 |
THE CRYPTO PONZI SCHEME AVENGERAuthor: DANNY DE HEK
I investigate organised fraud and name the people behind it no filters, no fear, no takedowns.Im Danny de Hek, a New York Timesfeatured investigative journalist exposing scams, Ponzi schemes, and MLM frauds through DANNY DE HEK INVESTIGATIONS.Every episode is drawn from my real investigations solo recordings that call out scammers, dissect fraudulent networks, and uncover the digital evidence they try to hide.There are no guests, no scripts, and no polite conversations just raw, unfiltered truth. When you listen to this podcast, youre hearing the same investigations that appear on my YouTube channel and website, available across 18 platforms so the truth cant be silenced.Expose. Protect. Take action. Language: en-nz Genres: News, Tech News, Technology Contact email: Get it Feed URL: Get it iTunes ID: Get it |
Listen Now...
Goliath Ventures Inc & Orlando Economic Partnership (OEP): Ignored Warning, $190K Repayment
Episode 1192
Thursday, 23 April, 2026
I warned them — in writing — months before the collapse. What followed wasn’t confusion or a missed email. It was silence. And now, through bankruptcy filings and a court-approved settlement, the money trail tells a very different story about Goliath Ventures Inc and the Orlando Economic Partnership.*POLLS**Ignored warning or just “missed the email”? What really happened here?*Ignored it completely (35%)“Top Investor” blinded them (35%)Didn’t want to know (25%)Spam folder excuse (5%)Poll complete: 20 votes*THE WARNING*On September 21, 2025, I sent a formal email to the Orlando Economic Partnership. It was detailed, direct, and backed by evidence. I outlined concerns that Goliath Ventures was operating as a crypto-based Ponzi scheme — fixed returns, no verifiable trading, and growing concern from victims and whistleblowers.I warned them clearly: by listing Goliath as a “Top Investor,” they were lending credibility to something that didn’t add up. I recommended they remove the listing and carry out proper due diligence.The email was received.There was no response.*THE CREDIBILITY SIGNAL*At the time, Goliath Ventures continued to appear on their website as a trusted contributor. That kind of association matters. It signals legitimacy to outsiders — especially investors who assume someone has done the checks.What wasn’t visible then is now confirmed.Goliath Ventures paid $200,000 for a top-tier membership. That wasn’t organic credibility. It was purchased positioning — visibility, association, and perceived trust.That’s how these operations often work. When the business model doesn’t stand up, money gets redirected into external validation.*THE STORY BREAKS*Months later, the situation reached the media. A report confirmed the Orlando Economic Partnership had received my warning — and failed to act.The article quoted my email and confirmed the timeline. It also confirmed something just as important: the warning wasn’t hidden. It was sent to leadership and copied widely across the organisation.And then came silence.By the time this became public, the damage had already been done. The endorsement remained in place during the period when the scheme was still attracting participants.*THE COURT STEPS IN*The next phase doesn’t come from marketing or media. It comes from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.In the filing, the Receiver states he “quickly identified meaningful evidence that a Ponzi scheme was perpetrated” through Goliath Ventures.That’s not speculation. That’s a legal finding based on financial investigation.At that point, the focus shifts from what was promised to what actually happened to the money.*FOLLOWING THE MONEY*One key transaction stands out — a $200,000 payment to the Orlando Economic Partnership.Not for investment. Not for trading.For membership.The filing makes it clear there was no meaningful interaction beyond that transfer. It wasn’t an operational relationship. It was a one-way transaction tied to visibility.Money out — credibility in.*THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK*Once a Ponzi structure is identified, recovery begins.Under the Ponzi presumption, transfers made during the scheme can be challenged. The Receiver can attempt to claw back funds, even from recipients who weren’t directly involved.The likely defence is good faith — that the payment was accepted without knowledge of wrongdoing.But there’s a counterpoint.ABuy Me a Coffee I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.Support the show
