Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar

A summary of what happened?

Gurhan Kiziloz is the founder and CEO of Lanistar, a UK-based fintech company established in 2019. Lanistar aimed to revolutionize digital payments with its “polymorphic” debit card, which could link up to eight bank cards, offering users enhanced financial management through open banking technology. Despite initial enthusiasm and significant promotional efforts, Lanistar and Kiziloz have faced multiple controversies and challenges.

1. Regulatory Scrutiny:

• Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Warning: In November 2020, the UK’s FCA issued a consumer warning against Lanistar, stating that the company was providing financial services or products without proper authorization. This raised concerns about the company’s compliance with regulatory standards. Lanistar responded by asserting that it was not offering financial services without authorization and was in the process of securing necessary approvals. Subsequently, the FCA removed the warning after Lanistar made certain changes.
  City A.M.

2. Internal Management Issues:

• Employee Allegations: In August 2021, reports surfaced from seven former employees alleging a toxic work environment at Lanistar. Accusations included routine sexual harassment, bullying, and the establishment of a “loser’s table” for staff who failed to meet targets, leading to significant concerns about the company’s internal culture.
  PE News
• Operational Challenges: Lanistar faced operational difficulties, including delays in product launches, layoffs, and late wage payments. These issues contributed to low employee morale and raised questions about the company’s management practices.
  Sifted

3. Cryptocurrency Ventures:

• Failed Crypto Initiatives: Kiziloz ventured into the cryptocurrency market by launching a series of meme coins, including “Big Eyes.” These coins were aggressively promoted but experienced significant value declines post-launch, resulting in substantial investor losses. The promotions were conducted through The World Press Release Organisation (WPRO), a firm associated with Kiziloz, leading to allegations of deceptive marketing practices.
  Fn London

4. Financial Difficulties:

• Winding-Up Petition: In September 2023, Lanistar faced a winding-up petition over unpaid rent at its London headquarters, indicating severe financial distress. Although the company settled its debt before a liquidation hearing in October 2023, this incident highlighted ongoing financial challenges.
  Fn London

5. Controversial Appointments:

• Advisory Board Controversy: Lanistar appointed former UK Defence Secretary Sir Gavin Williamson to its advisory board. This decision attracted criticism due to Williamson’s association with a company facing regulatory scrutiny and financial instability, raising questions about the judgment of both the company and the politician.
  Fn London

Under Gurhan Kiziloz’s leadership, Lanistar has encountered significant controversies, including regulatory warnings, internal management issues, failed cryptocurrency ventures, financial difficulties, and contentious advisory appointments. These challenges have cast doubt on the company’s operational viability and ethical standards, impacting its reputation in the fintech industry.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Gurhan Kiziloz - Lanistar trying to hide?

Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report on Gurhan Kiziloz and Lanistar: Promises, Controversies, and Financial Turmoil

Introduction

Gurhan Kiziloz is the founder and CEO of Lanistar, a fintech company launched in 2019 with the promise of disrupting the digital payments space. Positioned as a revolutionary “polymorphic” card provider, Lanistar aimed to simplify financial management by consolidating multiple bank accounts into one card using open banking technology. However, Lanistar’s ambitious promises were overshadowed by regulatory warnings, allegations of mismanagement, internal controversies, and failed ventures, particularly in cryptocurrency.

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the controversies surrounding Gurhan Kiziloz and Lanistar, including regulatory scrutiny, operational failures, and financial missteps.

1. Regulatory Scrutiny and Early Challenges

1.1. FCA Warning Against Lanistar

In November 2020, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a consumer warning against Lanistar, stating the company was providing financial services or products without the necessary authorization. This warning cast a shadow over Lanistar’s ambitious launch, as the FCA explicitly cautioned consumers against engaging with the platform.

• Company Response:
  • Lanistar claimed the warning was a misunderstanding, emphasizing that it did not directly offer financial services but instead acted as a technology platform partnered with licensed firms.
  • The company announced efforts to align with regulatory requirements, and the FCA eventually removed the warning after Lanistar took corrective measures.
• Impact on Reputation:
  • The FCA warning raised concerns about the company’s transparency and readiness to operate in a highly regulated fintech environment. This early misstep dented Lanistar’s credibility among consumers and investors.

2. Internal Management and Workplace Allegations

2.1. Toxic Work Environment

In August 2021, several former employees accused Lanistar of fostering a toxic workplace culture. Allegations included:

• Sexual Harassment and Bullying:
  • Employees reported incidents of sexual harassment and routine bullying by senior management. This behavior allegedly went unchecked, creating a hostile work environment.
• “Loser’s Table” Punishments:
  • A particularly egregious claim involved the establishment of a “loser’s table” in the office, where underperforming staff were publicly shamed by being forced to sit and work. This practice demoralized employees and contributed to widespread dissatisfaction.

2.2. Late Payments and Layoffs

Lanistar reportedly struggled with delayed wage payments and abrupt layoffs, exacerbating tensions within the workforce:

• Employees alleged that wages were frequently paid late, and in some cases, severance packages for laid-off staff were not honored promptly.
• These operational difficulties fueled suspicions of deeper financial instability within the company.

3. Financial Difficulties

3.1. Winding-Up Petition

In September 2023, Lanistar faced a winding-up petition over unpaid rent at its London headquarters. The petition, which effectively sought to liquidate the company’s assets to recover debts, highlighted Lanistar’s precarious financial position.

• Resolution:
  • Before the liquidation hearing in October 2023, Lanistar settled the outstanding debt, narrowly avoiding being forced into liquidation. This incident underscored the company’s ongoing financial difficulties.

3.2. Investor Concerns

The financial challenges at Lanistar led to skepticism among investors, who questioned the company’s ability to deliver on its promises and sustain operations.

• Stock Market Impact:
  • Although Lanistar is not a publicly traded company, its troubles significantly impacted its credibility within the fintech investment community.

4. Cryptocurrency Ventures

4.1. Big Eyes and Meme Coin Failures

Kiziloz ventured into cryptocurrency markets with a series of meme coins, including “Big Eyes,” which were aggressively promoted to retail investors. These ventures, however, became another point of controversy:

• Marketing Allegations:
  • Promotions for the coins were facilitated through The World Press Release Organisation (WPRO), a firm associated with Kiziloz. Critics alleged that the promotional campaigns misled investors by exaggerating the coins’ potential for high returns.
• Investor Losses:
  • Post-launch, these cryptocurrencies experienced significant value declines, resulting in substantial financial losses for investors. Many accused Kiziloz of exploiting market hype for personal gain.

4.2. Ethical Concerns

The aggressive promotion and subsequent failure of these coins raised questions about Kiziloz’s ethical practices and his commitment to protecting investors.

5. Controversial Advisory Board Appointment

In an effort to bolster Lanistar’s reputation, the company appointed Sir Gavin Williamson, a former UK Defence Secretary, to its advisory board. While the appointment was intended to lend credibility to Lanistar, it attracted significant criticism:

• Public Backlash:
  • Critics questioned why a politician with limited financial or fintech experience would align with a company facing regulatory and financial challenges.
  • Williamson’s association with Lanistar sparked debates about the appropriateness of politicians engaging with troubled private enterprises.

6. Customer Feedback and Negative Reviews

Lanistar’s ambitious claims about revolutionizing payments faced a reality check from early adopters and customers:

• Delayed Product Launches:
  • Many customers complained about delays in receiving the polymorphic debit card, with some waiting months beyond promised delivery dates.
• Functionality Issues:
  • Users reported technical issues with the app and the card, undermining the company’s promises of seamless integration and usability.
• Customer Support Complaints:
  • Customers frequently criticized the company’s lack of responsive and effective customer support, further damaging its reputation.

7. Broader Implications and Industry Perception

Lanistar’s trajectory under Gurhan Kiziloz serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of balancing bold innovation with regulatory compliance and operational stability:

• Regulatory Oversight:
  • The FCA’s intervention highlighted the need for startups in regulated industries to prioritize compliance before scaling operations.
• Workplace Culture:
  • Allegations of harassment, bullying, and financial mismanagement underline the importance of cultivating ethical leadership and employee trust.
• Cryptocurrency Risks:
  • Kiziloz’s failed crypto ventures demonstrate the volatility and reputational risks associated with speculative markets.

Conclusion

Gurhan Kiziloz’s leadership at Lanistar has been marked by a mix of ambitious vision and significant controversies. From regulatory warnings and workplace allegations to financial difficulties and failed ventures, Lanistar’s journey reveals deep operational and ethical challenges. While the company has avoided complete collapse, its reputation remains severely tarnished, casting doubt on its ability to fulfill its original promise of disrupting the fintech space.

For fintech startups, Lanistar’s experience serves as a critical lesson in the importance of regulatory compliance, ethical governance, and maintaining transparency with employees, customers, and investors. Whether Lanistar can recover and rebuild trust remains to be seen, but its past controversies will likely linger as a cautionary tale for the industry.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar (or actors working on behalf of Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar), we will inform Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Gurhan Kiziloz - Lanistar

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Gurhan Kiziloz - Lanistar Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar is in great company ….

What else is Gurhan Kiziloz - Lanistar hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Gurhan Kiziloz – Lanistar that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.