Connect with us

Business

Losses Could Reach Nearly One Billion: When Genius Failed…..Again

Published

10 minute read

Illustration by Daniel Medina

By Eric Salzman

The smartest guys in the room fall for the same scam twice in less than 5 years

THE SCHEME: Fraud and Money Laundering

THE COMPANY: Stenn Technologies

Racket News is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

THE NEWS: For the second time in five years, a scam involving sexing up a boring, centuries old financing business blew up in the faces of some of the world’s largest banks

You know the old saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…

In December, “fintech” supply chain financier Stenn Technologies and its subsidiaries Stenn Assets UK Ltd and Stenn International Ltd, collapsed, spanking investors and lenders such as Citigroup, Nexis, BNP Paribas, HSBC and private equity firm Centerbridge. Just a month prior to the blow-up, Stenn was viewed as a fintech unicorn with a robust $1 billion book of business, poised for strong growth.

As we’ve seen time and again, a unicorn can quickly die when a company’s business model screams fraud to anyone bothering to look.

Stenn Technologies claimed to use artificial intelligence and state of the art technology to analyze credit and money laundering risk in order to turn a low margin, supply chain financing business into an awesome, high return, low risk securitized product.

Here’s a quick explanation of supply chain financing:

1. A company delivers its product to a buyer and the buyer promises to pay in a few months’ time, creating an accounts receivable.

2. The company that has the accounts receivable sends it to the supply chain financier (Greensill Capital or Stenn Technologies).

3. The supply chain financier pays the company cash for the receivable minus a discount which is another business practice called factoring.

4. The buyer pays the financier the full amount of the receivable on the due date.

Supply chain financing is nothing new. It was probably around when Marco Polo set out for the Orient.

If it sounds boring, that’s because it is, or at least is supposed to be. Lex Greensill’s Greensill Capital changed that a decade ago.

Through fancy structuring, as well as four private jets, Greensill created a byzantine circular loop where money flowed around the world, much of it to Greensill favorites like steel maker Sanjeev Gupta and then back again. The operation was continuously funded by either GAM, Credit Suisse, SoftBank as well as Greensill’s own German bank, Greensill Bank AG. After a while, as more money poured into Greensill from eager investors, the company began to essentially just lend money out, mostly to Gupta while calling the transactions “future receivables.”

Greensill Capital collapsed under the weight of fraud in 2021, costing its big investors mentioned above billions. Matt reported on the story here in 2021.

Greensill’s receivable notes (the fancy structuring) were insured by a number of insurers, the biggest being Japanese insurer Tokio Marine. The insurance made investors comfortable because, if Tokio Marine insured it, the notes have to be money good, right?

Wrong.

At one point, Tokio had nearly $8 billion of exposure to Greensill deals. How insurers got comfortable with insuring receivables to a blizzard of shell companies that all seemed to point back to Gupta and Lex’s pockets is anyone’s guess, but when Tokio finally did a good look under the hood, they cried insurance fraud and Greensill came crashing down. Credit Suisse investors alone lost $10 billion.

At this point, we need to hear from Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott, better known as Scotty.

So now, we’re at the shame on you portion of the story.

Astoundingly, Stenn Technologies was able to pull off a similar scam just a couple of years later, posing as a fintech company, supposedly using the latest in technology to do global supply chain financing faster and better than everyone else in the business.

The victims are new, but given the high publicity of Greensill’s failure, you’d figure they would catch on.

According to Bloomberg News, “Stenn’s main backers were Citigroup Inc., BNP Paribas SA, Natixis and HSBC Holdings Plc while Barclays Plc, M&G Plc and Goldman Sachs Group also backed the transaction.”

Private equity firm Centerbridge invested $50 million in capital and valued the company at $900 million in 2022.

In 2022, TechCrunch described the secret sauce that Stenn was supposedly using to bring a 13th century business into the modern age.

Stenn — which applies big data analytics, taking a few datapoints about a business (the main two being what money it has coming in and going out based on invoices) and matching them up against an algorithm that takes some 1,000 other factors into account to determine its eligibility for a loan of up to $10 million; and on the other side taps a network of institutions and other big lenders to provide the capital for that financing.

Perhaps this multi-factor algorithm was super cool when they showed it to investors and lending partners. The only problem was Stenn, in the words of a business crime attorney who spoke to Bloomberg, “has all the hallmarks of both fraud and money laundering.”

Greensill might have been a bit hard to figure out with large, respected insurance companies insuring their notes.

But anyone who took the time to investigate Stenn Technologies by simply looking at the data they pumped out to investors weekly would have seen the scheme for what it was.

While it appears the previously mentioned institutional investors didn’t bother to investigate, Bloomberg did and the results were darkly hilarious.

Some of Stenn’s biggest suppliers were tiny companies in Thailand and Hong Kong with little in common yet corporate filings for all of them list the same Russian name as a backer. One in Singapore was accused by the U.S. of enabling payments to Russian naval intelligence and sanctioned in August. Tracing a group owned by another Russian investor that was supposedly shipping millions of dollars of goods to corporations in Switzerland and Canada led to a derelict Prague building with boarded-up windows.

Bloomberg contacted the largest 50 firms that were supposedly the buyers for what Stenn’s suppliers produced, and the bulk had no idea who Stenn Technologies or these suppliers were! A spokesman for Edion Corp., one of the biggest electronics retailers in Japan, told Bloomberg, “we have absolutely no knowledge of this matter. We really have no idea what it’s about.”

Essentially, the data produced by Stenn highlighted thousands of bogus transactions on a weekly basis to investors, lying about who was paying and who was receiving billions of dollars of funds. According to Bloomberg, investors received these details with the name of the suppliers and buyers included. Therefore, at any time, investors could have done a sanity check on these obscure suppliers to see who they were, or in this case, weren’t.

HSBC finally caught up to what Stenn was doing. Again from the Bloomberg report:

HSBC triggered Stenn’s downfall when it lodged an application to the UK courts, alleging that its officials had uncovered ‘deeply troubling issues on a large scale.’ The
invoices at the heart of the deal weren’t ‘genuine debts’ and payments to suppliers weren’t coming from ‘blue-chip companies’ but from bogus firms with similar names, according to the complaint filed by the London-based bank.

Investors are facing a potential loss of $200 million, although it could be a lot more as $978 million in invoiced-financed notes are outstanding, Bloomberg reports.

There is a bright side to Stenn’s collapse though. A senior trade finance official told The Sunday Times:

“The saving grace here is at least it’s smaller than Greensill.”

Well played.

Racket News is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Critics Accuse YouTube of Dragging Out Return Process for Banned Channels

Published on

logo

A promise to let banned creators return rings hollow when only select ones get a second chance.

Stand against censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

By

YouTube is being criticized for what many see as backpedaling on its commitment to free speech, after pledging to restore banned accounts, only to continue removing new channels created by previously banned figures.

The initial assurance came in a letter dated September 23, 2025, addressed to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.

In that communication, YouTube acknowledged its past enforcement actions, which included terminating channels over election-related and COVID-19 content under policies that have since changed. The company claimed that its current guidelines permit more room for such topics and asserted:

“Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the Company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”

The same day, YouTube posted a message on X describing a “limited pilot project” that would provide “a pathway back to YouTube for some terminated creators to set up a new channel.”

However, the platform immediately added that this option would only apply to a “subset” of creators.

The vagueness of the commitment raised suspicion, which intensified when two prominent figures, Infowars founder Alex Jones and “America First” host Nick Fuentes, launched new channels that were almost immediately taken down.

Cartoon purple monkey wearing a red cap holding a magnifying glass above the message "This page isn't available. Sorry about that. Try searching for something else." with the YouTube logo and a search bar below on a pale gray background.

On September 25, YouTube confirmed in a follow-up post that the pilot program wasn’t active yet and reiterated that users previously banned under its policies would have their new channels removed.

Screenshot of a tweet by verified Updates From YouTube (@UpdatesFromYT) stating that previously terminated creators trying to start new channels are still prohibited, the pilot program on terminations is not yet open, YouTube will terminate new channels from previously terminated users in accordance with Community Guidelines, and more details on a limited pilot program will be shared soon; posted Sep 25, 2025, 9:42 AM, 728.7K views.

This abrupt reversal drew widespread condemnation. Either YouTube is committed to backtracking on its mistakes or it’s not.

YouTube’s September 25 post was heavily ratioed, with users blasting the company for promoting a free speech revival while simultaneously doubling down on removals.

The disconnect between the public promise and its execution fueled accusations of insincerity.

While YouTube didn’t ban Jones and Fuentes under the now-defunct COVID or election integrity policies: Jones was booted in 2018 over what the platform labeled “hate speech,” and Fuentes was removed in 2020 for alleged violations of the same hate speech rule, many argue that the company’s overall stance still undermines the broader principle of open discourse.

By dragging out the reinstatement process and narrowing eligibility through an undefined pilot, YouTube is being accused of turning its supposed “commitment to free expression” into a hollow gesture.

The promise to Congress now appears to be less a genuine policy shift and more a tightly controlled PR maneuver.

Despite YouTube’s attempts to frame its evolving guidelines as a win for free speech, actions speak louder. Blocking even the chance to return, particularly after stating that creators could rejoin, reveals just how selective the platform remains in determining who gets to speak and who doesn’t.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

Fight censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom.

Get news updates, features, and alternative tech explorations to defend your digital rights.

Continue Reading

Business

BC Ferries: Emails Change Everything- Committee to Haul In Freeland & Co.

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Freeland, Public Safety, Seaspan, Irving, Ontario yards and unions to appear as MPs probe what Ottawa knew and when.

In Ottawa they call it “arm’s-length.” Out in the real world, people call it duck-and-cover. At Meeting No. 6 of the House of Commons transport committee, MPs confronted a simple, damning timeline: Transport Canada’s top non-partisan official was warned six weeks before the public announcement that BC Ferries would award a four-ship contract to a Chinese state-owned yard. Yet the former transport minister, Chrystia Freeland, told Parliament she was “shocked.” Those two facts do not coexist in nature. One is true, or the other is not.

There’s an even bigger betrayal hiding in plain sight. In the last election, this Liberal government campaigned on a Canada-first message—jobs here, supply chains here, steel here. And then, when it actually mattered, they watched a billion-dollar ferry order sail to a PRC state yard with no Canadian-content requirement attached to the federal financing. So much for “Canada first.” Turns out it was “Canada… eventually,” after the press release.

Conservatives put the revelation on the record and asked the only question that matters in a democracy: what did the minister know and when did she know it? The documents they cite don’t suggest confusion; they suggest choreography—ministerial staff emailing the Prime Minister’s Office on how to manage the announcement rather than stop the deal that offshored Canadian work to a Chinese state firm.

Follow the money and it gets worse. A federal Crown lender—the Canada Infrastructure Bank—underwrote $1 billion for BC Ferries and attached no Canadian-content requirement to the financing. In plain English: taxpayers took the risk, Beijing got the jobs. The paper trail presented to MPs is smothered in black ink—hundreds of pages of redactions—with one stray breadcrumb: a partially visible BC Hydro analysis suggesting roughly half a billion dollars in B.C. terminal upgrades to make the “green” ferry plan work. You’re not supposed to see that. You almost didn’t.

How did the government side respond? With a jurisdictional shrug. We’re told, over and over, that BC Ferries is a provincial, arm’s-length corporation; the feds didn’t pick the yard, don’t run the procurement, and therefore shouldn’t be blamed. That line is convenient, and in a technical sense it’s tidy. But it wilts under heat. The federal lender is still federal. The money is still public. If “arm’s-length” means “no accountability,” it’s not a governance model—it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The fallback argument is economic fatalism: no Canadian shipyards bid, we’re told; building here would have taken longer and cost “billions” more. Maybe that’s true, maybe it isn’t—but it’s the sort of claim that demands evidence, not condescension. Because the last time Canadians heard this script, the same political class promised that global supply chains were efficient, cheap and safe. Then reality happened. If domestic capacity is too weak to compete, that’s not an argument for outsourcing permanently; it’s an indictment of the people who let that capacity atrophy. And if you swear “Canada first” on the campaign trail, you don’t bankroll “China first” from the Treasury bench.

Even the process looked like a master class in delay. The committee repeatedly suspended to “circulate” and “review” lengthy motions, while edits ricocheted across the witness list. There were pushes to pare back which ministers would appear at all, and counter-moves to tuck sensitive testimony behind closed doors. In the end, members nudged toward a compromise—Public Safety in open session, other national-security witnesses in camera—but the pattern was unmistakable: every procedural minute spent on choreography was a minute not spent on the timeline.

And after all that stalling, here’s who they’re hauling in—because even Ottawa’s fog machine couldn’t hide the paper trail forever.

They moved to recall Chrystia Freeland herself—the minister who claimed to be “shocked” after her own department had a six-week head start. She’s the centerpiece witness, and rightly so.

On the security front, the Public Safety Minister is slated for an hour in public, followed by an hour with officials, while the national-security reviewers will give their evidence in camera—translation: the part you most want to hear will happen behind closed doors.

Industry voices are on deck too: Seaspan (the transcript garbles it as “C-Span”), Irving Shipbuilding, plus labour and trade heavyweights—the BC Ferries & Marine Workers’ Union, BC Building Trades, the BC Federation of Labour, the Shipyard General Workers Federation, and the Canadian steel producers—the people who can say, under oath, exactly what Ottawa knew and when the alarm bells rang.

They even tacked on Ontario shipyards via a “friendly amendment”—because apparently no one thought to ask central Canada’s yards until the story blew up.

And then the hedge: Liberals worked the amendments to pare back which ministers would face the lights—especially Revenue and Labour—prompting Conservatives to call the move “intolerable.” In other words, invite the easy witnesses, bury the consequential ones. The fight over those two remained live at that point.

So yes, the committee will finally hear from the people who matter—Freeland, Public Safety, shipyards, unions, steel. But notice the choreography: showcase the safe bits in public, tuck the sensitive parts out of view, and keep chipping away at the ministerial witness list. That’s not transparency; that’s stage management with a security badge.

Strip away the talking points and what remains are questions no serious government would duck. When did the minister learn the contract was going to China? What did her office tell the PMO and when? Why did a federal loan—the leverage Ottawa actually controls—carry zero requirement to build any of it here? And why are the documents that might answer those questions buried under redactions thick enough to pave a road?

Canadians are not children. They understand that ferries are essential and that delays are costly. They also understand something else: when a government runs on Canada first and then cheers from the dock as the jobs steam away, that’s not “arm’s-length.” That’s arm’s-length accountability—which is to say, none. Until the emails are unredacted and Chrystia Freeland answers the timeline under oath, the government’s position amounts to this: trust us, the money’s independent, the decisions were someone else’s, and the facts you’re not allowed to see fully vindicate us. Sure. And the check is in the mail.


Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

I’m an independent Canadian journalist exposing corruption, delivering unfiltered truths and untold stories.
Join me on Substack for fearless reporting that goes beyond headlines
Continue Reading

Trending

X