taylor Wessing: Published global whistleblowing compliance guide covering UAE and Saudi reforms. 6. Whistleblower Community Pulse Global Trends: There is a growing international trend toward enhancing whistleblower protections and offering financial incentives, reflecting a shift in recognizing the importance of whistleblowers in combating fraud and misconduct.​ft.com 7. FinTelegram Spotlight FinTelegram remains committed to supporting whistleblowers and promoting transparency. Our platform, Whistle42.com, continues to provide a secure environment for whistleblowers to share information. We encourage individuals with knowledge of financial misconduct to come forward and utilize our resources.​ 8. Call to Action If you have information about financial misconduct or regulatory violations, we urge you to submit your report through Whistle42.com. Your insights are invaluable in promoting integrity and accountability in the financial sector.​ Share Information with FinTelegram This report is part of FinTelegram’s ongoing commitment to providing comprehensive updates on whistleblower activities worldwide. Stay tuned for our next installment covering developments in May 2025. CategoriesSEC ticker US DOJ Whistleblower

A corruption scandal unlike anything Austria or the European Union has ever seen: former Finance Minister Karl-Heinz Grasser, once a political rising star and darling of high society, has now hit rock bottom. Following the final verdict in the largest corruption trial of the Second Republic, he now faces not only imprisonment but, as revealed today, has also filed for personal bankruptcy. The Conviction: Millions in Bribes and Four Years in Prison On March 25, 2025, Austria’s Supreme Court (OGH) upheld the verdict against Karl-Heinz Grasser in the so-called BUWOG case. Grasser was convicted of embezzlement and accepting gifts, receiving a four-year prison sentence. The original sentence was even twice as high, but the court recognized mitigating factors such as the extraordinarily long duration of the proceedings and Grasser’s previously unblemished life. At the heart of the scandal was the privatization of 60,000 federal apartments in 2004. The court found that Grasser had provided a private consortium with crucial information about the necessary purchase price. This allowed the consortium to secure the deal-and Grasser and his associates pocketed nearly ten million euros in illegal commissions through intermediaries and offshore accounts. Bribes also flowed in connection with the leasing of financial authorities’ offices in Linz’s “Terminal Tower.” The court found that Grasser and his closest confidants, including his best man, Walter Meischberger, and lobbyist Peter Hochegger, had built a complex system to conceal the bribe money. The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Final and with Multi-Million Euro Claims With the Supreme Court’s decision, the criminal proceedings are now definitively concluded. Grasser, Meischberger, and other convicted parties must pay the Republic of Austria €9.8 million in damages-plus interest since 2017, bringing the total claim to around €13 million. The convicted parties are “jointly and severally liable,” meaning the state can collect the full amount from any of them until the total is paid. Personal Bankruptcy: The Ex-Minister is Broke Faced with this enormous financial burden, Karl-Heinz Grasser filed for personal bankruptcy at the Kitzbühel District Court on April 30, 2025. The Credit Protection Association of 1870 officially confirmed the application. Grasser had already stated in recent years that he was financially ruined by the lengthy proceedings-millions in legal fees, no income, no assets left. The state had secured assets in Liechtenstein, but that is nowhere near enough to cover the claims. Unique in Europe: The First Former Finance Minister of an EU State to File for Bankruptcy As of now, Karl-Heinz Grasser is the first former finance minister of an EU member state to file for personal bankruptcy as a result of a final conviction for corruption. No similar case has been reported in recent European history-a unique downfall for a top politician once celebrated as a reformer and clean politician. Context and Significance: A Portrait of Corruption The Grasser case is more than a personal tragedy-it is a lesson in the abuse of power, greed, and the temptations of political office. For years, sophisticated methods were used to divert taxpayers’ money into private pockets, permanently undermining trust in politics. The Republic of Austria now stands as a creditor-and will likely have to accept that it will never recover most of the millions. “These are serious crimes with serious consequences. This is unprecedented in Austria.” (Presiding Judge in the Supreme Court verdict) With Karl-Heinz Grasser’s personal bankruptcy, a unique downfall continues-from glamorous finance minister to symbol of corruption and social decline. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesAustria Corruption Court Cases tickerTagsKarl-Heinz GrasserPeter HocheggerWalter Meischberger

Part of the series DeFi Decoded Stablecoins are the lifeblood of DeFi. They promise the stability of fiat currencies with the flexibility of crypto—and serve as the core trading pair, collateral, and unit of account in decentralized finance. But when a stablecoin loses its peg, the entire system trembles. In this fifth installment of the FinTelegram DeFi Series, we explore the types of stablecoins, how they function in DeFi, and what the collapse of Terra’s UST taught us about hidden risks. Key Points: Stablecoins are digital assets pegged to a fiat currency (usually USD). They are vital for trading, lending, and collateralization in DeFi. There are three major types of stablecoins: fiat-backed, crypto-backed, and algorithmic. The collapse of Terra (UST) in 2022 wiped out over $40 billion in value and shattered trust in algorithmic designs. Regulatory pressure is mounting, especially in the US and EU under MiCA. Short Narrative: Stablecoins make DeFi usable. Without them, users would need to price every transaction in volatile assets like ETH or SOL—impractical and risky. The top stablecoins in DeFi (as of 2025): USDT (Tether) – Fiat-backed, centralized USDC (Circle) – Fiat-backed, regulated DAI (MakerDAO) – Crypto-backed, decentralized FRAX – Hybrid model (was partly algorithmic) LUSD (Liquity) – Crypto-collateralized, immutable Types of Stablecoins 1. Fiat-Backed (Centralized) Backed 1:1 by bank reserves or treasury instruments. Issued by companies like Tether or Circle. Pros: Easy to understand, low volatility. Cons: Requires trust in centralized issuer and banking system. 2. Crypto-Backed (Decentralized) Backed by overcollateralized crypto (e.g., ETH). Issued via smart contracts (e.g., MakerDAO’s DAI). Pros: Censorship-resistant, transparent. Cons: Complex liquidation mechanisms and sensitive to volatility. 3. Algorithmic (Uncollateralized or partially backed) Maintains peg via supply/demand incentives. Terra’s UST was the poster child—and its catastrophic failure. Pros: Capital-efficient in theory. Cons: Prone to death spirals and loss of confidence. Case Study: Terra/UST Collapse In 2022, UST was the third-largest stablecoin. It promised a dollar peg backed only by algorithmic balancing with its sister token, LUNA. When confidence dropped and users began exiting, UST couldn’t hold the peg.The result: $45 billion in value erased. LUNA hyperinflated to near-zero. Retail investors devastated. Major DeFi apps like Anchor evaporated overnight. Lesson: Peg stability must be credible, not just coded. Key Concepts Introduced: Stablecoin Fiat-Backed vs. Crypto-Backed vs. Algorithmic Collateralization Ratio Depeg Event Liquidity Death Spiral Risks to Watch: Lack of Transparency: Some fiat-backed coins don’t disclose full reserves. Overreliance in Protocols: Protocols that only accept one stablecoin are vulnerable to its collapse. Regulatory Risk: Authorities may ban or restrict centralized stablecoins. Liquidity Crises: Bank runs on stables (e.g., USDC briefly lost peg in 2023 during SVB collapse). Actionable Insight for Readers: Before relying on a stablecoin: Check the reserve model and audit status. Diversify across types—not just issuers. Use decentralized stablecoins for DeFi-native applications, but understand the risks. Monitor peg health on tools like Curve, CoinGecko, or DeFiLlama. Call for Information: Do you have insight into stablecoin manipulation, depeg events, or hidden reserve structures? Report anonymously via Whistle42.com — and earn $TCO rewards for impactful intel. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesDefi Series Investor Education

Executive Summary Stablecoins, digital assets pegged to stable assets like the U.S. dollar, have emerged as a transformative force in both cryptocurrency and traditional finance (TradFi). With a total market capitalization exceeding $260 billion and transaction volumes surpassing $27.6 trillion in 2024, stablecoins are redefining payment infrastructure by offering speed, cost efficiency, and transparency. Recent developments, such as Visa’s deepened involvement in stablecoin infrastructure and Circle’s anticipated initial public offering (IPO), underscore the segment’s growing integration with TradFi. This report analyzes the stablecoin market, its key players, market shares, and recent events, while hypothesizing that stablecoins will increasingly dominate cross-border payments and challenge legacy payment systems over the next decade. Introduction to Stablecoins Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value, typically pegged 1:1 to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar or backed by low-risk assets such as Treasury bonds. Their stability makes them ideal for crypto trading, decentralized finance (DeFi), cross-border payments, and remittances. Unlike volatile cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, stablecoins provide a reliable medium for transactions, bridging the gap between digital and traditional financial systems. Key Characteristics Price Stability: Pegged to fiat or assets, minimizing volatility. Blockchain-Based: Operate on public ledgers, ensuring transparency and fast settlements. Utility: Used for trading, lending, payments, and remittances. Challenges: Regulatory scrutiny, liquidity fragmentation across blockchains, and user experience complexity. Stablecoins’ Growing Importance in TradFi Stablecoins are reshaping TradFi by addressing inefficiencies in legacy payment systems, such as high costs, slow settlement times, and limited transparency. In 2023, stablecoins settled $2.3 trillion in “organic” transactions (adjusted for bot activity), with total transfer volumes reaching $27.6 trillion in 2024, surpassing the combined volumes of Visa and Mastercard. This growth highlights their potential to disrupt incumbents like PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard. Integration with TradFi Cross-Border Payments: Stablecoins enable near-instant, low-cost international transfers, reducing reliance on intermediaries. Estimates suggest cross-border transaction flows could reach $76 trillion by 2030, with stablecoins poised to capture significant share. Remittances: Lower fees make stablecoins attractive for remittances, particularly in underserved markets. Institutional Adoption: Major banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Fidelity are developing or exploring stablecoin issuance, signaling TradFi’s embrace of the technology. Regulatory Support: A more crypto-friendly U.S. administration and anticipated stablecoin legislation in 2025 are fostering a conducive environment for growth. Recent Noteworthy Events Visa’s Stablecoin Involvement In April 2025, Visa announced the Visa Tokenized Asset Platform, a new infrastructure to help banks issue and manage stablecoins and tokenized deposits. This follows Visa’s earlier stablecoin dashboard, which reported $100 billion+ in supply, $1 billion+ transactions, and 100 million+ unique addresses over the past year. Visa’s partnership with Circle enables faster merchant settlements via USDC, positioning stablecoins as a competitive alternative to traditional card networks. These moves reflect Visa’s strategy to integrate blockchain technology into its payment ecosystem, potentially capturing a share of the growing stablecoin market. Circle’s IPO Circle, issuer of USDC, filed for an IPO in April 2025, aiming to list on the NYSE under the ticker “CRCL.” The company reported $1.7 billion in revenue for 2024, a 16% increase, though adjusted EBITDA fell 28% to $285 million. Circle’s $60 billion market cap USDC accounts for 26% of the stablecoin market, trailing Tether’s 67%. The IPO, led by JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, is seen as a milestone for crypto’s integration with TradFi, potentially accelerating stablecoin adoption in mainstream payments. Circle also launched the Circle Payment Network, an open network to rival Visa and Mastercard, allowing banks, fintechs, and other stablecoin issuers to innovate collaboratively. Other Developments Stripe’s Stablecoin Pilot: In April 2025, Stripe began testing stablecoin payments, following its $1.1 billion acquisition of Bridge, a stablecoin orchestration platform. Bank Charters: Circle, Coinbase, and Paxos are pursuing U.S. banking licenses, aligning with stablecoin legislation requiring federal oversight. TradFi Entrants: Bank of America, Standard Chartered, and Revolut are exploring stablecoin issuance, while Wyoming is preparing a state-issued dollar-backed stablecoin. Illicit Activity Concerns: Stablecoins now account for 63% of illicit crypto transactions, posing compliance challenges for TradFi adopters. Market Overview: Key Providers and Market Shares The stablecoin market, valued at over $260 billion, is dominated by a few key players, with Tether and Circle leading. Below is an overview based on available data: ProviderStablecoinMarket CapMarket ShareKey FeaturesTetherUSDT$140 billion67%Largest stablecoin, widely used in trading and DeFi. Faces scrutiny over reserve transparency.CircleUSDC$60 billion26%Second-largest, backed by cash and Treasuries. Strong TradFi partnerships (e.g., Visa, Coinbase).OthersVarious~$60 billion7%Includes PayPal (PYUSD), Ripple, and emerging TradFi stablecoins (e.g., JPMorgan, Fidelity). Tether (USDT): The market leader, USDT’s dominance stems from its early adoption and liquidity across exchanges. However, concerns about reserve backing persist. Circle (USDC): USDC’s growth (36% in 2024 vs. Tether’s 5%) is driven by transparency, regulatory compliance, and TradFi integrations. Emerging Players: PayPal’s PYUSD, Ripple’s stablecoin, and planned offerings from Fidelity and JPMorgan are gaining traction, with competition intensifying. Transaction Volume: Stablecoin transaction volumes grew from $521 billion to $710 billion monthly over the past year, with 35 million unique addresses, a 50% increase. Hypothesis: Future Development of Stablecoins Hypothesis: Over the next decade, stablecoins will become the dominant infrastructure for cross-border payments and remittances, capturing 20–30% of the $76 trillion global cross-border transaction market by 2030, while challenging legacy payment networks like Visa and Mastercard. Supporting Factors Cost and Speed: Stablecoins offer near-instant settlements at fractions of traditional costs, appealing to businesses and consumers. TradFi Integration: Partnerships like Visa-Circle and bank-issued stablecoins will drive mainstream adoption. Regulatory Clarity: Anticipated U.S. stablecoin legislation in 2025 will boost institutional confidence. Technological Advancements: APIs and SDKs (e.g., Circle’s) simplify integration for businesses, while smart wallets reduce user complexity. Market Demand: Growing demand for tokenized dollars and blockchain-based payments supports long-term growth. Risks Regulatory Hurdles: Illicit activity (63% of crypto crime) and sanctions evasion concerns could prompt stricter regulations. Competition: Incumbents like Visa and Mastercard retain network effects and consumer trust, while new entrants fragment the market. Technical Challenges: Liquidity fragmentation across blockchains and irreversible transactions pose adoption barriers, potentially deterring users. Financial Risks: Declines in issuer profitability, as seen in Circle’s 28% EBITDA drop, could limit investment in infrastructure. Implications for Investors Opportunities: Stablecoin issuers like Circle and TradFi entrants (e.g., Visa, JPMorgan) offer investment potential as stablecoins gain traction. Circle’s IPO could set a precedent for crypto firms entering public markets, potentially yielding high returns if adoption accelerates. Risks: Regulatory uncertainty, competition, and operational risks (e.g., cybersecurity, compliance) warrant caution. Investors should prioritize issuers with strong reserves, transparency, and TradFi partnerships. Strategy: Diversify across stablecoin-related assets, including issuers, exchanges (e.g., Coinbase, with USDC revenue-sharing), and blockchain infrastructure providers. Conclusion Stablecoins are no longer a crypto niche but a critical bridge to TradFi, with transaction volumes rivaling legacy payment networks and growing institutional adoption. Visa’s stablecoin platform, Circle’s IPO, and TradFi’s entry into the market signal a transformative shift in global finance. While challenges like regulation and competition persist, stablecoins’ cost efficiency, speed, and utility position them to capture significant market share in cross-border payments and remittances. Investors should monitor regulatory developments, issuer financials, and technological advancements to capitalize on this evolving segment. Sources Reuters: Stablecoin giant Circle reveals revenue growth in US IPO filing Yahoo Finance: Circle’s IPO: A launchpad for mainstream stablecoin adoption? Coinbase: Stablecoins and the New Payments Landscape Forbes: The Circle IPO Solidifies 2025 As The Year Of Stablecoins FinTech Weekly: Banks and Fintech Companies Rush to Issue Stablecoins CNBC: Stablecoin issuer Circle files for IPO @chamath: Visa’s Tokenized Asset Platform @CoinDesk: Circle’s Payments Network @liamihorne: Visa’s Stablecoin Dashboard Note: Investors should conduct due diligence and consult financial advisors before making investment decisions, as cryptocurrencies and stablecoins carry high risks. CategoriesCryptonomics Investor Briefing Stablecoins ticker

Mastercard is positioning itself as a leader in bridging traditional finance with digital assets through a comprehensive stablecoin strategy. By developing end-to-end infrastructure and forging key partnerships, the company aims to make stablecoins as usable as fiat currency for consumers and merchants – a move with significant implications for global payments. Mastercard’s Stablecoin Strategy Mastercard’s approach focuses on four pillars: Consumer Spending: Partnerships with crypto platforms (OKX, MetaMask, Kraken) enable stablecoin payments via Mastercard-linked cards at 150M+ merchants. The OKX Card exemplifies this, allowing direct Web3-to-merchant transactions. Merchant Settlement: Collaborations with Nuvei, Circle, and Paxos let businesses receive payments in USDC/USDP stablecoins, avoiding FX conversion fees and accelerating settlement. Cross-Border Infrastructure: Mastercard Crypto Credential simplifies remittances using verified usernames instead of wallet addresses, while its Multi-Token Network (MTN) enables real-time settlements with banks like JPMorgan. Regulatory Alignment: The strategy leverages impending U.S. stablecoin regulations (e.g., STABLE Act) to build trust and scale adoption. Significance of Stablecoins Stablecoins are transitioning from crypto trading tools to mainstream payment instruments due to: Efficiency: Cross-border transactions settle in seconds at <1% cost vs. traditional methods. Programmability: Smart contracts enable automated payroll, subscriptions, and escrow services. Market Growth: The sector is projected to reach $500B by 2025 (Bernstein) and $3.7T by 2030 (Citi). Geopolitical Impact: USD-backed stablecoins now hold more U.S. Treasuries than Germany or Mexico, reinforcing dollar hegemony. Implications of Mastercard’s Move Consumer Adoption: Lower barriers to using stablecoins for everyday purchases could accelerate mainstream adoption. Merchant Economics: Direct stablecoin settlement may save businesses 30-50% on cross-border fees. Competitive Pressure: Rivals like Visa are testing stablecoin settlements with Circle and Nuvei, while AmEx remains cautious, focusing on rewards integration. Regulatory Scrutiny: As stablecoins gain traction, issuers face heightened AML/KYC requirements and reserve audits. Competitive Landscape Visa: Piloting USDC settlements with Crypto.com and Nuvei, though less comprehensive than Mastercard’s ecosystem. AmEx: No immediate plans for crypto-linked cards, prioritizing rewards-to-crypto conversions. Fintechs: Stripe and PayPal are expanding stablecoin APIs for business payments. Conclusion Mastercard’s 360-degree stablecoin strategy aims to cement its role as the plumbing of digital commerce, leveraging regulatory tailwinds and blockchain efficiency. While Visa is making parallel moves, Mastercard’s broader partner network and focus on end-to-end solutions give it an early-mover advantage. As stablecoins capture 1% of U.S. M2 money supply, their integration into card networks signals a pivotal shift toward hybrid financial systems blending traditional and decentralized finance. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCrypto Compliance Cryptonomics tickerTagsAmexCircleKrakenMastercardMetaMaskNuveiOKXPaxosVisa

THE BOMBSHELL ALLEGATIONSThe cyberfinance rating agency RatEx42 just published an explosive report. A toxic web of regulatory violations, money laundering risks, and consumer exploitation has been exposed in Germany’s underground gambling scene – with 20Bet at its core and Revolut allegedly fueling its operations. Fresh evidence suggests a brazen disregard for EU gambling laws, AML protocols, and Germany’s strict GlüStV regulations45. REVOLUT: PAYMENT GATEWAY TO THE BLACK MARKET? While Revolut markets itself as a fintech innovator, our investigation reveals its systems may have processed millions in illicit gambling transactions for 20Bet’s German operations. Key findings: License Loophole Exploit: 20Bet operates under a Curaçao “zombie license” – worthless in Germany [1,3]. Revolut’s compliance teams allegedly ignored glaring red flags. Mirror Site Maze: 20Bet used cloaked domains (20bettwin.com, 20bet.de) to bypass geo-blocks – a tactic straight from the black market playbook [4,1,6]. KYC Catastrophe: A German OASIS self-excluded gambler infiltrated 20Bet’s platform, depositing €20,000 WITHOUT identity checks or AML scrutiny – a 5-alarm fire for financial regulators [4,1,5]. THE PLAYERS BEHIND THE CURTAIN TechSolutions Group (Cyprus): Alleged puppet master of 20Bet’s German operations. SMES/CMS Trust: Shadowy licensing facilitators tied to 14 EU blacklists (France, Poland, Italy et al.) [1,3]. Revolut’s Silent Complicity: Processed payments despite 20Bet’s absence from Germany’s GGL whitelist [4,5]. REGULATORY EARTHQUAKE IMMINENT Germany’s GGL and BaFin are now under pressure to: Freeze Revolut’s operations pending AML audit [1,5]. Slash 20Bet’s access to EU payment rails. Launch a cross-border probe into Curaçao’s “license-for-sale” regime [1,5]. TICKING TIME BOMB: The complainant threatens to unleash EU consumer protection agencies, Der Spiegel, and leak data to #FinCENFiles2025 if €20,000 isn’t refunded within 72 hours. WHY THIS MATTERS Germany’s black market gambling crisis deepens: Tax revenues plunged 82% (€55M → €10M monthly) as players flee to unregulated platforms [4]. Revolut’s reputation at stake: Could face fines up to 4% of global turnover under EU’s AMLD [15]. “This isn’t just about gambling – it’s about organized crime exploiting weak links in fintech compliance.” – RatEx42 CyberRisk Analyst [6,14] DISCLAIMER: Allegations remain unproven. Revolut maintains presumption of innocence. But with €20K in consumer losses and Germany’s gambling watchdog on high alert45, this scandal could detonate faster than a Megaways slot jackpot [9,11]. STAY TUNED: FinTeletram will expose 20Bet’s crypto laundering tunnels and Revolut’s internal audits in Part II. Share Information with FinTelegram via Whistle42 Sources: https://casino.guru/20bet-casino-review https://richads.com/blog/online-gambling-in-germany/ https://www.betzillion.com/betting-sites/germany/ https://www.idnow.io/blog/exploring-black-market-gambling-in-germany/ https://iclg.com/practice-areas/gambling-laws-and-regulations/germany https://uk.linkedin.com/company/ratex42 https://www.ibisworld.com/germany/industry/gambling-betting-activities/1537/ https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/publications/ar/2023/1-eng https://onlinecasinorank.org/20bet/ https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/publications/ar/2023/ar2023-eng.pdf https://www.gambling.com/nz/online-casinos/20bet https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/intel/sintel-eng https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/intro-eng https://risk.lexisnexis.com/global/en/financial-services/financial-crime-compliance https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/publications/dp/2024-2025/dp-pm-eng https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/reports/fintech-regtech-and-role-of-compliance-in-2023/form CategoriesIllegal gambling Illegal Payment Services PayRate42 tickerTags20BetRevolut

Global elite takeover or just another coincidence? You decide. The term “New World Order” (NWO) has long sent shivers down the spine of democracy’s true believers.At its heart lies the fear that a global cabal of unelected billionaires, technocrats, and corporate overlords are quietly shaping a future ruled by control, surveillance, and centralized wealth. Today, this so-called NWO isn’t some fringe theory anymore — it’s a talking point for millions, amplified by popular figures like Alex Jones (X profile), Tucker Carlson (X profile), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (X profile). And now, strangely enough, a new cast of characters has entered the stage:The World Economic Council (WEC) and fallen real estate tycoon René Benko. What Is the “New World Order”? At its core, the “New World Order” describes a suspected power structure above sovereign governments, made up of global institutions, tech billionaires, media conglomerates, and certain NGOs, allegedly working in concert to install a post-democratic global regime. Institutions and individuals often named in the New World Order context: World Economic Forum (WEF): Klaus Schwab’s playground of “stakeholder capitalism.” World Health Organization (WHO): accused of pandemic authoritarianism. Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation: often seen as architects of global health and tech initiatives. George Soros: A billionaire philanthropist frequently accused by conspiracists of funding globalist agendas. Mark Zuckerberg: Sometimes named due to his control over major social media platforms and perceived influence over public discourse. As Alex Jones put it: “We declare 1776 against the new world order.… We need to understand we’re under attack, and we need to understand this is 21st-century warfare and get on a war-footing….” (Alex Jones addressing a crowd of pro-Trump protesters after they stormed the grounds of the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.) Enter WEC, SilverArrow Capital — and René Benko Here’s where the story gets even darker. The Austrian-based World Economic Council (WEC) — an Austrian private organization founded by Thomas Limberger, Peter Nußbaum, and Robert Schimanko — bears an uncanny resemblance to the World Economic Forum in its branding, self-description, and ambitions. But unlike the WEF, the WEC isn’t a public nonprofit. It’s a private company (GmbH), shrouded in secrecy, registered to a virtual office address in Vienna. And now, WEC is directly linked to one of Europe’s biggest white-collar crime scandals:the collapse of René Benko’s Signa Group. The Benko Connection: Foundations, Gold, and Power In November 2024, as Signa’s empire crumbled and creditors demanded answers, two leading WEC figures made quiet but strategic moves: Thomas Limberger joined the board of the Laura Privatestiftung (Foundation). Robert Schimanko joined the board of the INGBE Stiftung (Foundation) in Liechtenstein. Both foundations are central to the investigations into Benko’s hidden assets, which include suspicious gold sales worth €30 million during Benko’s pre-trial detention and allegations of asset stripping. Benko, who raised billions in investor funds from elites in Germany, Switzerland, and the Middle East, now sits behind bars — accused of fraud, money laundering, and embezzlement. Was Benko Part of a New World Order Scheme? Let’s ask the uncomfortable questions: Was René Benko, the flashy tycoon with deep political ties and global investors, trying to build his own bridge into the New World Order? Was the WEC positioning itself as the new gateway for “second-tier” elites seeking to secure influence and wealth post-Signa collapse? Is WEC the staging ground for the next layer of power players, just below the WEF, building their own “network of networks”? It is well known that tech billionaires like Peter Thiel, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, are seen as pillars of the global restructuring. And then there’s the curious case of Sebastian Kurz, Austria’s former chancellor, who has reemerged in the orbit of none other than Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire often described as an architect of the “techno-authoritarianism.” After his controversial exit from politics, Kurz quietly repositioned himself as an investor — directly within Thiel’s international network. Add to that the well-documented close relationship between René Benko and Kurz, and a picture begins to form: were these just friendly business ties, or part of a much larger, coordinated elite structure? In light of these connections, the once-dismissed “conspiracy theory” of a New World Order starts to look less like fiction and more like a disturbing outline of reality. Why wouldn’t emerging networks like the WEC want a slice of that power, too? When trillions are at stake, even a collapsed empire like Signa can still serve as a launchpad for the next shadow consortium. Download the Full WEC Dossier At FinTelegram, we believe transparency is the antidote to conspiracy. That’s why we’ve compiled the comprehensive WEC Dossier — a 60+ page exposé mapping the people, companies, money flows, and hidden networks connecting WEC, SilverArrow Capital, and the Benko empire. Download the WEC Dossier here Because when you follow the gold, you find the truth. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesBankruptcies Court Cases NGOs tickerTagsIngbeLaura Privatstiftung

The Rebellion Ignites: A Social Media Uprising Against the WHO and Bill Gates Hold onto your seats, because the internet is ablaze with fury, and the targets are none other than the World Health Organization (WHO) and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates! Influential voices on X and across social media platforms are leading a digital revolt, accusing these global giants of sinister plots that threaten humanity itself. From conspiracy kingpin Alex Jones to countless X users amplifying the outrage, the accusations are as explosive as they are chilling. But what’s fueling this firestorm? Let’s dive into the dark underbelly of distrust, conspiracy theories, and the shocking claims that have turned the WHO and Gates into public enemy number one! A Legacy of Suspicion: The Roots of Distrust The WHO, founded in 1948, was once hailed as the world’s health guardian, tasked with coordinating global responses to pandemics and setting health standards. Bill Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has poured billions into global health, becoming a major player in the WHO’s funding landscape. Sounds noble, right? Not so fast! For years, whispers of mistrust have swirled around both. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 turned those whispers into a deafening roar, as lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and global health policies sparked widespread fear and anger. Read our Financial Report on WHO here. On X, influential voices have seized on this unrest, claiming the WHO and Gates are not saviors but puppet masters pulling the strings of a global agenda. The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO under President Trump in January 2025—slashing a massive $1.28 billion in annual funding—only fanned the flames, with many on social media cheering the move as a strike against a “corrupt” institution. But why are so many convinced that the WHO and Gates are the villains in this global drama? The Firebrand’s Crusade: Alex Jones and the Media Rebellion Enter Alex Jones (X profile), the self-proclaimed “most paranoid man in America,” whose Infowars platform has been a megaphone for conspiracy theories for over two decades. Jones, with millions of followers across platforms like X, has been a relentless critic of both the WHO and Gates, especially since the COVID-19 era. His bombastic rants have struck a chord, rallying a legion of supporters who see him as a truth-teller in a world of lies. Jones’s primary accusation? The WHO and Gates are key players in a “New World Order”—a shadowy cabal of elites hell-bent on global domination. He claims the WHO, under Gates’s influence, is a tool for enforcing a “demonic high-tech tyranny,” using health crises to control populations. Gates, according to Jones, isn’t a philanthropist but a modern-day eugenicist, orchestrating a mass depopulation scheme through vaccines and health initiatives. “I know who Bill Gates is,” Jones thundered in a 2017 broadcast, alleging Gates’s father, a former Planned Parenthood board member, was a “top eugenicist” and that Gates himself is a front for a globalist agenda tied to IBM and even Nazi-era eugenics programs. Jones’s rhetoric has evolved over the years. By 2020, he was leading chants of “arrest Bill Gates” at anti-lockdown protests in Texas, accusing Gates of masterminding the COVID-19 pandemic to push mandatory vaccines laced with microchips. He’s called Gates “Satan’s benchwarmer,” alleging the billionaire is a placeholder for the Antichrist, working with the WHO to “carry out a covert sterilization depopulation plan.” These claims, while baseless, have resonated with a public already skeptical of institutional power, especially during the uncertainty of the pandemic. The Conspiracy Theories: A Web of Fear and Suspicion The outrage on X and social media isn’t just about fiery rhetoric—it’s fueled by a sprawling network of conspiracy theories that paint the WHO and Gates as architects of global control. Here are the most explosive theories gripping the internet: 1. The Depopulation Agenda: Vaccines as Weapons of Mass Control One of the most pervasive theories claims Gates and the WHO are using vaccines to depopulate the planet. This idea gained traction during the COVID-19 pandemic, with X users and personalities like Jones alleging that Gates-funded vaccines contain microchips to track and control people—or worse, sterilize them. The theory often ties back to a misquoted 2010 TED Talk where Gates discussed reducing population growth through healthcare improvements, which conspiracists twisted into a call for mass sterilization. On X, posts have accused Gates of using the WHO to “mandate vaccines all over the world,” with claims he’s the “major shareholder” in vaccine companies, profiting while reducing populations. 2. The COVID-19 Creation Myth: A Man-Made Plague Another bombshell theory alleges that Gates and the WHO orchestrated the COVID-19 pandemic. This narrative exploded in 2020, fueled by the Event 201 simulation—a 2019 pandemic preparedness exercise co-hosted by the Gates Foundation—that conspiracy theorists claimed was evidence Gates “predicted” the outbreak. Jones and others on X have pushed the idea that the virus was lab-engineered, with Gates and the WHO (alongside figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci) as the masterminds. A 2023 X post even claimed U.S. patents show the CDC, China, and Gates collaborated to create SARS-CoV-2, with the WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as a “criminal” appointee of Gates and the Chinese Communist Party. 3. The Microchip Surveillance State: ID2020 and Beyond Perhaps the most dystopian theory is that Gates and the WHO are using vaccines to implant microchips, creating a global surveillance state. This idea, tied to the ID2020 initiative—a real project advocating digital IDs for undocumented people—morphed into a conspiracy that Gates wants to track everyone via vaccine-injected chips. During a 2020 Reddit AMA, Gates mentioned “digital certificates” to track vaccination status, which conspiracists seized as proof of a microchip plot. Fox News host Laura Ingraham and Newsmax correspondent Emerald Robinson amplified this on social media, with Ingraham calling it a “globalist” dream to “digitally track Americans’ every move.” 4. The WHO as a Gates-Controlled Puppet Many on X believe Gates has hijacked the WHO, turning it into his personal tool for profit and control. With the Gates Foundation as the WHO’s second-largest donor (contributing $830 million in 2022–2023), critics like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have claimed on X that Gates “has taken over control of the WHO,” using it to push vaccine agendas for personal gain. X users have echoed this, with one 2025 post calling Gates the “WHO’s biggest unelected power broker,” alleging he’s turned global health into a “battlefield” for “control, profit, and a global reset.” 5. The Monkeypox and Beyond: A Pattern of Fear The 2022 monkeypox outbreak reignited conspiracies, with figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones claiming Gates and the WHO were behind it to push more vaccines. Jones even suggested COVID-19 vaccines caused monkeypox, while X posts in 2025 have accused Gates of plotting new viruses like “Polaris” to “slaughter millions of kids,” citing unverified “WHO insider” warnings. Why the Rage? A Perfect Storm of Fear and Mistrust So why are influential voices on X and media personalities like Jones so vehemently against the WHO and Gates? It’s a toxic cocktail of fear, mistrust, and real-world events. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep skepticism of institutions, with lockdowns and vaccine mandates seen as overreaches of power. Gates’s massive influence over global health—his Foundation’s $1.75 billion COVID-19 response and his role in vaccine development—made him a lightning rod for suspicion. The WHO’s reliance on voluntary contributions, often earmarked by donors like Gates, has fueled accusations of bias and corruption. Add to this the rise of social media as a breeding ground for conspiracies. X posts and YouTube comments have become echo chambers where theories about microchips, depopulation, and man-made viruses spread unchecked. A 2022 study found that YouTube comments on COVID-19 videos featuring Gates were “dominated by conspiracy theories,” with topics like his “hidden agenda” and vaccine development attracting massive engagement. The lack of robust moderation on these platforms has allowed figures like Jones to amplify their message, turning fringe ideas into mainstream outrage. The Stakes: A Battle for Truth or a Descent into Chaos? The war against the WHO and Bill Gates on X and social media isn’t just a digital tantrum—it’s a battle for the soul of global health. On one side, critics like Jones warn of a dystopian future where unelected elites control our bodies and freedoms. On the other, supporters of Gates and the WHO argue they’re saving lives in a world desperate for solutions. But as the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO sends shockwaves through the global health system, and as conspiracies continue to fester online, one thing is clear: the truth is drowning in a sea of fear and suspicion. Will the WHO and Gates be exposed as the villains X users claim they are, or are we witnessing a dangerous descent into paranoia that could derail global health efforts for generations? The battle lines are drawn, and the internet is watching—fingers on keyboards, ready to strike! Share Information with FinTelegram Note: This report reflects sentiments and theories circulating on X and in media as of April 25, 2025, but many claims remain unverified and should be approached with skepticism. CategoriesNGOs Social MediaTagsAlex JonesAnthony FauciBill GatesDonald TrumpTedros Adhanom GhebreyesusWHOWorld Health Organization

Date: April 25, 2025Prepared by: Financial Analyst, xAI Executive Summary The World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, has been a cornerstone of global health governance since its founding in 1948. The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, initiated by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, has significantly disrupted the organization’s financial stability, given the U.S.’s historical role as its largest donor. This report assesses the WHO’s current financial situation, the outlook without U.S. funding, the primary public and private sector funders, and the specific involvement of Bill Gates and his organizations. The analysis draws on recent data and developments to provide a comprehensive overview of the WHO’s financial and strategic challenges. 1. Overview of the World Health Organization The WHO, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, is mandated to coordinate global health responses, set health standards, and provide technical assistance to its 194 member states. Its key activities include disease surveillance, pandemic preparedness, vaccine distribution, and addressing non-communicable diseases. The WHO’s biennial budget for 2024–2025 is $6.83 billion, funded through two primary streams: Assessed Contributions (ACs): Mandatory dues from member states, based on GDP and population, constituting approximately 16.8% of the budget ($1.148 billion for 2024–2025). Voluntary Contributions (VCs): Discretionary funds from governments, philanthropic organizations, NGOs, and private entities, making up over 80% of the budget. These are often earmarked for specific programs, limiting WHO’s flexibility. The WHO’s reliance on voluntary contributions has long been a structural vulnerability, as it reduces autonomy and aligns priorities with donor interests. The U.S. withdrawal exacerbates this challenge, threatening the organization’s ability to fulfill its mandate. 2. Financial Situation Post-U.S. Withdrawal 2.1 Impact of U.S. Withdrawal The U.S. has historically been the WHO’s largest donor, contributing $1.28 billion (16–18% of total revenue) in the 2022–2023 biennium, including $264 million in assessed contributions for 2024–2025. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO, halting future funding and recalling U.S. personnel. While U.S. law requires a one-year notice period and payment of outstanding dues (unpaid for 2024–2025), the immediate cessation of voluntary contributions has created a significant shortfall. Recent posts on X and reports indicate a projected budget deficit of $560–650 million for 2026–2027, with the WHO proposing a 21% budget cut to $4.2 billion. This has led to operational reductions, including staff layoffs (potentially 40% of personnel), program consolidation (from 10 divisions to 4), and cuts in hiring and travel. 2.2 Current Financial Situation The WHO’s 2024–2025 budget remains partially insulated due to early payment of U.S. assessed contributions by the Biden administration, but the loss of voluntary contributions (79% of U.S. funding) is critical. Key impacts include: Program Vulnerabilities: Programs like the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, maternal and child health, and epidemic preparedness face significant risks, as U.S. voluntary contributions heavily supported these areas. Operational Constraints: The WHO is already implementing cost-saving measures, such as reducing staff and non-essential activities, to address the shortfall. Donor Dependency: The organization’s reliance on voluntary contributions (over 80% of funding) amplifies the impact of the U.S. exit, as few donors can match its scale. 2.3 Strategic Implications The U.S. withdrawal not only strains finances but also diminishes WHO’s global influence and the U.S.’s role in shaping health priorities. Experts warn that the exit could weaken global disease surveillance, vaccine coordination, and pandemic preparedness, increasing risks for both the U.S. and the world. Additionally, Argentina’s announced withdrawal and potential “domino effect” among other nations could further erode WHO’s universality and funding base. 3. Financial Outlook Without U.S. Funding 3.1 Short-Term Outlook (2025–2026) The WHO faces immediate financial strain, with a $600 million shortfall projected for the 2026–2027 biennium. The organization’s response includes: Budget Cuts: A proposed reduction to $4.2 billion, impacting staff, programs, and operational capacity. Fundraising Efforts: The WHO launched its first “investment round” in 2024 to diversify donors, but these reforms are unlikely to offset the U.S. loss in the short term. Program Prioritization: Non-critical programs may be scaled back, with a focus on high-impact areas like polio eradication and emergency response. Other major donors, such as Germany and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are unlikely to fully bridge the gap. European countries face their own fiscal and political constraints, and private philanthropies lack the capacity to replace state-level funding. 3.2 Long-Term Outlook (2027–2030) The WHO aims to increase assessed contributions to 50% of its budget by 2030 to enhance financial autonomy. However, without U.S. participation, achieving this goal is challenging: Reduced Global Influence: The absence of U.S. funding and expertise may shift influence to other players, such as China, which could expand bilateral health partnerships but is unlikely to significantly increase WHO contributions. Program Sustainability: Sustained cuts could undermine long-term initiatives, such as polio eradication and non-communicable disease programs, increasing global health risks. Potential Reforms: The crisis may accelerate WHO’s financing reforms, but success depends on collective member state commitment, which is uncertain given Argentina’s exit and potential further withdrawals. 4. Primary Funders: Public and Private Sectors 4.1 Public Sector Funders In 2022–2023, the top public sector contributors to the WHO were: Germany: $856 million (second-largest donor, ~12% of budget). European Commission: $468 million. United Kingdom: $396 million. Canada: $204 million. Japan: $167 million. France: $161 million. Germany briefly surpassed the U.S. as the largest donor in 2020–2021 during Trump’s first-term funding suspension, but its capacity to scale up further is limited by domestic priorities. Other nations, such as the UK and Japan, are also constrained by economic and political challenges, making significant increases unlikely. 4.2 Private Sector Funders Key private sector contributors include: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: $830 million in 2022–2023, the third-largest donor (~12% of budget). GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance: $481 million. Rotary International: $177 million. The Gates Foundation is the most significant private donor, but its funds are heavily earmarked, particularly for polio eradication, limiting WHO’s flexibility. GAVI, also supported by Gates, focuses on vaccine access, while Rotary International prioritizes polio initiatives. 5. Involvement of Bill Gates and His Organizations 5.1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the WHO’s second-largest overall donor, contributing $531 million in 2018–2019 and $830 million in 2022–2023. Its funding focuses on: Polio Eradication: A significant portion supports the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, a priority shared with the U.S. and Rotary International. Vaccine Programs: Support for GAVI and vaccine-related initiatives, including childhood immunization. Global Health Advocacy: The Foundation engages with WHO, UNICEF, and the Global Fund to strengthen health systems and surveillance. The Foundation’s influence is substantial, raising concerns about private philanthropy shaping WHO’s agenda. Critics argue that its earmarked funding aligns with the WHO‘s priorities and the Foundation’s goals, potentially sidelining other health needs. In 2020, CEO Mark Suzman acknowledged that it is “not right” for a private entity to be among WHO’s top funders, urging member states to increase contributions. 5.2 Bill Gates’s Advocacy Since the U.S. withdrawal, Bill Gates has actively lobbied the Trump administration to maintain global health funding, including for WHO, GAVI, and the Global Fund. In early 2025, he met with National Security Council officials, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, and Trump himself to advocate for continued support. Gates has emphasized that the Foundation cannot fill the funding gap left by the U.S., with its $8 billion annual budget insufficient to replace billions in U.S. aid. Gates has publicly supported WHO’s role, warning that its weakening could jeopardize global health security, particularly for polio eradication and pandemic preparedness. However, his response has been described as cautious, possibly to avoid antagonizing the Trump administration. 5.3 GAVI and Other Initiatives The Gates Foundation co-founded GAVI, which contributed $481 million to WHO in 2022–2023. GAVI’s focus on vaccine access complements WHO’s immunization programs, but its funding is also earmarked, reinforcing donor-driven priorities. Gates’s broader influence extends through partnerships with the Global Fund and UNICEF, amplifying his role in global health governance. 6. Strategic and Financial Challenges 6.1 Financial Vulnerabilities Donor Dependency: Over 80% of WHO’s budget relies on voluntary contributions, with only 25% fully flexible. The U.S. withdrawal exacerbates this, as no single donor can replace its scale. Shortfall Risks: A $560–650 million deficit threatens core functions, with cuts already impacting staff and programs. Earmarked Funding: Donor-specified funds limit WHO’s ability to address emerging or underfunded health issues. 6.2 Strategic Risks Global Health Security: Reduced WHO capacity could weaken disease surveillance and pandemic response, increasing risks globally. Geopolitical Shifts: The U.S. exit may cede influence to China or others, altering global health governance. Reform Challenges: While WHO aims to increase assessed contributions, member state commitment is uncertain, especially with potential further withdrawals. 8. Conclusion The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO under President Trump has precipitated a financial crisis, with a projected $560–650 million shortfall and a proposed 21% budget cut. The WHO’s heavy reliance on voluntary contributions, coupled with the loss of its largest donor, threatens its operational capacity and global health leadership. Germany and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are key funders, but neither can fully replace U.S. contributions. Bill Gates’s significant influence, through his Foundation and advocacy, underscores the tension between private philanthropy and WHO’s autonomy. Without strategic reforms and new funding sources, the WHO risks diminished effectiveness, potentially undermining global health security. The next year is critical for diplomatic efforts to mitigate the impact and secure the organization’s future. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesNGOs TransparencyTagsBill & Melinda Gates FoundationDonald TrumpGAVIMark SuzmanWHOWorld Health Organization

Transparency is not a threat — it’s a responsibility. At a time when the world is grappling with the fallout from Klaus Schwab’s resignation and the financial scandal around the World Economic Forum (WEF), a new power center has emerged in the shadows: the World Economic Council (WEC), operating from a virtual office in Vienna and led by figures now tied to one of Europe’s biggest white-collar scandals — the collapse of René Benko’s Signa Group. Today, FinTelegram publishes the WEC Dossier, a comprehensive investigation into the structure, players, and networks behind the WEC, its affiliate NGO IWS, and the finance group SilverArrow Capital. The dossier aims to do what WEC does not — provide transparency. What’s Inside the WEC Dossier? The Origins and Public Persona of WECA deep dive into how the WEC mirrors the WEF in branding and ambition — but operates as a private limited company (GmbH), not a public NGO. Key IndividualsDetailed profiles of WEC’s leadership: Thomas Limberger, Robert Schimanko, William H. Shawn, Peter Nußbaum, and Israeli intelligence consultant Moshe Buller. The Benko ConnectionHow WEC leaders became board members of Benko’s foundations — INGBE (Liechtenstein) and Laura Privatstiftung (Austria) — just weeks before his arrest. Gold, Foundations & Offshore AssetsThe suspicious liquidation of €30 million in gold from the INGBE Foundation while Benko was in custody, and how these moves mirror past tactics in shadow finance. Legal Tactics and IntimidationWEC and SilverArrow’s coordinated legal pressure campaign against investigative platforms like Wiener Zocker, echoing SLAPP strategies. The Shadow Finance EcosystemAn inside look at how reputational capital, political proximity, and financial opacity converge through WEC and its extended network. Why This Dossier Matters Download the WEC Dossier here In light of growing public mistrust in global forums and elite financial institutions, the WEC Dossier serves a vital role: to inform, document, and expose. The dossier is not an accusation — it is a fact-based resource for regulators, journalists, and citizens alike. We believe that those who hold economic influence — especially in post-crisis Europe — must be subject to the same transparency expected of elected officials and public institutions. The WEC, despite its name and global claims, is a private enterprise with public implications. We Call on Whistleblowers If you have insider knowledge about the World Economic Council, SilverArrow Capital, Signa-related foundations, or any related financial activities, we invite you to contact us securely and anonymously. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesInvestigative Dossiers NGOs tickerTagsIngbeLaura PrivatstiftungMoshe BullerPeter NussbaumRene BenkoRobert SchimankoSignaSilverArrow CapitalThomas LimbergerWilliam ShawnWorld Economic Council

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the 80-year-old Austrian corporate titan, has stepped into the spotlight as the interim chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) following Klaus Schwab’s abrupt resignation on April 20, 2025. Known for his ruthless business acumen and controversial stances, Brabeck-Letmathe is no stranger to power—but his ascension to the WEF’s helm amid swirling allegations against Schwab raises explosive questions about the future of this globalist institution. Is Brabeck-Letmathe the continuity candidate to preserve Schwab’s legacy, or a harbinger of a darker, more corporate-driven agenda? Buckle up—this is a story of elitism, scandal, and the battle for global influence. The Water Baron: Who Is Peter Brabeck-Letmathe? Born on November 13, 1944, in Villach, Austria, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is a product of the post-war economic boom, armed with a degree in economics from the University of World Trade in Vienna. His career began humbly in 1968 as an ice cream salesman for Nestlé in Austria, but his ambition propelled him through the ranks of the Swiss food giant. By 1997, he was CEO of Nestlé, a role he held until 2005, later serving as chairman until 2008. Under his leadership, Nestlé became a global behemoth, dominating markets from bottled water to baby formula, often at the expense of local communities and ethical scrutiny. Brabeck-Letmathe’s tenure at Nestlé was marked by controversy, most notably his infamous 2005 declaration that water is not a human right but a commodity to be privatized and priced. This stance sparked global outrage, with activists accusing him of prioritizing profits over basic human needs. He doubled down, advocating for strict control over water usage—down to dictating whether individuals should have pools or wash their cars—envisioning a future where a global authority (sound familiar?) rations water for the masses. His role as founder and chairman of the 2030 Water Resources Group, a public-private partnership with the World Bank, only deepened suspicions of his intent to commodify a fundamental resource. Beyond Nestlé, Brabeck-Letmathe’s influence spans the corporate elite. He’s sat on the boards of Credit Suisse, L’Oréal, and ExxonMobil—companies often criticized for prioritizing shareholder value over social good. He’s also been a longtime vice-chairman of the WEF’s Foundation Board and chaired the Formula One Group, tying him to the glitz and greed of global spectacle. Posts on X have highlighted his connections to pharmaceutical giants and his close friendship with Konstantin Sidorov of the London Technology Club, painting him as a deep-state operator with tentacles in every corner of the elite world. His nickname, “the Water Baron,” isn’t just a catchy moniker—it’s a warning of his unapologetic belief in corporate control over humanity’s essentials. Schwab’s Exit: A Scandal Too Big to Ignore? Klaus Schwab’s resignation on Easter Sunday, April 20, 2025, was no quiet retirement. The 87-year-old WEF founder stepped down “with immediate effect” as chairman and board member, just days before allegations of embezzlement and misconduct erupted in The Wall Street Journal. Whistleblowers accused Schwab and his wife, Hilde, of treating the WEF as their personal piggy bank—allegedly using funds for cash withdrawals, private massages, luxury travel, and personal retreats at Villa Mundi, a WEF property. The accusations don’t stop there: Schwab’s leadership is also blamed for fostering a toxic workplace, with claims of harassment and discrimination echoing earlier 2024 reports. The WEF board, in a rare act of defiance, launched an independent investigation, rejecting Schwab’s pleas to let the matter rest. The timing of Schwab’s exit raises red flags. Did he jump before he was pushed, or was this a calculated move to shield the WEF from further scrutiny? The investigation threatens to unravel decades of Schwab’s unchecked power, potentially exposing a web of corruption that could tarnish the WEF’s already shaky reputation. Critics have long accused the WEF of being an elitist cabal, detached from ordinary people—a narrative fueled by conspiracy theories about Schwab’s “Great Reset” and slogans like “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” Now, with Schwab gone, the WEF faces an existential crisis: can it rebuild trust, or will this scandal be its undoing? Brabeck-Letmathe’s Appointment: Corporate Continuity or a New Tyranny? Enter Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, unanimously appointed as interim chairman by the WEF board. On the surface, he’s a natural choice: a longtime WEF insider, vice-chairman of its Foundation Board, and a close ally of Schwab. But his appointment has ignited fierce debate. To some, he represents continuity—a safe pair of hands to steer the WEF through this turbulent period while a search committee hunts for a permanent chair. To others, he’s a symbol of everything wrong with the WEF: a corporate titan whose track record suggests an even more aggressive push toward global corporate dominance. Brabeck-Letmathe’s history at Nestlé offers a chilling preview of what his leadership might mean for the WEF. His water privatization stance aligns with the WEF’s critics’ worst fears: an organization that prioritizes profit over people, now led by a man who openly rejects the idea of universal access to life’s essentials. Posts on X have already dubbed him a “globalist nightmare,” with users pointing to his Nestlé days as evidence of a man who thrives on manufactured scarcity—whether it’s water, food, or freedom. His connections to big pharma and oil giants like ExxonMobil only deepen the suspicion that the WEF under Brabeck-Letmathe will double down on corporate interests, potentially at the expense of the very global challenges—like climate change and inequality—it claims to address. The implications of his appointment are staggering. If the WEF investigation confirms Schwab’s alleged misconduct, Brabeck-Letmathe will face immense pressure to reform the organization—or at least appear to. But will he? His own history suggests a man more comfortable consolidating power than challenging it. The WEF’s annual Davos summit, already criticized as a playground for the elite, could become even more of a corporate circus, further alienating a global public already skeptical of its intentions. And with geopolitical tensions on the rise—think Trump’s protectionism or the East-West divide—Brabeck-Letmathe’s corporate-first approach might struggle to bridge the gap between competing global interests. What’s Next for the WEF? As of April 24, 2025, the WEF stands at a crossroads. Schwab’s resignation and the ongoing investigation could either force a reckoning—pushing the organization to address its elitist image and internal dysfunction—or drive it further into the arms of corporate interests under Brabeck-Letmathe’s leadership. The search for a permanent chair will be a litmus test: will the WEF opt for a reformist outsider to restore credibility, or another insider to maintain the status quo? Brabeck-Letmathe, for his part, has the chance to reshape the WEF’s narrative—but his past suggests he’s more likely to reinforce its most criticized tendencies. The Water Baron’s reign has begun, and the world is watching. Will the WEF emerge from this scandal as a force for global good, or will it cement its reputation as a gilded cage for the elite, where men like Brabeck-Letmathe decide who gets to drink from the well? One thing is certain: the stakes have never been higher. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesNGOs People RadarTagsKlaus SchwabPeter Brabeck-LetmatheWEFWorld Economic Forum

In a seismic blow to the global elite, Klaus Schwab, the 87-year-old mastermind behind the World Economic Forum (WEF), abruptly resigned as chairman on Easter Sunday, April 20, 2025, only to be engulfed by a firestorm of allegations accusing him of embezzling WEF funds and fostering a toxic empire of elitism. The dramatic exit of this globalist titan, who for over half a century shaped the world’s economic and political landscape, has sent shockwaves through Davos and beyond, exposing cracks in the WEF’s polished facade and fueling long-standing criticisms of its shadowy influence. As the WEF launches a probe into its own founder, the world is left reeling: was Schwab the visionary architect of global cooperation or a power-hungry puppet master fleecing his own organization for personal gain? The Man Behind the Curtain: Who Is Klaus Schwab? Born on March 30, 1938, in Ravensburg, Germany, Klaus Martin Schwab emerged from a controversial lineage—his father, Eugen Schwab, served as a director at Escher Wyss AG, a company tied to the Nazi regime during World War II. Despite this murky past, Schwab reinvented himself as a global thought leader, earning doctorates in engineering and economics from Swiss universities and Harvard. In 1971, he founded the European Management Forum, later rebranded as the WEF in 1987, transforming it into a glitzy annual pilgrimage for the world’s richest and most powerful in the snowy Swiss resort of Davos. Schwab, often described as an evangelist for “stakeholder capitalism,” positioned the WEF as a neutral platform for policymakers, CEOs, and celebrities to tackle global issues like climate change, inequality, and technological disruption. His vision of a interconnected, globalized world earned him accolades and over a dozen honorary doctorates, but also painted a target on his back for critics who saw him as the poster child for elitist overreach. Charismatic yet polarizing, Schwab’s thick German accent and grandiose pronouncements—like the WEF’s infamous “Great Reset” initiative—made him a lightning rod for conspiracy theories and populist rage. The WEF: A Globalist Utopia or Elitist Cabal? Headquartered in Geneva, the WEF has grown from a modest conference into a global juggernaut, hosting star-studded Davos summits that draw presidents, billionaires, and Hollywood A-listers to discuss the world’s future behind closed doors. Its mission, according to Schwab, is to foster public-private collaboration on pressing global challenges. But to its detractors, the WEF is nothing less than a sinister cabal of unelected elites plotting to impose a dystopian new world order. Critics from both the left and right have long accused the WEF of being detached from ordinary people, a symbol of globalization’s excesses. Populists like Alex Jones and MAGA supporters, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have branded Schwab “pure evil,” alleging—without evidence—that the WEF seeks to strip individuals of property and freedom under slogans like “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” Left-leaning critics, meanwhile, argue the WEF prioritizes corporate interests over workers and the environment, pointing to its cozy relationships with fossil fuel giants and tax-dodging multinationals. The WEF’s internal culture has also come under fire. In 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported allegations of harassment, discrimination, and a toxic workplace, claims the WEF denied but which fueled perceptions of a dysfunctional empire. Geopolitical shifts, from the 2007-2009 financial crisis to the rise of protectionist policies under Donald Trump, have further eroded the WEF’s influence, with some analysts declaring it an institution in decline. Yet, until now, Schwab remained its untouchable figurehead—until the whistleblowers struck. The Bombshell Allegations: Schwab’s Alleged Embezzlement and Misconduct On April 22, 2025, just days after Schwab’s sudden resignation, The Wall Street Journal dropped a bombshell: an anonymous whistleblower letter, penned by current and former WEF staff, accused Schwab and his wife, Hilde, of financial and ethical misconduct that could bring the organization to its knees. The WEF’s board, in a rare act of defiance against its founder, unanimously backed an independent investigation, signaling the gravity of the claims. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the jaw-dropping allegations: Embezzlement and Misuse of Funds: The whistleblower letter alleges Schwab treated the WEF as his personal piggy bank, using junior employees as “gofers” to withdraw thousands of dollars in cash from ATMs on his behalf. Even more scandalous, he’s accused of charging private, in-room massages at hotels to WEF accounts, blurring the lines between personal indulgence and organizational expenses. Luxury Travel Shenanigans: Hilde Schwab, a former WEF employee, is implicated in the scandal, allegedly scheduling WEF-funded meetings to justify extravagant “luxury holiday travel” at the organization’s expense. The letter claims she used these trips to mask personal vacations, siphoning off funds meant for global initiatives. Abuse of WEF Property: The Schwabs are accused of treating Villa Mundi, a WEF property billed as a “conference center,” as their private retreat, hosting lavish personal getaways under the guise of official business. This alleged misuse of resources paints a picture of a couple exploiting their unchecked power. Toxic Workplace Culture: Beyond financial impropriety, the letter reignites claims of a toxic workplace under Schwab’s reign, alleging he allowed sexual harassment and discriminatory behavior to flourish, particularly against women. These accusations echo earlier 2024 reports of discrimination against women and Black employees, which the WEF previously investigated but dismissed. Schwab has vehemently denied the allegations, with a family spokesperson calling them baseless and announcing plans to sue those behind the “mistruths.” In a statement to Swiss newspaper Blick, Schwab insisted there was “not a shadow of proof” for the claims and launched defamation proceedings. Yet, the WEF’s decision to probe its founder suggests the board takes the whistleblower’s claims seriously, a move that has stunned observers given Schwab’s iron grip over the organization for 55 years. A Sensational Fall from Grace The timing of Schwab’s resignation—on Easter Sunday, a day symbolizing renewal—adds a layer of irony to this unfolding drama. Was it a calculated exit to dodge the coming storm, or was Schwab forced out by a board finally fed up with his alleged excesses? Sources told The Wall Street Journal that Schwab urged the board not to investigate, but their decision to proceed anyway marks a stunning betrayal of the man who built the WEF from the ground up. Social media has erupted, with critics like Alex Jones (X profile) gloating over Schwab’s downfall, branding him a “globalist” whose empire is “falling apart.” MAGA supporters, including X users with hundreds of thousands of followers such as Liz Churchill (X profile), have called for his arrest, labeling the WEF a “Communist scam.” Meanwhile, analysts warn the WEF’s credibility hangs in the balance, with the probe threatening to expose decades of mismanagement and erode its influence in a world already skeptical of globalist agendas. As Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, former Nestlé CEO and a controversial figure in his own right, steps in as interim chairman, the WEF faces an existential crisis. Will the investigation vindicate Schwab, or will it uncover a trail of corruption that topples the Davos dream once and for all? One thing is certain: Klaus Schwab’s sensational fall from grace has ripped the veil off the WEF, exposing a world of intrigue, power, and betrayal that could redefine global governance forever. Stay tuned—this scandal is just getting started. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCorruption People Radar tickerTagsAlex JonesKlaus SchwabNestlePeter Brabeck-LetmatheWorld Economic Forum

From billionaire fraudster René Benko to luxury car collector and alleged fraudster Adnan “Danny” Khan, Vienna has become a stage for financial theatre of the absurd—backed by politicians, delayed by prosecutors, and often ignored until it’s too late. These aren’t just local scandals—they’re systemic failures with implications for financial stability across the EU. And behind them all, Austrian justice plays a curiously selective role. Key Points: Adnan “Danny” Khan, a Dutch-born financier based in Vienna, has been arrested on suspicion of large-scale investment fraud. He operated through alleged partnerships with former Austrian Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, promising fake investments to dozens of entrepreneurs. The case reflects the same pattern seen with real estate speculator René Benko, who was arrested only after the multi-billion-euro collapse of his Signa Group and an outstanding Italian warrant. Austrian authorities are accused of inconsistent enforcement—aggressively pursuing some cases while turning a blind eye to others. Investigative platforms like Wiener Zocker face legal harassment for exposing these networks—often under pressure from insiders tied to law enforcement. Vienna: Epicenter of a European Problem Vienna markets itself as a diplomatic capital. But in the shadow of its baroque façades and cozy insider circles, a darker truth persists: Austria has become a hub for transnational white-collar crime, enabled by political protection, delayed justice, and what appears to be systemic prosecutorial discretion. The case of Adnan “Danny” Khan exemplifies this pattern. Khan—known for his luxury cars, his company Safira Investments, and ties to former Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache—has now been arrested in Vienna. Authorities accuse him of defrauding up to 30 entrepreneurs across Europe, promising hundreds of millions in fictitious Arab-backed investment deals in return for upfront fees. He cooperated closely with Strache, who reportedly helped connect him to Austrian businessmen before turning against him and filing fraud charges. The scandal is dramatic, no doubt—but it is also deeply familiar. The Benko Parallel: A Delayed Arrest With Global Fallout The pattern is almost identical to that of Austrian real estate speculator René Benko, now in custody. Benko used the credibility of Austria’s political elite to charm investors from across Europe and the Gulf—only to leave behind a collapsed empire of toxic debt and criminal charges. As FinTelegram previously reported, Benko defrauded banks and investors across Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and the Middle East, racking up billions in damages. Yet Austria only acted after: Signa Group officially collapsed; International pressure mounted; And an Italian arrest warrant was already outstanding. For years, Benko enjoyed cozy relations with Austria’s political elite—including former Chancellors Sebastian Kurz and Alfred Gusenbauer. Gusenbauer, in fact, chaired Signa’s supervisory board. In Germany, Benko also had direct lines to key government officials. That political insulation allowed him to operate unchecked—until the house of cards became impossible to ignore. Politics and the Scammers: A Toxic Proximity Both Benko and Khan cultivated proximity to Austria’s top decision-makers. Khan worked closely with Strache; Benko was even more deeply embedded. In both cases, this closeness raises serious questions: Why do Austrian politicians repeatedly align themselves with high-risk financial figures? Why do Austrian prosecutors often wait until collapse—or foreign pressure—forces action? Is there a strategic use of prosecutorial discretion depending on political affiliations? Even now, notorious Austrian real estate figures like Lukas Neugebauer, who Austrian prosecutors have officially accused of large-scale banking fraud, remain untouched. As Wiener Zocker reports, criminal complaints by victims and their lawyers have been ignored for months. Attacks on Whistleblowers and Investigative Platforms The backlash is not limited to the financial victims. Wiener Zocker, the Vienna-based investigative platform exposing real estate scams and financial frauds, has become a target itself. Speculators and their legal teams—sometimes even aided by the Austrian police—have launched coordinated legal attacks against the platform. Why this hostility? Because Wiener Zocker consistently shines a light on the unholy alliances between political operatives, financial speculators, and law enforcement insiders. Some of the exposed figures have reportedly served as informants or “trusted sources” for Austrian police departments—blurring the lines between investigation and collaboration. Systemic Impact Across the EU These are not isolated scandals—they are systemic weaknesses that reverberate across Europe. Austria’s failure to proactively pursue white-collar criminals has: Enabled cross-border financial harm; Undermined trust in EU regulatory enforcement; And cast doubt on Vienna’s credibility as a financial hub. Whether it’s Benko in real estate, Khan in high finance, or Neugebauer in banking fraud—Austria is fast becoming a haven for scandal that only erupts after irreparable damage. FinTelegram Conclusion: Time to Watch Vienna Closely Austria must no longer be treated as an internal affair. The patterns emerging in Vienna—fraud fueled by politics, protected by inaction—are a European concern. EU prosecutors, financial regulators, and cross-border watchdogs must begin to see these cases as more than national embarrassments. They are continental risks. Wiener Zocker must be protected, not persecuted.Austrian prosecutors must act, not delay.And Europe must watch Vienna—not with awe, but with scrutiny. Call to Action: If you have credible information about Adnan Khan, René Benko, Lukas Neugebauer, or any other figures involved in high-level Austrian financial misconduct, contact us at FinTelegram confidentially or via our whistleblower platform Whistle42.com. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesAustria Court Cases tickerTagsAdnan KhanAlfred GusenbauerDanny KhanLukas NeugebauerRene BenkoSebastian KurzSignaSigna Group

A few months ago, FinTelegram released a first forensic report on the bankruptcy of Rabidi N.V., a Curacao-registered online casino operator with hundreds of millions in revenues — and no traceable assets by the time of its collapse in May 2024. That report already raised serious questions about the opaque structures behind Rabidi’s operations and its successor, Liernin Enterprises Ltd. Since then, supported by whistleblowers, court documents, and the systematic capabilities of AI-assisted compliance investigation, the FinTelegram team has compiled and processed a far broader range of evidence. The result is a comprehensive, lawyer-ready forensic intelligence report, which we now make available to the public. Download the Full Forensic Report (PDF) Key Findings at a Glance Rabidi N.V. was not just a rogue operator — it was part of a broader multi-jurisdictional gambling and crypto-financial scheme, operating through Cyprus, Curacao, the Marshall Islands, Estonia, and beyond. https://fintelegram.com/tag/miFollowing its bankruptcy in May 2024, its operations were seamlessly taken over by Liernin Enterprises Ltd, a newly formed Marshall Islands entity — but payment processing and trademarks remained in the hands of Cypriot entities like Tilaros Ltd and Mirata Services Ltd. Ivan Montik, the Belarusian tech founder of SoftSwiss, stands at the center of the infrastructure — aided and financed by Russian entrepreneurs Roland Isaev and Paata Gamgoneishvili via the vehicle Tall Trade Ltd. The report traces links to CoinsPaid, CryptoProcessing, Merkeleon, and other crypto processors facilitating gambling-related payments, many of which remain unlicensed in the EU or North America. German and Australian regulators have issued warnings about illegal operations by Montik’s affiliated companies. Yet several key individuals reside in Germany and Cyprus — operating from within EU borders. The collapsed Wirecard also appears in the documents, with over €60 million in transactions processed for SoftSwiss-linked entities and former COO Jan Marsalek reportedly requesting sales data personally. The Revera law firm, operating out of Belarus and Cyprus, is identified as the key legal architect behind SoftSwiss’s corporate structure — including the establishment of Cypriot holding entities used to obscure real ownership and control. Why It Matters This report provides concrete evidence of how large-scale, unlicensed gambling and crypto-payment ecosystems continue to operate across the EU — often shielded by offshore licenses and weak cross-border enforcement. It shows how operators with hundreds of millions in player funds can vanish from one jurisdiction and reappear under a new name in another — without ever settling debts or being held accountable. Call for Information FinTelegram remains committed to uncovering illicit financial schemes and crypto-driven regulatory arbitrage.We invite insiders, employees, former contractors, and payment service providers with additional knowledge to come forward via our protected platform: Share Information with FinTelegram Your information can help regulators, investigators, and the public bring accountability to a digital sector increasingly overrun by impunity. CategoriesIllegal gambling Illegal Payment Services tickerTagsCoinsPaidCryptoprocessingIvan MontikJan MarsalekLiernin EnterprisesMerkeleonMirata ServicesPaata GamgoneishviliRabidiReveraRoland IsaevSoftswissTall TradeTilaros

Smart contracts are the invisible architects of decentralized finance. These self-executing lines of code run everything from token swaps to lending platforms without middlemen. But while they offer autonomy, they also introduce new risks—bugs, exploits, and irreversible mistakes. In this fourth installment of our FinTelegram DeFi Series, we explain what smart contracts are, how they work, and what users and investors must understand to navigate DeFi safely. Key Points: A smart contract is a self-executing digital agreement, written as computer code and stored on a blockchain. They eliminate intermediaries but cannot be changed once deployed—making security critical. Many DeFi exploits stem from flaws in smart contract logic. Audits help, but even audited contracts have been hacked. Popular DeFi platforms like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound are entirely run by smart contracts. Short Narrative: Smart contracts are to DeFi what servers are to the web: the silent operators in the background. First introduced with Ethereum in 2015, smart contracts allow developers to write autonomous programs that execute automatically when conditions are met—no banks, brokers, or notaries required. It automatically enforces and executes the terms of an agreement when predetermined conditions are met, without the need for intermediaries or manual intervention. How Smart Contracts Work Code-Based Logic: Smart contracts use “if/when…then…” logic. For example, “If payment is received, then transfer ownership.” Blockchain Storage: The contract code and its execution are stored and recorded on a blockchain, ensuring transparency, security, and immutability. Automation: When the contract’s conditions are fulfilled, the programmed actions (such as transferring funds or issuing a digital asset) are executed automatically. No Intermediary: This process eliminates the need for third-party oversight, reducing costs and speeding up transactions. For example: On Aave, a user deposits ETH. A smart contract instantly records the deposit and issues aToken interest-bearing receipts. On Uniswap, a trader swaps USDC for DAI. A contract handles the trade based on a liquidity pool’s current ratio. The catch? If the contract is flawed, funds can be stolen or lost. Anatomy of a Smart Contract: Immutable – Can’t be changed after deployment. Transparent – Code is usually visible to anyone. Deterministic – Always behaves the same under the same inputs. Autonomous – No human intervention after launch. Smart contracts power every major function in DeFi: Swaps (Uniswap, Sushi) Lending (Aave, Compound) Derivatives (Synthetix, dYdX) DAOs (Maker, Curve) Yield Farms (Yearn, Pendle) Common Risks: Reentrancy Bugs – Allow attackers to exploit contract logic and drain funds (e.g., The DAO hack 2016). Unchecked Access Control – Poor permission structures lead to admin takeovers. Oracle Manipulation – If the contract relies on external price data, it’s vulnerable to manipulation. Flash Loan Exploits – Instant uncollateralized loans used to manipulate on-chain behavior. Key Concepts Introduced: Smart Contract Immutability Reentrancy Audit Flash Loan Notable Cases: The DAO Hack (2016): ~$60M stolen due to a reentrancy bug. bZx Protocol (2020): Multiple flash loan exploits, ~$8M lost. Poly Network (2021): ~$600M stolen and then returned by the hacker. These cases show that code is law—but law can be flawed. Actionable Insight for Readers: Always check if a protocol’s smart contracts are audited—by reputable firms like Trail of Bits, Certik, or OpenZeppelin. Read the audit reports—don’t just trust the badge. Be cautious with new contracts or unaudited forks. Remember: “DeFi is open source—but so is the attack surface.” Call for Information: Are you aware of smart contract backdoors, unaudited clones, or rug-pull-ready vaults? Report anonymously at Whistle42.com and earn $TCO for qualified disclosures. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesDefi Series FinTelegram ticker

A planned settlement between the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and crypto exchange KuCoin is now in limbo due to a reported policy shift within the CFTC. This change is attributed to the Trump administration’s new approach, which deprioritizes enforcement actions against crypto companies. As a result, a CFTC attorney told a New York federal judge that it is “unlikely that such authorization will be granted in the near term” regarding the settlement approval. Background and Case Status The CFTC charged KuCoin in March 2024 with multiple violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, including operating an illegal derivatives exchange and failing to implement necessary anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) procedures. KuCoin had previously agreed to a $297 million settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in January 2025, which included exiting the U.S. market for at least two years. Although the CFTC and KuCoin reached an agreement in principle to settle the case in December 2024, the terms were not disclosed, and the settlement is now stalled due to the lack of a majority within the CFTC to approve it. Key Factors Affecting the Settlement The CFTC currently has an even split between Democratic and Republican commissioners, preventing a majority decision on settlements or dismissals. Acting CFTC Chair Caroline Pham announced in February 2025 that the agency would wind down its practice of “regulation by enforcement” in the crypto sector, making it harder to terminate active cases. Both the CFTC and KuCoin have requested additional time (60 days or until the Commission provides direction) to resolve the matter, but the court is pressing for more immediate updates. Implications and Outlook The delay in settlement approval reflects broader uncertainty in U.S. crypto regulation as the CFTC reconsiders its enforcement priorities under the Trump administration1. The outcome could change if the Senate confirms a new CFTC chair, potentially shifting the commission’s balance and policy direction. Meanwhile, KuCoin remains barred from operating in the U.S. and faces ongoing scrutiny over its past compliance failures and the handling of suspicious transactions. Summary Table: CFTC–KuCoin Case Timeline DateEventMarch 2024CFTC files civil enforcement action against KuCoin for CEA violationsDecember 2024CFTC and KuCoin reach agreement in principle to settleJanuary 2025KuCoin settles with DOJ for $297 million, agrees to exit U.S. market for 2+ yearsFebruary 2025CFTC signals shift away from enforcement-led crypto regulationApril 2025CFTC attorney tells judge settlement unlikely to be approved soon due to policy shift Conclusion The CFTC’s evolving stance on crypto enforcement has cast uncertainty over its prospective settlement with KuCoin, with agency attorneys indicating that approval is unlikely in the near term. This reflects both internal gridlock and a broader regulatory pivot, leaving the case unresolved for now1. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCFTCTagsKuCoin

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has entered a new chapter with the swearing-in of Paul S. Atkins as its 34th Chairman, a move widely anticipated to mark a dramatic pivot in how the agency approaches crypto and DeFi regulation. For years, the financial industry—especially the burgeoning digital asset sector—has bristled under the SEC’s “Regulation by Enforcement” strategy. Now, with Atkins at the helm, expectations are high for a more collaborative, innovation-friendly regulatory regime. Paul Atkins: A Crypto-Friendly Leader for a New SEC Paul Atkins, nominated by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the Senate on April 9, 2025, brings a wealth of experience from both traditional finance and the digital asset sector. His prior leadership at Patomak Global Partners, where he developed best practices for digital assets, and his tenure as a director at BATS Global Markets, signal a deep understanding of both market structure and technological innovation. Atkins has publicly pledged to move away from ambiguous, enforcement-driven tactics that have dominated the SEC’s approach under his predecessor, Gary Gensler. Instead, he promises a “rational, coherent, and principled” framework for digital assets, aiming to foster innovation and reduce regulatory uncertainty. This stance is a stark contrast to the Gensler era, which saw a surge in enforcement actions against major crypto players and a reliance on decades-old securities laws to police the sector. From Gensler’s Enforcement to Atkins’ Clarity: What Changes? ApproachGary Gensler (2021–2024)Paul Atkins (2025–)Core PhilosophyRegulation by EnforcementCollaborative, Guidance-DrivenCrypto RegulationOld TradFi rules (e.g., Howey Test) applyPush for clear, tailored frameworksEnforcement ActionsAggressive lawsuits, market intermediariesJudicious enforcement, focus on clarityIndustry FeedbackUncertainty, legal gray zonesWelcomed by crypto/DeFi as pro-innovationTask Force InitiativesExpanded Cyber & Crypto UnitNew Crypto Task Force for sensible policy Under Gensler, the SEC insisted that existing securities laws—such as the Howey Test—were sufficient for regulating crypto, often lumping tokens and NFTs with traditional stocks and bonds. This approach led to high-profile lawsuits, confusion, and a chilling effect on innovation. Critics argued that the Howey Test, designed for mid-20th-century investment schemes, was ill-suited for the complexities of decentralized finance and modern crypto assets. Atkins, by contrast, is expected to champion regulatory clarity and practical disclosure requirements. His leadership is likely to accelerate the SEC’s shift away from punitive enforcement and toward a framework that supports capital formation and investor protection without stifling innovation. Signals of Change: Crypto Task Force and Industry Optimism Even before Atkins’ swearing-in, the SEC had begun to pivot. Acting Chair Mark Uyeda launched a new Crypto Task Force in January 2025, focusing on crafting sensible regulations rather than ramping up enforcement. Commissioner Hester Peirce, known as “crypto mom,” was tapped to lead this initiative, further signaling the agency’s intent to embrace innovation while maintaining market integrity. Industry leaders and crypto advocates have welcomed Atkins’ appointment. Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer and Paradigm’s VP of Government Affairs have both expressed optimism for a new era of regulatory clarity and constructive engagement. A New Era for Crypto and DeFi? With Paul Atkins at the helm, the SEC appears poised to end the era of “Regulation by Enforcement” and open the door to a more predictable and innovation-friendly environment for digital assets. The expectation is clear: Atkins will prioritize clear rules, practical registration processes, and a regulatory framework that recognizes the unique features of crypto and DeFi—potentially making the U.S. the best and most secure place in the world to invest and do business. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCrypto Compliance SEC tickerTagsGary GenslerPaul Atkins

Portrait of a Crypto Paradox As spring 2025 blooms and Easter’s themes of rebirth fill the air, Changpeng Zhao (CZ) emerges as one of the most controversial figures of startup mythology: a man who fell spectacularly, paid a price—then rose again, wealthier and louder than ever. Once the almighty architect of Binance, CZ now resides in Dubai, an opulent crypto haven, with a net worth that Forbes estimates at $63 billion. His wealth, influence, and platform are intact—even after pleading guilty to violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws, even after a $4.3 billion fine that shook the industry, and even after a stint in prison. In our Startup on Trial series, we analyzed how Binance, under CZ’s leadership, thrived on regulatory arbitrage, lax compliance, and risk tolerance that bordered on recklessness. Yet here we are: while FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) languishes in a U.S. prison, CZ basks in Dubai’s glittering skyline, tweeting about crypto recovery and new educational ventures.Is this justice? Or just the crypto version of “crime pays”? From Guilty Plea to Crypto Sage? Let’s remember: In November 2023, CZ admitted guilt. In April 2024, he was sentenced to four months (far less than prosecutors requested). By September 2024, he was free, fabulously wealthy, and still holding around 90% of Binance’s ownership stake. Although barred from holding an executive role at Binance until at least 2027, CZ’s influence lingers like an invisible hand over the exchange and its sprawling ecosystem, including the BNB Chain, which he continues to promote heavily on his X profile (formerly Twitter). He plays the humble ex-CEO on stage, but the strategy behind his social media presence suggests otherwise: CZ is carefully curating the narrative of a visionary wronged by the system, not a founder who endangered global financial systems through compliance failures. Read our Binance Case analysis here. Dubai: Safe Harbor or Strategic Outpost? Now based in Dubai—a city rapidly becoming the epicenter for crypto elites fleeing tighter Western regulations—CZ lives with his partner and children, far from the reach of U.S. enforcers. In October 2024, he returned to public life at Binance Blockchain Week in Dubai, to a hero’s welcome. He preaches about reflection, education, and decentralization, but his silence on Binance’s ongoing regulatory battles and unresolved investigations tells its own story. He claims to be “done” with the operational side, but remains the symbolic center of gravity for the Binance ecosystem.Is this genuine retirement—or simply the next phase of influence without accountability? Resurrection or Reputation Laundering? On X (where he commands nearly 9 million followers), CZ frames his downfall as a personal growth experience. He posts about recovering hacked funds and celebrating BNB Chain milestones. He teases a new educational platform intended to “democratize knowledge,” though no concrete details have emerged. He downplays his past, stating: “I didn’t do very much”—a casual dismissal of leading a platform once responsible for $100 billion in illicit transactions, according to U.S. authorities. To critics, CZ’s new persona is little more than reputation laundering: a billionaire rebranding himself as a crypto philosopher while sidestepping deeper questions about corporate responsibility and ethical leadership. To fans, he remains a misunderstood genius who—unlike others—never stole user funds. A Question for the Startup World In the spirit of our Startup on Trial series, CZ’s case forces us to ask: Is startup success enough to forgive regulatory sins? Are vision and wealth the ultimate shields against accountability? Can genuine transformation occur when the system rewards survival, not compliance? In the startup world—especially in crypto and DeFi—the myth of the fallen visionary rising anew is seductive. But what message does it send to the next generation of founders, investors, and regulators? Changpeng Zhao’s resurrection may be complete, but the moral trial is still ongoing. Startup on Trial will be watching. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesPeople Radar tickerTagsBinanceChangpeng ZhaoCZ

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder of the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX, has been transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Terminal Island in Los Angeles, California. This low-security facility is known for housing non-violent offenders and has previously held notable inmates such as Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, former COO of Theranos. Prior to this transfer, SBF was held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He was then moved to the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, followed by a brief stay at a medium-security prison in Victorville, California, before arriving at Terminal Island. SBF is serving a 25-year sentence following his conviction on multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy related to the collapse of FTX. The exchange’s failure led to significant financial losses for investors and shook the cryptocurrency industry. As part of his sentence, he has also been ordered to pay $11 billion in restitution. This development is part of our ongoing “Startup on Trial” series, which examines the intersection of innovation and regulation in the tech startup world. For a comprehensive analysis of the FTX case and its implications, refer to our initial installment on Sam Bankman-Fried.​ If you have information about other tech startups operating in legal gray areas or engaging in questionable practices, we encourage you to share your insights through our whistleblower platform, Whistle42. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesPrison News United Kingdom