Forensic Report: The IGA Group’s Role in the BC.GAME Scheme Overview of the IGA Group The Maltese IGA Group — marketed as an “award-winning iGaming service provider” — is a central node in a global network enabling offshore gambling operations, including the controversial BC.GAME platform. Founded in 2017 by Mario Fiorini, the IGA Group provides licensing, compliance, and trust services to online casinos, leveraging its connections to politically exposed persons (PEPs) and lax regulatory jurisdictions. IGA Group’s Involvement in the BC.GAME Scheme 1. Asset Transfers and Bankruptcy Fraud Blockdance B.V. Bankruptcy (Curaçao): IGA Trust B.V. (formerly Wyze Management B.V.), a Curaçao-based subsidiary of the IGA Group, facilitated the transfer of BC.GAME’s assets from the bankrupt Blockdance B.V. to Small House B.V. in April 2024. This left behind $2M+ in unpaid player winnings and liabilities23. Mario Fiorini, CEO of IGA Group, is accused of orchestrating these transfers to shield assets from creditors. Forensic reports allege violations of Curaçao’s criminal code, including embezzlement and money laundering. Shift to Belize and Anjouan License: After Small House B.V. also collapsed, BC.GAME migrated to Twocent Technology Limited (Belize), which operates under an Anjouan Gaming license. IGA Trust B.V. managed the license transition, ensuring operational continuity despite regulatory bans in Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. 2. Political and Regulatory Collusion Curaçao’s Provisional Licensing Scandal: IGA Group, through Mario Galea (ex-Malta Gaming Authority CEO) and Aideen Shortt (PR consultant), designed a provisional licensing system for Curaçao’s Gaming Control Board (GCB). This system granted 155 licenses without transparency, including to BC.GAME. Javier Silvania, Curaçao’s Finance Minister, faces criminal probes for allegedly enabling IGA Group’s licensing fraud. Silvania introduced Galea and Fiorini as “Maltese investors” to modernize Curaçao’s gambling sector, but reforms stalled amid corruption allegations. Maltese Connections: Mario Galea and Aideen Shortt (his partner) were embedded in Malta’s gaming regulatory framework before expanding to Curaçao. Shortt’s firm, Lilywhite Limited, and Galea’s Random Consulting Ltd., provided advisory services to BC.GAME and other IGA-linked operators. IGA Trust’s Role in the Rabidi Case IGA Trust B.V. (formerly Wyze Management B.V.), a Curaçao-based legal entity and part of the Maltese IGA Group, played a central and controversial role in the Rabidi case, mirroring its involvement in the BC.Game scandal. 1. Key Activities and Allegations Asset and License Transfers: IGA Trust facilitated or helped orchestrate the transfer of assets and gambling licenses from Rabidi N.V. (a Curaçao-licensed casino operator) to Adonio B.V. shortly before Rabidi’s bankruptcy. This maneuver is alleged to have shielded assets from creditors and regulators, leaving behind significant unpaid player winnings and liabilities. Regulatory Manipulation: The asset transfers were allegedly executed in violation of Curaçao’s criminal code, specifically concerning embezzlement and money laundering statutes. IGA Trust, under the leadership of Mario Fiorini (statutory director), is accused of legitimizing these fraudulent transactions, enabling Rabidi’s operators to evade accountability. Crypto Transactions and Anonymity: Both Rabidi and Adonio heavily relied on cryptocurrency transactions, which are illegal under Curaçao law. The use of crypto, combined with the offshore structure facilitated by IGA Trust, allowed for anonymous operations and potential money laundering. Pattern of Fraud: The Rabidi case is described as part of a broader pattern where IGA Trust and its network systematically abused Curaçao’s regulatory framework to bypass oversight, facilitate illicit asset transfers, and enable illegal crypto gambling schemes. 2. Conclusion IGA Trust’s role in the Rabidi case was to provide the legal and operational infrastructure for asset and license transfers that allowed Rabidi’s operators to evade creditors, regulators, and law enforcement. This was achieved through a combination of offshore structuring, regulatory manipulation, and the use of cryptocurrencies for anonymous transactions. The same network and tactics were used in the BC.Game case, exposing a systemic abuse of Curaçao’s regulatory environment by the IGA Group and its associates Read more about the Rabidi Case here. Key Entities and Individuals Entity/IndividualRole/ConnectionJurisdiction/StatusIGA GroupParent company providing licensing, compliance, and trust services to BC.GAMEMalta / Under investigationIGA Trust B.V.Facilitated asset transfers for BC.GAME and Rabidi; formerly Wyze Management B.V.Curaçao / Accused of money launderingMario FioriniCEO, IGA Group; accused of embezzling BC.GAME assetsMalta / Criminal complaints filedMario GaleaEx-MGA CEO; architect of Curaçao’s provisional licensing systemMalta-Curaçao / Under investigationAideen ShorttPR advisor to Curaçao’s GCB; linked to Galea and licensing fraudMalta-Curaçao / Under investigationJavier SilvaniaCuraçao Finance Minister; enabled IGA Group’s licensing operationsCuraçao / Criminal probe ongoingBlockdance B.V.Original BC.GAME operatorCuracao / Under investigationTwocent Technology LimitedCurrent BC.GAME operator via Anjouan Gaming licenseBelize / ActiveRabidi N.V. Original Rabidi operatorCuracao / BankruptAndonio B.V. New entity in the Rabidi schemeCuracao / Under investigation Media Coverage and Investigations Times of Malta: Exposed Fiorini’s alleged role in BC.GAME’s asset transfers and Galea’s ties to Curaçao’s licensing corruption. FinTelegram: Detailed IGA Trust B.V.’s facilitation of BC.GAME’s bankruptcy fraud and links to the Rabidi scandal. BusinessNow Malta: Highlighted the 400-page forensic report accusing IGA Group of embezzlement and laundering €8M in unpaid debts. Conclusion and Call to Whistleblowers The IGA Group operates at the intersection of offshore gambling, political corruption, and financial crime. Its network spans Malta, Curaçao, and Belize, exploiting regulatory gaps to sustain illicit operations like BC.GAME. FinTelegram urges whistleblowers with insider knowledge of the IGA Group, BC.GAME, or related entities to come forward via our secure Whistle42 system (https://whistle42.com). Your evidence could expose one of iGaming’s most entrenched illegal syndicates. Share Information with FinTelegram via Whistle42

The UK Gambling Commission’s (UKGC) latest warning isn’t just a slap on the wrist—it’s a damning indictment of Leicester City FC, which continues to profit from a sponsorship deal with BC.GAME, an illegal gambling operation masquerading as a “crypto casino.” As victims’ lawyers close in globally, Leicester’s refusal to expose BC.GAME’s shadowy backers raises a chilling question: Is the club complicit in laundering a criminal enterprise? From Curaçao’s Bankruptcy to Belize’s Shadows: BC.GAME’s Fugitive Blueprint BC.GAME’s original operator, Blockdance B.V., collapsed in November 2024 after a Curaçao court ruled it owed $2M+ in unpaid player winnings. But this wasn’t just corporate failure—it was a political scandal. Curaçao’s Finance Minister Javier Silvania now faces criminal probes for allegedly enabling BC.GAME’s license fraud, while Maltese insiders like Mario Galea and Mario Fiorini stand accused of orchestrating a shell game to shift assets to Belize-based Twocent Technology Limited. Twocent’s Anjouan Gaming license—issued by a jurisdiction infamous for rubber-stamping rogue operators—allows BC.GAME to operate globally with near-total anonymity. Yet Leicester insists its $40M sponsorship deal is legitimate. How? Leicester’s Dirty Secret: The Sponsorship Paper Trail BC.GAME’s scheme thrives on one truth: offshore directors are pawns. The Belize-registered Twocent lists no beneficial owners, but Leicester holds the key. The Contract Clue: Leicester’s executives know exactly who signed the $40M deal—yet they refuse to disclose identities, citing “confidentiality.” Lawyers argue this secrecy violates Premier League anti-money laundering rules. The Money Trail: BC.GAME’s sponsorship payments originate from untraceable crypto wallets, bypassing traditional banking checks. Forensic accountants allege these funds could be linked to unpaid player debts or worse. The Cover-Up: Despite Blockdance’s bankruptcy and Twocent’s ties to Maltese crime probes, Leicester CEO Susan Whelan maintains the partnership is “innovative” and “responsible.” Leicester: Accessory to Illegal Gambling? By promoting BC.GAME’s brand to 500M+ global fans, Leicester isn’t just turning a blind eye—it’s actively recruiting victims. VPN Onboarding: BC.GAME uses Leicester’s logo to lure UK users, who bypass geo-blocks via VPNs to gamble anonymously—a direct violation of UKGC regulations. Victim Testimonies: Lawyers representing defrauded players in Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands confirm Leicester’s branding appears on BC.GAME’s login pages and promotional materials. “The club’s imagery legitimizes the scam,” states one attorney. Regulatory Collusion: The UKGC’s February 2025 letter warned clubs about prosecution risks, yet Leicester’s deal remains intact. Critics accuse the Premier League of prioritizing profit over player protection. The $40M Question: Who’s Behind BC.GAME? FinTelegram’s investigation reveals a web of offshore proxies, but Leicester could end the charade overnight. Front Men Exposed: Twocent’s directors are Belizean nominees with no ties to gaming. The real power lies with Maltese operatives like Mario Fiorini, whose IGA Group facilitated BC.GAME’s license transfers. Leicester’s Liability: By accepting crypto payments from untraceable entities, Leicester may have breached the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Legal experts suggest prosecutors could freeze the club’s assets if links to illicit funds are proven. Conclusion: Time to Red Card Leicester As victims’ lawsuits mount and Curaçao’s political elite face trial, Leicester City’s silence grows deafening. The club isn’t merely harboring a rogue sponsor—it’s fueling a global crime syndicate. Until the Foxes reveal who profits from BC.GAME’s predatory scheme, their Premier League status should be suspended. Name / EntityRole / ConnectionJurisdiction / StatusKey Details and InvolvementBlockdance B.V.Former BC.GAME operatorCuraçao / Bankrupt (Nov 2024)Declared insolvent over unpaid winnings and regulatory violations; central to political scandal in Curaçao.Small House B.V.Successor operator (briefly)Curaçao / Bankrupt (Nov 2024)Allegedly received illegal license transfer from Blockdance B.V..Twocent Technology LimitedCurrent BC.GAME operatorBelize / ActiveHolds dubious Anjouan Gaming license; beneficial owners hidden; operates BC.GAME and related platforms.IGA Trust B.V. (IGA Group)Trust/legal/asset transfer facilitatorCuraçao/Malta / Under investigationAlleged to have enabled illegal transfers and asset movements for BC.GAME and others.Mario GaleaAlleged facilitator, ex-MGA chairmanMalta / AccusedImplicated in fraud, embezzlement, and illegal license transfers for BC.GAME.Mario FioriniAlleged facilitator, IGA Group leaderMalta / AccusedAccused of orchestrating asset transfers and money laundering for BC.GAME.Javier SilvaniaCuraçao Finance MinisterCuraçao / Under investigationAccused of enabling BC.GAME’s licensing fraud and political cover-up.Aideen ShorttPR consultant to Curaçao gaming regulatorMalta / AccusedNamed in Curaçao fraud and embezzlement report linked to BC.GAME.Susan WhelanCEO, Leicester City Football ClubUK / ActiveSigned and oversees BC.GAME sponsorship deal; holds knowledge of contract signatories and payment sources.Leicester City FCPremier League club, BC.GAME sponsor partnerUK / ActiveEntered $40M partnership with BC.GAME; refuses to disclose beneficial owners or payment origins. Notes: Directors of Twocent Technology Limited and related offshore entities are believed to be paid front men with no real control. The beneficial owners of BC.GAME remain hidden, but Leicester City, through its executives and contract records, could easily identify them. Legal actions are ongoing in multiple jurisdictions against the BC.GAME scheme on behalf of victims. The sponsorship deal is overseen at Leicester by CEO Susan Whelan, who has publicly defended the partnership despite mounting controversy. Share Information via Whistle42 The world is watching: Will UK authorities finally tackle football’s dirty money pipeline—or let Leicester become the Premier League’s first criminal accomplice?

Executive Summary In a dramatic climax to one of the crypto world’s most audacious frauds, Braden John Karony, the former CEO of SafeMoon, was convicted on all charges in a New York federal court. Karony now stands as the latest poster child for the dark side of decentralized finance, found guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering in a $2 billion scheme that left investors reeling and regulators scrambling to restore faith in digital assets. The SafeMoon Saga: From “To the Moon” to Crash Landing SafeMoon, launched in March 2021, promised investors astronomical returns and “locked” liquidity pools that would supposedly safeguard their funds from insider theft. In reality, these claims were a smokescreen. Karony and his co-conspirators, including CTO Thomas Smith and founder Kyle Nagy, retained full access to the liquidity pools, siphoning off tens of millions of dollars for their personal enrichment. The Fraud Unveiled False Promises: SafeMoon’s leadership repeatedly assured the public that liquidity pools were locked and inaccessible, a claim that was central to their marketing and investor trust. Brazen Theft: Contrary to these assurances, Karony and his team diverted millions from these pools, channeling funds through complex crypto transactions and shell accounts to mask their tracks. Luxury Lifestyles: The stolen funds financed a lavish lifestyle—Karony purchased multi-million-dollar homes, sports cars, custom trucks, and other luxury goods, all while SafeMoon investors watched their tokens plummet in value. Market Manipulation: Executives also engaged in market manipulation, including “wash trading” to create the illusion of legitimate activity and price stability. The Trial: Betrayal and Justice The trial, which began in early May 2025, was a spectacle of betrayal and high drama. Thomas Smith, SafeMoon’s former CTO, turned government witness, delivering damning testimony that sealed Karony’s fate. Smith admitted to his role in the scheme and described how the SafeMoon leadership coordinated to deceive the public and conceal their thefts. Meanwhile, Kyle Nagy, the project’s creator, fled to Russia and remains at large—a fugitive from justice as the crypto world watches in disbelief. The Verdict and Fallout After less than a day of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict on all counts. Karony now faces a potential prison sentence of up to 45 years. The court also ordered the forfeiture of nearly $2 million in real estate proceeds, with prosecutors moving to detain Karony as a flight risk due to his international connections and millions in unaccounted digital assets. Context: A Symbol of Crypto’s Wild West Karony’s conviction is the latest in a string of high-profile crypto frauds, following the downfall of Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky and FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried. The SafeMoon case is a stark reminder that, despite the promise of decentralized finance, the sector remains rife with risk, deception, and criminality. “While the name of his company is SafeMoon, there was nothing safe about this investment that was just a front for theft.”— IRS-CI New York Special Agent in Charge Harry Chavis Conclusion The SafeMoon scandal is a cautionary tale for regulators, investors, and the entire digital asset industry. Braden John Karony’s conviction exposes the rot at the heart of crypto’s get-rich-quick culture and signals that, even in the Wild West of blockchain, the law is closing in. Share Information with FinTelegram via Whistle42

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has issued a bombshell warning to Premier League clubs, explicitly naming Leicester City’s crypto casino sponsor BC.GAME as part of a global network of unlicensed gambling operators exploiting sports partnerships to target vulnerable users. But is this just the tip of the iceberg? BC.GAME: The Offshore “Poster Child” for Illegal Gambling As FinTelegram previously exposed, BC.GAME operates through a labyrinth of shadowy offshore entities — from the bankrupt Curaçao-based Blockdance B.V. to Belize-registered Twocent Technology Limited. Despite its dubious Anjouan Gaming license (a jurisdiction notorious for lax oversight), BC.GAME continues to flout regulations, leveraging Leicester City’s global fanbase to onboard users into its unregulated crypto gambling ecosystem. Bankrupt in Curaçao, Thriving in Belize: After Curaçao courts declared BC.GAME’s parent companies insolvent in November 2024 over $2M+ in unpaid player winnings, the platform simply shifted operations to Belize — a move critics call a “regulatory shell game.” Sponsorship as a Smokescreen: BC.GAME’s $40M Leicester deal — plastered on kits and stadiums — masks its true nature: a platform accessible via VPNs, bypassing UK geo-blocks with laughably weak ID checks. The UKGC confirms users can gamble anonymously using crypto within minutes of account creation. UKGC: “Clubs Risk Prosecution” The Commission’s scathing February 2025 letter warns clubs that promoting BC.GAME and similar operators could lead to fines or even imprisonment for executives. Yet Leicester defiantly clings to the deal, claiming BC.GAME remains “financially stable” despite mounting evidence of licensing fraud and player fund losses. The Bigger Picture: A Global Playbook BC.GAME’s blueprint is clear: Infiltrate mainstream sports (see: Leicester, Argentina’s FA) to launder credibility. Hide behind offshore jurisdictions while funneling profits through crypto. Ignore regulatory crackdowns — when one door closes, open another in Belize, Anjouan, or Malta. Key Questions for Leicester and Regulators: Why does Leicester continue endorsing a platform linked to bankruptcy, unpaid debts, and illegal gambling? How many UK users have been siphoned into BC.GAME’s unlicensed ecosystem via Leicester’s global reach? When will authorities move beyond warnings and shut down this offshore rogue operator? The Clock is Ticking: With BC.GAME’s UK site “closed” yet still accessible via VPNs, the UKGC’s limp response raises alarming questions. Is this a regulatory failure — or complicity in letting offshore giants exploit legal gray areas? Share Information with FinTelegram via Whistle42. FinTelegram will continue investigating BC.GAME’s ties to Maltese gaming insiders and the IGA Group. Stay tuned.

Excerpt The once-celebrated real estate mogul René Benko is being publicly denounced by his former top-tier investors. German logistics billionaire Klaus-Michael Kühne, who invested over €500 million in Signa, now calls Benko a “first-class crook” and admits to being “lulled” by him. As Austrian prosecutors deepen their investigations into Benko’s web of deception, the case continues to expose the high-level enablers, political protectors, and global investors caught in the fallout of one of Europe’s largest white-collar scandals. Key Points Billionaire Kühne calls Benko a “first-class crook” after losing over €500 million in Signa’s collapse. Swiss investor Arthur Eugster lost CHF 650 million, competing for the title of Benko’s biggest victim. Benko remains in custody, accused of fraud, breach of trust, and fraudulent bankruptcy. Austrian prosecutors allege asset concealment through Liechtenstein-based foundations like INGBE and Laura Stiftung. Close ties to Austrian politicians Kurz and Gusenbauer allegedly helped Benko raise billions from Arab investors—who also lost everything. Read our reports on Rene Benko here. Short Narrative René Benko, once Austria’s golden boy of real estate, now sits behind bars while his elite investor network counts its losses. Among them: Klaus-Michael Kühne, the now 87-year-old billionaire owner of Kühne + Nagel and shareholder in Lufthansa and Hapag-Lloyd. Kühne publicly admits to being deceived by Benko and losing around €500 million. Benko’s intricate empire, which allegedly masked insolvency and concealed assets using shell foundations in Liechtenstein, collapsed under a web of high-leverage bets, opaque deals, and political favoritism. Now, as investigators pursue Benko and his network—including his wife Natalie and associates like Robert Schimanko—the fallout continues to shake Europe’s financial elite. Extended Analysis The explosive revelations by Klaus-Michael Kühne mark a turning point in public perception: this is no longer a case of failed entrepreneurship—it’s being framed by key victims as fraud. Kühne’s statement that he was “lulled” by Benko is both an admission of defeat and a signal: Benko deceived even the savviest. Legally, the case revolves around Austria’s criminal code §§153–159 (breach of trust, fraud, and betrügerische Krida). The Austrian Economic and Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (WKStA) claims Benko continued to direct the INGBE and Laura Foundations even during insolvency, orchestrating asset transfers and liquidations. These claims are now bolstered by testimony and evidence suggesting complicity by his inner circle—including his wife Natalie Benko and financial advisors like Robert Schimanko, chairman of the INGBE Foundation. Read more about Robert Schimanko and WEC here. The WKStA is under growing international scrutiny, particularly as Gulf state investors brought in via former Chancellor Sebastian Kurz reportedly lost over €1 billion. Kurz and fellow ex-Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer—both linked to Benko’s network—are now facing reputational and possibly legal exposure. Actionable Insight Regulators and insolvency practitioners should flag Benko-linked structures, foundations, and advisors, especially those operating out of Liechtenstein and Austria. The case illustrates how high-level investor losses can hide systemic governance failures. Audit trails involving the INGBE Foundation, gold sales, and Natalie Benko should be prioritized in forensic reviews. Banks and legal advisors are urged to review historical exposure to Signa Group entities and freeze suspicious asset transfers post-2023. Call for Information FinCrime Observer is actively seeking documentation and whistleblower insights on: Hidden Benko assets via INGBE or Laura Foundation Asset transfers facilitated by Natalie Benko or Robert Schimanko Political influence or foreign fundraising operations tied to Sebastian Kurz or Alfred Gusenbauer Submit confidentially at Whistle42.com. All tips will be reviewed by our investigative and legal teams. Share Information via Whistle42

Executive Summary The recent lawsuit filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Unicoin and its executives is not, despite surface appearances, a case about the peculiarities or legal uncertainties surrounding cryptocurrencies. Rather, it is a textbook example of securities fraud — one that could have been perpetrated using any financial instrument, be it stocks, bonds, or real estate securities. The fact that the fraudulent representations involved crypto assets is, in legal terms, incidental. Read the FinTelegram on the SEC complaint against Unicoin here. This opinion seeks to clarify a widespread misconception: not every case involving digital assets is inherently a “crypto fraud.” In the case at hand, the crypto component merely serves as the vehicle, not the substance, of the fraud. I. Factual and Legal Background On May 20, 2025, the SEC announced charges against Unicoin, Inc., its CEO Alex Konanykhin, former President Silvina Moschini, and former CIO Alex Dominguez. According to the SEC’s complaint: “Unicoin and its executives engaged in a fraudulent scheme by making false and misleading statements in an offering of certificates that purportedly conveyed rights to receive crypto assets called Unicoin tokens and in an offering of Unicoin, Inc.’s common stock.” The SEC further alleged: The company overstated the value of real estate assets that were claimed to back Unicoin tokens; The rights certificates sold to investors — promising delivery of tokens in the future — were largely “illusory”; The executives created a deceptive illusion of investor demand and financial backing. II. Forensic Analysis of the Alleged Scheme Let us break down the alleged fraud using a forensic lens: ComponentDescriptionInstrument UsedUnicoin Rights Certificates + Common StockUnderlying AssetPurported real estate portfolio backing the Unicoin tokensFalse RepresentationsOverstated real estate values; misrepresented future token deliveryMechanism of FraudSale of rights certificates and shares based on misleading asset claimsInvestor DeceptionInvestors believed tokens were “asset-backed” and widely adopted What stands out in the SEC’s complaint is not the use of blockchain technology or the issuance of tokens — both now common mechanisms in the modern capital market — but rather the deliberate misrepresentation of underlying asset value, which is a hallmark of classic fraud under U.S. securities laws. This same scheme could have been run using: Stock falsely claimed to be backed by profitable real estate holdings; Bond offerings where collateral was misrepresented; REITs that overstated property values and future returns. Thus, the alleged wrongdoing lies not in the mechanics of crypto issuance, but in the deception of investors through materially false statements — the very conduct the securities laws were designed to prevent. III. Legal Reasoning: Why This Is Not a “Crypto Fraud” Case The term “crypto fraud” often implies that the fraud arises from the inherent nature of cryptocurrencies — such as their volatility, anonymity, or lack of regulation. That is not what is at issue here. The fraud alleged by the SEC would remain legally identical even if: Unicoin had issued preferred shares instead of tokens; The certificates sold were convertible notes or options instead of crypto rights; The platform operated without any blockchain infrastructure. At its core, the case hinges on intentional deception about asset backing, a violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act — the foundational anti-fraud provisions of U.S. securities law. As the SEC itself stated in its press release: “This case is not about crypto assets per se. It’s about lies told to investors about the value of the underlying business and its assets.” IV. Legal Opinion and Conclusion As a legal analyst with a background in financial regulation, I am compelled to state that the Unicoin case should not be interpreted as a referendum on cryptocurrency or blockchain technology. The use of crypto merely modernizes the packaging of a fraud that is centuries old: selling something under false pretenses. In this instance: There was no meaningful asset backing for the token rights offered; Executives made objectively false statements about the value and status of these assets; Investors were induced to part with money based on those statements. Whether delivered through digital tokens, printed share certificates, or smoke signals is legally immaterial — fraud remains fraud. We must therefore avoid generalizing this enforcement action as indicative of a systemic problem in crypto. Instead, it should serve as a case study in how old frauds adapt to new technologies, and as a warning to regulators, investors, and legitimate blockchain companies alike: compliance is not optional, and deception — regardless of the delivery system — will be prosecuted. Recommendation Regulators should: Continue distinguishing between fraud-enabled-by-crypto and fraud-inherent-to-crypto; Encourage accurate disclosures and independent asset verification; Resist the urge to stigmatize legitimate crypto innovation due to high-profile enforcement cases involving bad actors. Share Information via Whistle42

EXCERPT The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has charged Unicoin, Inc., a New York-based company, and three of its top executives with orchestrating a fraudulent offering that raised over $100 million from thousands of investors. The scheme involved misleading statements about Unicoin tokens and the company’s financial health, exploiting investor interest in cryptocurrency-backed assets. KEY POINTS Defendants: Unicoin, Inc.; CEO and Board Chairman Alex Konanykhin; former President and Board Chairwoman Silvina Moschini; and former Chief Investment Officer Alex Dominguez. Allegations: False and misleading statements regarding the value and backing of Unicoin tokens and the company’s financial condition. Investor Impact: Over $100 million raised from thousands of investors through the sale of Unicoin Rights Certificates and common stock. Asset Misrepresentation: Claims that tokens would be backed by valuable real estate assets, which were significantly overvalued. Regulatory Action: SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties. SHORT NARRATIVE On May 20, 2025, the SEC announced charges against Unicoin and its top executives for conducting a fraudulent offering that misled investors about the nature and value of Unicoin tokens and the company’s financial health. The defendants allegedly overstated the value of assets backing the tokens and the amount of funds raised, creating a false impression of financial strength and investor demand. The SEC’s complaint highlights the need for vigilance in the rapidly evolving crypto asset market. EXTENDED ANALYSIS The Unicoin case underscores the challenges regulators face in overseeing the burgeoning crypto asset market. The defendants’ alleged actions—misrepresenting asset values and investor interest—mirror traditional fraudulent schemes adapted to modern digital assets. This case highlights the importance of transparency and accurate disclosures in offerings involving crypto assets. It also emphasizes the SEC’s commitment to enforcing securities laws in the digital asset space, ensuring that investor protection remains paramount. ACTIONABLE INSIGHT For Regulators and Financial Institutions: Enhanced Due Diligence: Implement rigorous verification processes for asset-backed token offerings. Investor Education: Promote awareness about the risks associated with investing in crypto assets and the importance of scrutinizing issuer claims. Regulatory Collaboration: Encourage cooperation among international regulators to address cross-border crypto fraud schemes. CALL FOR INFORMATION The SEC urges individuals with information related to Unicoin, Inc., its executives, or similar fraudulent schemes to come forward. Tips can be submitted anonymously through the SEC’s Whistleblower Program. Share Information via Whistle42

From Belarus to Blockchain: A quiet kingpin in the murky world of online gambling and crypto payments Summary Table FieldDetailsNameIvan MontikWebsitewww.ivanmontik.netSocial MediaLinkedInKey RolesCo-Founder of SoftSwiss, CoinsPaid, and MerkeleonKnown AffiliationsMerkeleon, SoftSwiss, CoinsPaid, CryptoProcessing.comLegal ExposureNo formal charges, but linked to illicit gambling and laundering via whistleblower reportsJurisdictionsBelarus, Estonia, Germany, Cyprus, AustriaRisk LevelHigh – due to systemic exposure to crypto-gambling operations tied to Russian money Introduction Ivan Montik is not your typical crypto mogul — no Twitter hype, no tech conferences, no loud opinions on regulation. Well, he has his own website (www.ivanmontik.net) and celebrates himself and his achievements a bit. And yet, he’s behind some of the most powerful infrastructure in the high-risk intersection of crypto payments and online gambling. As the co-founder of both SoftSwiss and CoinsPaid, Montik is deeply embedded in the opaque world of crypto casinos — an industry ripe for money laundering, regulatory arbitrage, and illicit finance. His quiet but strategic presence has attracted attention from whistleblowers, journalists, and regulators alike. Career Path & Affiliations Montik began his career in IT and software development in Belarus, a known breeding ground for offshore-oriented crypto startups. He rose to prominence as the founder of SoftSwiss, which evolved from a basic software company into one of the most influential white-label providers for crypto casinos. He later co-founded CoinsPaid, a crypto payment processor that claims to service over 800 merchants, many of them reportedly unlicensed or offshore online casinos. Both companies are under the umbrella of Merkeleon, an Austrian-Estonian structure designed for e-commerce and auction systems — but widely repurposed for crypto and gambling. Read our SoftSwiss & Rabidi Forensic Report here. Role in SoftSwiss, CoinsPaid & Merkeleon SoftSwiss is Montik’s flagship – a tech provider for crypto-enabled online casinos. It offers a turnkey solution, including licensing support, player management, and game integration. The platform is especially attractive to operators wanting to skirt regulatory scrutiny. CoinsPaid, meanwhile, acts as the payment arm. According to whistleblower accounts and FinTelegram reporting, CoinsPaid processes high-risk payments for gambling platforms operating outside EU or US licensing frameworks. It markets itself with strict AML compliance — yet continues to work with operators known for regulatory dodging. Merkeleon serves as the legal and infrastructural shell, giving the whole ecosystem a veneer of legitimacy while enabling cross-jurisdictional obfuscation. Legal and Financial Risk Exposure Confirmed: CoinsPaid and SoftSwiss serve hundreds of gambling operators, many based in Curacao, Cyprus, and the Baltics — regulatory havens. The founders of SoftSwiss and CoinsPaid are publicly known to overlap; Montik is connected to both projects. Suspected: Whistleblower reports (including those received by FinTelegram) suggest that CoinsPaid is used as a laundering rail for unlicensed casinos, with some transactions allegedly linked to Russian oligarch capital. Montik is associated with Roland Isaev and Paata Gamgoneishvili, two known Russian entrepreneurs deeply involved in the gambling sector. The lack of transparency in CoinsPaid’s equity structure and financial flows has raised red flags among compliance professionals. Network & Power Links NameRole/EntityLink to Ivan MontikRoland IsaevAlleged Russian investorReportedly co-investor in SoftSwissPaata GamgoneishviliGambling and media entrepreneurTied to SoftSwiss operationsMax KrupyshevCEO of CoinsPaidOperational partner, public defender of firmMerkeleon GmbHParent company structureLegal entity tied to SoftSwiss and CoinsPaidCryptoProcessing.comCoinsPaid brandPayment service promoted within the groupDream Finance GroupParent company behind CoinsPaid and CryptoProcessing.comalleged beneficial owner FinTelegram Verdict Ivan Montik is a key architect of the crypto-casino industry, quietly enabling a global shadow economy of digital gambling and untraceable payments. While he avoids the spotlight, the scale of financial activity under his umbrella demands regulatory scrutiny. His network, deeply tied to Russian capital and questionable licensing practices, poses substantial AML and compliance risks. Montik may not be on a sanctions list — but in the world of cyberfinance, he’s a person of interest. Share Information via Whistle42

Summary Table FieldDetailNameRobert SchimankoSocial MediaLinkedInKey RolesFinancial advisor, board member of INGBE FoundationKnown AffiliationsRené Benko, Thomas Limberger, William Shawn, Signa Group, INGBE Foundation, SilverArrow Capital Group, World Economic Council (WEC), Manhatten Investment Fund (MIF), M&A Privatbank, Ronny PecikLegal ExposureUnder journalistic scrutiny for suspected asset transfersJurisdictionAustria, SwitzerlandRisk Level High (strategic advisor to collapsed financial empire under investigation) Introduction Robert Schimanko has long operated behind the scenes — a discreet financial advisor in elite Austrian business circles. But with the collapse of the Signa Group and the criminal investigations into René Benko’s empire, Schimanko has stepped into the spotlight. Not by choice, but by consequence. His role on the board of the Liechtenstein-based INGBE Foundation, a key vehicle in Benko’s asset shielding infrastructure, is now raising serious compliance questions. Career Path & Affiliations Not much has been publicly documented about Schimanko’s career — and that in itself may be revealing. He appears to specialize in high-level financial advising and asset management for ultra-high-net-worth individuals. His name has surfaced repeatedly in connection with asset structures, auction purchases, and strategic advisory roles to Swiss/Austrian/German elites. He is not known to hold high-profile corporate leadership positions, but rather to serve as a trusted behind-the-scenes operator — the kind of person billionaires call when discreet moves need to be made. Role in Signa, INGBE, and WEC The INGBE Foundation, registered in Liechtenstein, has emerged as a crucial node in the Signa collapse investigations. According to reporting by Kronen Zeitung and FinTelegram, Schimanko served on the board of this foundation — which was tied to questionable asset transfers involving Signa founder René Benko. These include: Buying luxury goods at auction allegedly on Benko’s behalf Attending a private meeting with Benko the evening before his arrest Sitting on the board of INGBE, suspected to hold protected assets Read our reports on Robert Schimanko here. Moreover, Schimanko’s ties to the World Economic Council (WEC) — a rebranded vehicle possibly set up to distance the Benko network from the scandal-ridden WEF — have not gone unnoticed. His name appears in connection with the early advisory circle of the WEC, raising eyebrows about whether the WEC was designed as a reputation laundering platform. Legal and Financial Risk Exposure As of today, Robert Schimanko is not formally charged with any crimes. However, he is widely named in media reports as being close to the heart of the Signa financial engineering network. Confirmed: Board member of INGBE Foundation Present at private Benko meetings Actively involved in post-insolvency asset maneuvers Suspected: Acting as financial proxy for René Benko Helping structure or hide assets from insolvency administrators Possibly involved in cross-border asset shielding schemes While there is no formal legal action against Schimanko (yet), regulatory bodies and prosecutors may be building cases around those who facilitated asset withdrawals from Signa-related structures. Network & Power Links NameRoleConnectionRené BenkoFounder, SignaClient, personal networkNatalie BenkoSpouse of BenkoAlleged beneficiary of shieldingINGBE FoundationLiechtenstein entityBoard memberWEC (World Economic Council)Alleged successor to WEFEarly advisory figure Schimanko’s central value seems to lie in his discretion, financial precision, and ability to move large-value assets quietly across jurisdictions — qualities that regulators now seem increasingly interested in. FinTelegram Verdict Robert Schimanko represents the archetype of a financial ghostwriter — someone who signs no press releases but controls enormous influence behind the scenes. His name will likely feature in more compliance files, investigative dossiers, and regulatory inquiries in the months ahead. Whether he acted legally or merely skillfully is a question that prosecutors may soon answer. Share Information via Whistle42

The Austrian Public Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Crimes and Corruption (WKStA) is tightening its grip on René Benko’s empire. In a dramatic escalation, criminal investigations now extend to the INGBE Private Foundation in Liechtenstein—one of Benko’s most secretive financial constructs. Explosive details point to coordinated asset transfers involving gold, villas, and trusted allies like Robert Schimanko and Thomas Limberger—central figures in Benko’s alleged shadow network. The investigations under the Association Responsibility Act could pierce the legal shields of foundations and hit the Benko circle where it hurts most: in the vaults. KEY POINTS WKStA Targets INGBE Foundation: Austrian authorities expand their investigations into the Liechtenstein-based INGBE Foundation, allegedly controlled by Benko. Suspicious Gold Transactions: 360 kilograms of gold worth €30 million were reportedly liquidated in mid-March 2025—possibly to evade European oversight. Asset Shifts to Liechtenstein: Six luxury villas on Lake Garda were transferred from Signa to INGBE Foundation shortly before Signa’s collapse. Shadow Figures Identified: Robert Schimanko and Thomas Limberger, both linked to the WEC and SilverArrow Capital, are under scrutiny. Legal Basis: Association Responsibility Act: Investigators treat INGBE as part of Benko’s extended structure, potentially opening the door to foundation liability. SHORT NARRATIVE According to the Kronen Zeitung, the WKStA is now investigating the INGBE Stiftung, based in Schaan, Liechtenstein. The foundation is reportedly named after Benko’s mother, Ingeborg Benko, and serves as a strategic holding entity in his offshore empire. The investigations suggest that Benko—despite formal denials—acted as the “de facto ruler” of the foundation, orchestrating complex asset shifts in anticipation of legal consequences. The probe gained momentum after reports emerged of a suspicious conversion of €30 million worth of gold into cash and the earlier transfer of six luxury villas to INGBE. At the center of this activity is board member Robert Schimanko, who has a checkered past involving financial scandals in the US and Switzerland, and who is also tied to the World Economic Council (WEC) and SilverArrow Capital Group. EXTENDED ANALYSIS The use of foundations like INGBE and Laura Privatstiftung illustrates a textbook model of asset shielding through private legal entities. By shifting luxury properties (e.g., the Eden Gardone villas) from insolvent Signa Holding to INGBE, and receiving soon-to-be-worthless shares in return, a strong case can be made for fraudulent asset diversion. The prosecution is leveraging the Verbandsverantwortlichkeitsgesetz (Association Responsibility Act) to hold these entities accountable—an increasingly potent tool in white-collar investigations. The role of Robert Schimanko is particularly problematic. As a former investment fund executive implicated in US financial fraud, and now a central figure in the WEC and SilverArrow Capital alongside Thomas Limberger, he represents a recurrent type in high-level financial crime: the professional fixer operating in legally grey zones. Their synchronized appointments to the INGBE and Laura foundations raise serious questions of orchestration, not coincidence. The gold liquidation, coupled with widely dispersed safe deposit boxes and foreign bank accounts, fits a classic pattern of “last-mile shielding”—moving liquid assets beyond reach once legal pressure mounts. ACTIONABLE INSIGHT Regulators and investigative journalists should scrutinize the WEC (World Economic Council) and its associated entities (e.g., SilverArrow Capital) as potential vehicles for legal façade management and asset fragmentation. The appointments of Schimanko and Limberger to separate Benko foundations appear to be part of a larger coordination strategy to maintain control while insulating Benko personally from legal exposure. This is where the network must be pierced. INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES Name/EntityRole/PositionConnection to Benko CaseRené BenkoFounder and former Signa CEOAlleged de facto controller of INGBE Foundation; under criminal investigationINGBE PrivatstiftungPrivate foundation in LiechtensteinAllegedly used to shield assets like gold and villas; controlled by Benko networkLaura PrivatstiftungBenko-linked foundation in InnsbruckParallel structure with suspected coordinated managementRobert SchimankoBoard member, INGBE Foundation; WEC partnerImplicated in asset purchases and prior financial fraud; involved in gold movementThomas LimbergerBoard, Laura Stiftung; Co-founder of SilverArrow CapitalWEC associate and key Benko network memberSilverArrow Capital GroupInvestment firmOperated by Schimanko and Limberger; part of network under scrutinyWorld Economic Council (WEC)Vienna-based think tankNexus for appointments and strategic coordination CALL FOR INFORMATION FinTelegram calls on insiders, compliance professionals, and whistleblowers with knowledge of the INGBE and LAURA foundations, the WEC, or SilverArrow Capital to submit information confidentially via Whistle42.com. Any leads related to gold transactions, foundation activities, or cross-border asset movements are highly valuable for ongoing investigations. Share Information via Whistle42

In a dramatic reversal, JPMorgan has shifted its stance from favoring gold to endorsing Bitcoin, forecasting that the cryptocurrency will outperform gold throughout the remainder of 2025. This pivot signifies a notable change in the financial landscape, highlighting Bitcoin’s growing acceptance among traditional financial institutions. 5 Key Points Strategic Shift: JPMorgan transitions its preference from gold to Bitcoin, indicating a significant change in investment strategy. Performance Prediction: Analysts at JPMorgan predict Bitcoin will surpass gold in performance for the rest of 2025. Institutional Endorsement: This move reflects increasing institutional confidence in Bitcoin as a viable asset class. Market Impact: Bitcoin’s price experiences a surge following JPMorgan’s announcement, signaling strong market reactions. Regulatory Considerations: The shift may influence regulatory perspectives and policies regarding cryptocurrency investments. Short Narrative On May 18, 2025, JPMorgan announced a significant change in its investment outlook, favoring Bitcoin over gold. This decision is based on the belief that Bitcoin will outperform gold for the remainder of the year. The announcement has already impacted the market, with Bitcoin’s price experiencing a notable increase. Extended Analysis JPMorgan‘s endorsement of Bitcoin marks a pivotal moment in the integration of cryptocurrencies into mainstream finance. This shift could lead to increased institutional investment in digital assets, potentially driving further adoption and innovation in the sector. However, it also raises questions about regulatory frameworks and the need for updated policies to address the evolving financial landscape. Investment Implications Opportunities: Potential for significant returns as institutional investment in Bitcoin increases. Diversification benefits for portfolios traditionally focused on commodities like gold. Risks: Regulatory uncertainties could impact market stability. Bitcoin’s inherent volatility may pose challenges for risk-averse investors. Recommendation Investors should consider the implications of JPMorgan‘s shift towards Bitcoin, recognizing both the potential for high returns and the associated risks. Diversification and a thorough understanding of the cryptocurrency market are essential for informed investment decisions. Share Information via Whistle42

Executive Summary Over the past year, financial influencers (“FinFluencers”) have become increasingly prominent on social media, particularly on TikTok and X (formerly Twitter). These platforms have evolved in their content dynamics, user engagement, and regulatory environment, making them central to the dissemination of financial advice and market sentiment. This report analyzes the roles, reach, and key trends of finfluencers on TikTok and X, and discusses the broader implications for financial literacy, market behavior, and regulatory oversight. 1. Roles of Finfluencers TikTok Finfluencers on TikTok serve as educators, entertainers, and motivators, distilling complex financial concepts into short, engaging videos. They focus on topics such as budgeting, investing, side hustles, cryptocurrency, and personal finance tips, often leveraging viral trends to maximize reach. Many act as community leaders, fostering trust and engagement among younger audiences who may lack access to traditional financial education. X (formerly Twitter) On X, finfluencers primarily function as real-time commentators, market analysts, and news amplifiers. They share timely insights, breaking news, and investment opinions, often influencing sentiment and retail investor behavior during market-moving events. X is also a platform for in-depth discussions and debates among finance professionals, retail investors, and the broader financial community. 2. Reach and Audience PlatformMonthly Active UsersFinfluencer Follower RangeEngagement RateAudience DemographicsTikTok1.58 billionUp to 9 million2.88–9.5%+Gen Z, MillennialsX586 million (ad reach)Generally lower0.09% (video: 0.42%)Older, affluent, professionals TikTok: Finfluencers such as Erika Kullberg (9 million followers), Vivian Tu (2.7 million), Humphrey Yang (3.4M followers), Tori Dunlap (2,4M followers), Taylor Price (1M followers) highlight the platform’s massive reach. Engagement rates for educational content are among the highest across social media, with nano-influencers achieving up to 14–18% engagement. X: While follower counts are typically lower, X’s audience is highly engaged with real-time financial news and market analysis. The platform’s demographic skews older and more affluent, making it influential among professional and retail investors. The average X user is aged 25–34, with a highly educated and higher-earning demographic-51% earn more than $70,000 annually 3. Evolution of Platform Use (2024–2025) TikTok FinFluencer content has become more concise, practical, and trend-driven, with viral challenges like “loud budgeting” and “cash stuffing” gaining popularity. There has been a modest increase in the use of disclaimers, particularly for high-risk topics like crypto and trading, though transparency remains limited (disclaimers in <2% of videos). Regulatory uncertainty, including the threat of a U.S. TikTok ban, has prompted many finfluencers to diversify their presence across other platforms. X X has maintained its role as a hub for real-time financial discourse, market commentary, and news amplification. The platform continues to influence market events through collective action and rapid information dissemination, despite lower engagement rates compared to TikTok. User growth has been steady, with the platform remaining relevant for professionals and retail investors seeking up-to-the-minute insights. 4. Key Trends Community-Driven Trust: Trust in finfluencers is rising, especially among younger users. Over 60% of 18–29-year-olds follow financial influencers, and 74% trust their advice, often changing financial behaviors as a result. Edutainment: Finfluencers increasingly blend education with entertainment, making financial topics more accessible and engaging, particularly on TikTok. Regulatory Scrutiny: There is growing regulatory focus on finfluencer content, with calls for clearer risk disclosures and transparency, especially for speculative investments. Platform Diversification: In response to regulatory risks and platform uncertainty, finfluencers are expanding their presence to Instagram, YouTube, and emerging platforms. 5. Implications Financial Literacy: Finfluencers are filling a gap in traditional financial education, particularly for younger demographics. Their accessible content can drive positive financial behaviors but also exposes audiences to risks from unvetted or overly optimistic advice. Market Impact: The collective influence of FinFluencers can move markets, as seen in events like the GameStop short squeeze. Real-time commentary on X and viral trends on TikTok can amplify retail investor sentiment and action. Regulatory Challenges: The low prevalence of disclaimers and the prioritization of engagement over transparency present ongoing challenges for regulators. There is a need for clearer guidelines and enforcement to protect consumers from misleading or high-risk advice. Strategic Shifts: FinFluencers are adapting to platform and regulatory changes by diversifying their content and digital presence, ensuring continued influence regardless of policy shifts or platform disruptions. Conclusion Finfluencers on TikTok and X have become central figures in the financial ecosystem, shaping public understanding and market behavior through accessible, engaging content. While TikTok leads in reach and engagement among younger audiences, X remains vital for real-time financial news and professional discourse. The evolution of these platforms underscores the importance of regulatory oversight, content transparency, and strategic adaptability in the rapidly changing landscape of social media finance. Share Information via Whistle42

In the vast Odebrecht corruption and money laundering case, Peter Weinzierl’s $3 million bail offer in the US continues to raise red flags. A deeper look into the origins of the money suggests it may be more than just a generous helping hand—it may be part of a tightly woven financial network linked to former Meinl Bank boss Julius Meinl V, Russian interests, and the shadowy legacy of Meinl Bank Antigua. Is the former CEO simply protecting accomplices in a global laundering ring? Key Points The UK-based company offering Weinzierl’s bail is believed to be the same entity that provided his bail in the UK, raising transparency concerns. This unnamed company reportedly maintains close ties to Julius Meinl V, once the beneficial owner and shadow master of Meinl Bank. Reports suggest the involvement of MD Time Holding, a UK entity controlled by Russian business associates of Weinzierl. The US DOJ has rejected the bail proposal, citing the anonymity of donors and the possible use of tainted funds. FinCrime Observer previously exposed Weinzierl’s entanglement in laundering $170 million in Odebrecht-linked funds through Meinl Bank Antigua. Short Narrative In our previous report on FinCrime Observer, we revealed how former Meinl Bank CEO Peter Weinzierl offered a $3 million bail package after his extradition to the US on charges tied to the Odebrecht bribery scandal. That offer is now under intense scrutiny—and FinTelegram has uncovered why. The bail funds, it seems, don’t originate from Weinzierl himself, but from a UK-based entity with undisclosed backers. Sound familiar? That’s because it appears to be the same vehicle that posted Weinzierl’s £4 million bail in the UK—an arrangement that, until now, has flown under the radar. What’s more concerning: this company is said to have deep ties to Julius Meinl V, the enigmatic financier long suspected of using Meinl Bank to shuttle funds across opaque jurisdictions. According to reports in Austrian media, the British entity may be MD Time Holding, a company with Russian ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) who were already active business partners of Weinzierl during his Meinl Bank tenure. Read our Meinl Bank reports here. Extended Analysis The pattern emerging here raises serious questions—not only about the source of the bail funds, but also about Weinzierl’s true role in a broader financial network. The DOJ’s concern isn’t simply about the bail sum. It’s about who’s backing Weinzierl, and why. A bail package provided by an entity with historical connections to Meinl Bank’s offshore strategies and Russian oligarchic interests is more than suspicious—it potentially points to an active effort to shield assets, contain leaks, and obstruct justice. Weinzierl’s defense paints him as a man of modest means who no longer has access to his wealth. If so, then why are anonymous donors willing to risk millions to free him from US detention? And why not name the company if it’s clean? According to court filings and FinCrime Observer’s report, the donors have not been personally identified. That deliberate opacity, paired with the allegations of fake transactions with Odebrecht, fits a familiar playbook of organized white-collar crime. The mention of MD Time Holding in Austrian media is particularly troubling. The company has been linked to Russian nationals with histories in offshore finance. The fact that they could be involved in securing bail for a suspect charged with laundering $170 million puts the case in a whole new light. Actionable Insight This case is not just about one banker. It could very well be a stress test for US justice in dealing with entrenched, international laundering networks. Regulators, journalists, and compliance officers should scrutinize every corporate layer behind the bail offer. Follow the money, and we may find a trail back to Meinl Bank’s offshore empire, Odebrecht’s dark funds, and Russian oligarchic structures still operating in the shadows. Call for Information Have you worked with MD Time Holding or observed connections between Julius Meinl V, Peter Weinzierl, and Russian-linked financial vehicles? Have you uncovered networks tied to Meinl Bank Antigua or Odebrecht fund flows? Share tips securely via Whistle42.com Share Information via Whistle42

Overview of Succession Rumors The World Economic Forum (WEF) is currently in the midst of a leadership crisis following the abrupt departure of its founder and long-time chair, Klaus Schwab amidst massive allegations. Schwab, who led the WEF for over fifty years, resigned last month amid serious allegations of financial misconduct and workplace impropriety, triggering an internal investigation and destabilizing the organization’s succession plans. Christine Lagarde, the current President of the European Central Bank (ECB), is widely reported as the top favorite to succeed Schwab. The WEF has been courting Lagarde for the role, viewing her as the ideal candidate to restore stability and credibility to the Forum after the recent scandals. Schwab had originally intended to remain in his position until 2027, coinciding with the end of Lagarde’s ECB term, to allow for a seamless transition. However, his early exit has complicated these plans, with the WEF’s board and corporate partners now urgently seeking to secure Lagarde’s leadership. Sentiment Surrounding Klaus Schwab Schwab’s legacy is now under intense scrutiny. Once celebrated for transforming Davos into a global hub for political and business dialogue, he is currently embroiled in controversy. Whistleblower allegations accuse him of misusing WEF funds, manipulating research data, and fostering a toxic workplace culture that included discrimination and inappropriate remarks. Schwab has denied all wrongdoing, labeling the accusations as character assassination and vowing legal action. Nonetheless, the revelations have caused significant anxiety within the WEF and among its corporate partners, who fear lasting reputational damage. Despite his contributions, Schwab’s leadership style and the WEF’s opaque governance have long been criticized for elitism, lack of transparency, and undemocratic decision-making. The organization is often seen as a symbol of global plutocracy, with critics arguing that it enables powerful interests to shape global agendas without public accountability. Sentiment Surrounding the WEF The WEF itself faces a complex reputation. On one hand, it is recognized as a unique platform for addressing global challenges, fostering dialogue among leaders, and promoting initiatives on issues like inequality and climate change. On the other, it is frequently criticized for: Exacerbating global inequality and wealth gaps. Promoting a system of multi-stakeholder governance that some see as undermining democratic processes. Lacking transparency in its operations and selection criteria for participants. Failing to address its own internal issues, such as workplace discrimination and governance scandals. Being the subject of conspiracy theories, particularly around its “Great Reset” initiative, which has been misrepresented and criticized across the political spectrum. Recent scandals have intensified scrutiny, with some questioning whether the WEF can maintain its influence and credibility without Schwab at the helm. Sentiment Surrounding Christine Lagarde Christine Lagarde is a high-profile, internationally respected leader, known for her political acumen, consensus-building skills, and advocacy for gender equality and economic reform. She has held several historic firsts, including being the first woman to head the IMF and the ECB. Her leadership during crises, such as the global financial crisis and the eurozone debt crisis, has been widely acknowledged. However, Lagarde’s tenure at the ECB has been met with mixed reviews. While she is lauded on the global stage, internal surveys reveal that a significant portion of ECB staff rate her performance poorly, especially when compared to her predecessors. Critics point to her lack of formal economics training and controversial decisions, such as her handling of the Tapie Affair during her time as France’s finance minister, for which she was found guilty of negligence (though she received no punishment). Despite these criticisms, Lagarde’s reputation for navigating complex international institutions and her commitment to transparency and diversity make her an attractive candidate for the WEF, especially as it seeks to recover from recent scandals and rebuild trust. Conclusion The WEF’s pursuit of Christine Lagarde as its next chair comes at a critical juncture. Schwab’s sudden departure amid scandal has left the organization’s future uncertain, with its reputation and influence at stake. Lagarde’s potential appointment is seen as a path to restoring credibility and stability, though her own record is not without controversy. The outcome of this succession will shape not only the WEF’s direction but also its standing in the global arena for years to come. Share Information via Whistle42

Excerpt The latest sentiment snapshot on X (May 10–17, 2025), powered by Grok’s filtered data (excluding bots), paints a fractured narrative beneath the surface of bullish headlines. Bitcoin (BTC) sentiment slipped below bullish thresholds as fear resurfaces, while Solana (SOL) clings to fragile optimism propped up by institutional tokenization hype. Both tokens are testing critical levels—yet social mood fractures and technical weaknesses offer ripe entry points for short sellers and volatility traders. 5 Key Points BTC Sentiment Slips to 45% Positive: With 35% negative sentiment and signs of panic retail behavior, BTC loses narrative momentum. SOL at Sentiment Tipping Point: 50% positive, but reliability issues (e.g., network outages) persist and may catalyze a reversal. ETF Smoke Screen: BlackRock’s involvement props up optics, but organic demand is fragile. Social sentiment doesn’t match ETF inflows. Fear & Greed Index at “Extreme Fear”: Historically contrarian—but current low sentiment isn’t triggering meaningful bounces. Retail Exhaustion Evident: Volume and engagement rates on X suggest disillusionment and exit by weaker hands. Short Narrative Institutional optimism may dominate headlines, but social sentiment signals a storm brewing underneath. BTC’s pullback (-25%) has stripped away the post-ETF euphoria, with Fear & Greed flashing red and sentiment falling below 50%. Meanwhile, SOL’s ecosystem growth has failed to erase concerns about network reliability and price volatility. Despite institutional name-dropping (BlackRock), the crowd is restless—and retail capitulation could accelerate. Extended Analysis Bitcoin’s narrative is decoupling from its price structure. Despite consistent ETF inflows, sentiment among retail participants has sagged. Social channels like X—often the leading edge of market mood—reveal a waning belief in BTC’s short-term potential. The 45% positive sentiment (vs. 35% negative) underscores a fragile support zone, where bulls are losing momentum and bears sniff blood. Meanwhile, Solana’s bullish sentiment barely holds above 50%, and sentiment drivers are highly dependent on institutional announcements and hype cycles. The recent -6.59% pullback, paired with yet another wave of network criticism, shows how thin the line is between exuberance and panic in the SOL community. Both assets are increasingly propped up by top-down narratives—ETFs, tokenized funds, institutional adoption—which may not align with grassroots investor confidence. As retail interest wanes and sentiment lags price, a correction event triggered by sentiment collapse or macro volatility could trigger liquidation cascades. Investment Implications (for Short Sellers) BTC: Short-term shorts viable below $100K with sentiment <50%. Liquidity thinning on X suggests retail exits could trigger deeper drops. SOL: Watch $170 support closely. If sentiment flips negative or another network outage surfaces, $150 becomes the next short target. Sentiment-based setups: When bullish narratives are institutionally driven—but not supported by sentiment or price action—short setups offer asymmetric risk. Recommendation or Warning FinTelegram Short Seller Watchlist:BTC: Short rallies below $100K unless sentiment flips above 55%. Current support is fragile, and panic behavior is increasing.SOL: Precarious long-side play—better to stalk a break of $170 and load up on downside puts or perpetual shorts. Sentiment cracks may widen suddenly.In both cases, sentiment divergence from price is your signal—when the crowd no longer believes, corrections intensify. Share Information via Whistle42

EXCERPT Bloomberg has revealed that Binance and Kraken were targeted by the same sophisticated hacking campaign that recently compromised Coinbase systems. The coordinated assaults exploited a zero-day vulnerability in a third-party library, underlining a major supply chain cybersecurity weakness across the crypto sector. This development raises urgent questions about vendor due diligence, cross-platform coordination, and the fragility of digital infrastructure behind the world’s largest crypto exchanges. 5 KEY POINTS Same Zero-Day Used: Hackers targeted Binance and Kraken using the same vulnerability recently used to breach Coinbase. No Funds Stolen (Yet): Unlike the Coinbase breach, Binance and Kraken claim no financial losses or data breaches occurred. Third-Party Risk: The exploited vulnerability was found in a widely used open-source library—again highlighting industry-wide supply chain weaknesses. Coordinated Campaign: The attacks were part of a broader, synchronized effort to compromise multiple exchanges through shared code dependencies. Regulatory Heat Incoming: This cross-exchange vulnerability may trigger investigations into crypto platforms’ compliance with cybersecurity and risk management obligations. SHORT NARRATIVE Just days after Coinbase disclosed a high-profile data breach, a Bloomberg investigation now reveals that Binance and Kraken were also targeted by the same hacking group. The attacks exploited a zero-day vulnerability in a shared third-party open-source library used in internal systems. Read more about the Coinbase hack here. Although both exchanges claim the attacks were unsuccessful, the incident exposes a critical systemic risk—crypto giants share not just digital infrastructure, but also attack surfaces. The implications go far beyond isolated breaches, suggesting the existence of a supply chain cyber threat actor probing for access across the industry’s largest platforms. EXTENDED ANALYSIS The campaign reflects a textbook supply chain attack: rather than breaching each exchange individually, hackers focused on a common weak link—a third-party software dependency embedded across multiple crypto ecosystems. Legal and Compliance Considerations: Vendor Risk Management: Regulators are likely to press exchanges on their vendor onboarding, code auditing, and third-party monitoring practices. Disclosure Obligations: Even “unsuccessful” attacks may trigger disclosure requirements under MiCA, SEC, or GDPR rules depending on data access or attempted intrusion. Operational Resilience Mandates: With digital finance becoming critical infrastructure, expect more pressure on exchanges to implement continuous vulnerability testing, especially for open-source components. The broader concern is this: if top-tier exchanges like Binance, Kraken, and Coinbase are vulnerable via shared libraries, smaller exchanges are almost certainly already compromised—whether they know it or not. ACTIONABLE INSIGHT Crypto platforms must map their dependency tree—especially open-source packages—and implement real-time scanning tools for emerging vulnerabilities. Coordinated sector-wide response mechanisms (e.g., threat intel sharing consortia) are no longer optional. Exchanges should consider conducting post-mortem audits, even in the absence of a successful breach. CALL FOR INFORMATION FinCrime Observer is mapping the full scope of these coordinated cyberattacks. If you have internal insights, threat intel, or knowledge of shared infrastructure vulnerabilities, please submit it securely via Whistle42.Your identity is fully protected. Share Information via Whistle42.

EXCERPT In a sweeping update to a landmark cybercrime case, the U.S. Department of Justice has charged 12 additional defendants with participating in a $263 million cryptocurrency theft and laundering conspiracy. The alleged operation, orchestrated by a transnational organization linked to China, used “pig butchering” scams and complex laundering tactics to siphon digital assets from U.S. victims. The case is being prosecuted under RICO, signaling an escalation in how U.S. law enforcement confronts large-scale crypto-enabled financial crime. 5 KEY POINTS RICO Charges Filed: U.S. DOJ has charged 12 new defendants, adding to a sprawling conspiracy case involving crypto scams, identity fraud, and laundering. China-Linked Syndicate: The defendants are allegedly part of a Chinese-based transnational organization operating a global cyber fraud network. Pig Butchering Tactics: Victims were targeted through romance and investment scams, manipulated into transferring millions in crypto. Money Laundering Infrastructure: The syndicate used shell companies, stolen identities, and U.S.-based bank accounts to wash illicit proceeds. Regulatory Ramifications: Case raises questions about crypto KYC failures, foreign interference, and cross-border enforcement cooperation. SHORT NARRATIVE On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia announced that 12 additional defendants have been charged with RICO conspiracy, adding to an ongoing case involving over $263 million in stolen cryptocurrency. The superseding indictment adds charges originally brought against Malone Lam on Sept. 19, 2024. According to the superseding indictment, the enterprise began no later than October 2023 and continued through March 2025. It grew from friendships developed on online gaming platforms. The alleged scheme involved “pig butchering” scams—a manipulative tactic where victims are groomed online, often through dating apps, before being lured into fraudulent crypto investments. The stolen funds were then laundered through a web of shell entities, U.S. financial institutions, and OTC brokers. The indictment traces the organization’s hierarchy to Chinese nationals coordinating with criminal facilitators in the U.S., including those who helped open fraudulent bank accounts using stolen or synthetic identities. EXTENDED ANALYSIS This case represents a rare and forceful application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to a cyber-enabled financial crime network. Key Compliance Failures Highlighted: Identity Verification Gaps: The syndicate exploited weaknesses in U.S. financial institutions’ KYC processes to establish fraudulent bank accounts. Crypto Exchange Blind Spots: The laundering process involved unregulated or weakly regulated OTC brokers and offshore wallets. Cross-Border Coordination Gaps: Jurisdictional challenges persist when criminal actors operate across continents with assets on-chain. The indictment serves as a warning shot to both crypto exchanges and traditional banks: failure to monitor and vet customers, transactions, and corporate structures exposes institutions to criminal exploitation—and regulatory liability. The DOJ’s use of RICO shows its intent to treat cyber-financial crime as organized crime, placing pressure on law enforcement globally to adopt similar strategies and deepen cooperation. ACTIONABLE INSIGHT Financial institutions and crypto exchanges must review their onboarding, transaction monitoring, and identity verification systems immediately, particularly with regard to remote and cross-border account openings. Collaborate with law enforcement and fintech threat intelligence units to flag potential pig butchering indicators and syndicate-linked wallet clusters. CALL FOR INFORMATION FinCrime Observer is tracking the evolution of transnational crypto crime networks. If you have information on this case—or others involving pig butchering scams, Chinese-based laundering infrastructure, or crypto fraud syndicates—submit your intel securely via Whistle42. Your identity is fully protected. Share Information via Whistle42

Excerpt A corporate war has erupted between Frédéric Hubin, former director of CoinsPaid, and the crypto payment processor itself. In an explosive LinkedIn post from April 2025, Hubin accuses CoinsPaid of processing payments for illegal SoftSwiss casinos, operating with negative equity, and being backed by Russian owners linked to controversial business networks. Meanwhile, CoinsPaid has partnered with Payabl in legal action against FinTelegram, raising serious compliance and reputational questions. The conflict sheds light on the high-risk shadows of the crypto payment world. Key Points Frédéric Hubin, ex-director of CoinsPaid, claims the company processes payments for unlicensed SoftSwiss casinos. Hubin’s LinkedIn post alleges negative equity at CoinsPaid, backed by Estonian auditor reports. Ivan Montik, listed as co-founder of both SoftSwiss and CoinsPaid, is linked to controversial Russian owners Roland Isaev and Paata Gamgoneisvili. CoinsPaid denies all allegations, stating it won a defamation suit in Belgium against Hubin and accusing him of a smear campaign. Payabl, a Cypriot high-risk payment processor, uses CoinsPaid statements in a preliminary injunction attempt against FinTelegram, including documents that appear to contain forged signatures. Short Narrative In April 2025, Frédéric Hubin, a former board member of CoinsPaid’s Estonian entity Dream Finance OÜ, publicly declared war on his former employer. In a LinkedIn post, Hubin accused the crypto payment processor of enabling illegal gambling through a network of unregistered SoftSwiss casinos. He further claimed the company operates with negative equity, as noted in the Estonian company register. CoinsPaid denies the allegations, citing a favorable ruling in Belgium and calling Hubin’s claims defamatory. But the war didn’t end there. In a surprising twist, Payabl, another high-risk payment processor under scrutiny, submitted court documents co-authored with CoinsPaid in a Cypriot injunction attempt against FinTelegram. Some of these documents reportedly feature signatures that appear to be forged, according to FinTelegram’s legal analysis. Extended Analysis Legal Implications Hubin’s claims directly implicate CoinsPaid in facilitating illegal gambling, a potential AML and licensing breach under Estonian and EU law. SoftSwiss, the casino software provider named by Hubin, is linked to Ivan Montik, who publicly identifies as founder of SoftSwiss and co-founder of CoinsPaid. The Russian ownership structure behind SoftSwiss (Roland Isaev and Paata Gamgoneisvili) has been previously documented by FinTelegram as part of a high-risk payments ecosystem. Read more about CoinsPaid here. The Payabl-Coinspaid Nexus Payabl’s court filing in Cyprus explicitly refers to CoinsPaid and uses its statements to reinforce the claim that FinTelegram operates a “blackmail scheme”—a serious and criminally relevant defamation under Cypriot law. This alignment raises questions: Why is Payabl relying on a partner accused of fraudulent casino facilitation and under scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions (Belgium, Estonia, Switzerland, Israel, and Germany)? Hubin claims no involvement in settlement agreements alleged by CoinsPaid and challenges the authenticity of documents submitted by Payabl in court. Read more about SoftSwiss here. Reputational Risk The convergence of two controversial payment processors—CoinsPaid and Payabl—in legal action against a media outlet reporting on their conduct highlights the strategic weaponization of defamation suits. This tactic, increasingly seen in crypto-related litigation, may chill legitimate journalistic investigations. Actionable Insight Regulators and financial institutions should closely examine both CoinsPaid’s operations and its alignment with Payabl, especially in the context of licensing, AML compliance, and governance integrity. The possible forgery of legal documents and the alleged use of crypto payment rails for illegal gambling must be independently investigated across jurisdictions. Summary Table Entity / IndividualRole / DescriptionLegal/Reputational NotesFrédéric HubinFormer director of CoinsPaid (Dream Finance OÜ)Whistleblower; alleges fraud, defamation, forged docsCoinsPaidCrypto payment processorAccused of illegal casino payments, denies all claimsIvan MontikFounder of SoftSwiss; Co-founder of CoinsPaidTies to SoftSwiss gambling operationsSoftSwissCasino platform software providerAllegedly operating unregistered casinosRoland Isaev & Paata GamgoneishviliAlleged Russian owners of SoftSwissPreviously profiled by FinTelegramPayablCypriot payment processorJoined CoinsPaid in legal action; alleged doc forgeryMax KrupyshevCEO of CoinsPaidAccused by Hubin of smear tactics and forged settlement Call for Information If you have insider knowledge, legal documents, or regulatory findings related to CoinsPaid, SoftSwiss, or Payabl, we encourage you to submit information securely via Whistle42.com. Whistleblowers may be rewarded under our syndication model. Share Information via Whistle42 CategoriesCourt Cases Illegal gambling Illegal Payment Services ticker

EXCERPT Coinbase has revealed that unknown criminal actors exploited a zero-day vulnerability in a third-party library, enabling them to steal sensitive customer data. While no funds were lost, the breach highlights systemic compliance and operational risks in the crypto industry’s cybersecurity infrastructure. The platform has responded with a $20 million bug bounty—a record-breaking offer that underscores the scale of the threat and Coinbase’s attempt to regain trust. 5 KEY POINTS Data Breach Confirmed: Criminals exploited a zero-day flaw in a third-party open-source library, gaining access to sensitive Coinbase customer data. Funds Remain Safe: Coinbase claims no crypto assets were stolen, but personal information was exposed—raising phishing and identity theft concerns. Third-Party Risk: The vulnerability stemmed from an open-source dependency used in internal systems—raising compliance red flags for vendor management. $20M Bug Bounty: In response, Coinbase has launched a record-setting $20 million bug bounty to identify security weaknesses and responsible disclosure pathways. Regulatory Implications: Coinbase may now face additional scrutiny under GDPR and U.S. data protection laws, despite their rapid response. SHORT NARRATIVE Coinbase, one of the largest U.S.-based crypto exchanges, disclosed that hackers accessed customer data via a vulnerability in a popular third-party library integrated into their internal systems. Although no crypto funds were lost, the attackers accessed sensitive user data—sparking fears of downstream fraud. The company quickly launched an internal investigation, patched the flaw, and went public with a $20 million bug bounty in what appears to be both a damage control move and a call to the white-hat hacker community. The incident raises pressing questions: Why was such a vulnerability exploitable? What due diligence procedures were in place? And how secure are the digital onramps of crypto’s biggest players? EXTENDED ANALYSIS This breach reaffirms a critical blind spot in the cybersecurity strategies of major crypto platforms: third-party risk. Open-source libraries are foundational to nearly every fintech stack, but when improperly audited, they create a compliance nightmare. Coinbase, as a publicly traded company, is subject to rigorous regulatory oversight under U.S. SEC and FinCEN frameworks. While the firm emphasized that no funds were compromised, regulators may focus on the lack of controls that allowed personally identifiable information (PII) to be accessed—especially under GDPR in the EU and CCPA in California. More critically, this event could catalyze renewed pressure for mandatory cyber-resilience audits and third-party risk disclosures under MiCA, FATF guidelines, and potential SEC updates on cybersecurity governance. For institutional partners and retail users alike, the question becomes: Can crypto platforms continue to operate without adopting the rigorous vendor vetting and breach-response protocols seen in traditional finance? ACTIONABLE INSIGHT Compliance teams and crypto-native platforms should immediately audit their own third-party dependencies—especially open-source libraries—and implement automated vulnerability monitoring tools. Establishing a proactive bug bounty program, before a breach occurs, is no longer optional—it’s best practice. CALL FOR INFORMATION FinCrime Observer is investigating this breach and its broader implications. If you have insider knowledge or relevant intelligence on Coinbase’s third-party risk practices, or similar vulnerabilities at other crypto platforms, submit it securely via Whistle42. Your identity will be protected. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesHackingTagsCoinbase

Excerpt A Financial Times video interview with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman unexpectedly turned into a viral marketing miracle for a small olive oil brand called Graza. Altman was seen cooking with Graza’s “Drizzle” olive oil—meant for finishing, not cooking—sparking an online debate and catapulting the brand into global awareness. This incident wasn’t just viral fluff—it’s a case study in how digitally native consumer brands can hijack moments, turn controversy into brand equity, and grow exponentially in the cyber finance era. 5 Key Points The Viral SparkSam Altman used the wrong Graza (www.graza.co) oil on camera, cooking with “Drizzle” instead of “Sizzle.” Social media erupted in mockery and curiosity—making Graza famous overnight. Perfectly Positioned for the Meme EconomyGraza responded in real time with wit, leveraging meme culture, TikTok explainers, and influencer reposts. A potential mistake became brand gold. Design + Direct-to-Consumer StrategySqueeze bottles, color-coded packaging, and a sharp visual identity differentiate Graza in a crowded EVOO market dominated by old-school brands. Refillable & ESG-FriendlyGraza pushes a refill system that reduces waste and aligns with Gen Z values around sustainability and authenticity. Backed by Startup VeteransFounded by Andrew Benin (ex-Magic Spoon, Hu Kitchen), Graza is funded by Imaginary Ventures and other top-tier consumer VCs, giving it both culinary cred and growth chops. Short Narrative In early 2025, Sam Altman gave an interview to the Financial Times, in which he was filmed cooking in his home kitchen using Graza “Drizzle”—a finishing oil not intended for heat. Altman as “Graze Influencer” provided a perfect marketing gig for the olive oil producer. TikTok and X (formerly Twitter) exploded with reactions ranging from culinary outrage to fanboy fascination. Instead of ignoring or apologizing, Graza jumped in, launching a playful “Drizzle vs. Sizzle” campaign across social media platforms. They leaned into the moment with transparency, humor, and speed—traits essential in the cyber economy. In less than 48 hours, Graza gained thousands of new followers, website traffic spiked, and refill orders surged. This wasn’t luck. It was strategy. Extended Analysis Graza is a textbook case of a brand engineered for Web2.5—the transitional phase between traditional commerce and a fully tokenized, attention-driven cyber economy. Strategic Elements: Packaging: Designed for usability and aesthetics, Graza’s bottles stand out in TikTok kitchens and retail shelves alike. Sustainability: With refillable pouch options, the brand aligns itself with ESG-conscious consumers and investors. Media Agility: Unlike legacy CPG firms, Graza uses reactive, real-time content creation—turning memes and discourse into sales. Digital Community Building: Graza isn’t just selling oil. It’s curating a community of food influencers, home chefs, and tech-forward millennials. Competitive Edge: Legacy olive oil brands like Bertolli or Filippo Berio lack direct-to-consumer strategies or social-first branding. Graza’s DTC model allows it to control margins, gather customer data, and innovate rapidly. Its challenge now is scaling without losing cool. Investment Implications Opportunity:Graza represents a new class of agile, meme-powered consumer brands with high upside potential and early M&A appeal for food conglomerates like Nestlé or General Mills. Watchlist:The brand must scale carefully to avoid alienating its digital-native base. Supply chain resilience, retention strategies, and international expansion will be key. Risk:A reliance on viral culture can be double-edged. Without sustained substance—quality, transparency, innovation—the hype can fade quickly. Recommendation or Warning FinTelegram Takeaway:Graza is more than just olive oil—it’s a signal brand for the cyber consumer generation. Its real-time growth from a viral mishap proves that product + personality + platform = power. For investors in the consumer space, Graza is a model worth tracking—and possibly betting on. Call for Information FinTelegram relies on courageous insiders, industry professionals, and concerned citizens to expose misconduct, financial crime, and regulatory failures. If you have relevant information about this case or other suspicious activities, please submit it securely via our whistleblower platform Whistle42.Your identity will remain protected. Together, we defend investor interests and financial integrity. Share Information via Whistle42 CategoriesInfluencers People RadarTagsAndrew BeninGrazeImaginary VenturesOpenAISam Altman