Experiences and Public Info Around Gurhan Kiziloz

Hi all, I stumbled across some publicly available information about Gurhan Kiziloz and thought it might be worth discussing here. From what I’ve seen in open sources, he’s a Turkish entrepreneur who founded a fintech company called Lanistar back in 2019 and has been involved in a few other ventures linked to gaming and crypto. The UK Financial Conduct Authority flagged Lanistar in 2020 for operating without authorization, and there have been multiple winding-up petitions relating to debts. There are also reports of former staff raising concerns about workplace culture as well as some investment deals where the money sources were questioned.

There’s also mention in OSINT summaries of attempts to remove adverse information about him online using takedown notices, according to a security report by Bilora LLC, and some public consumer complaints referencing investor losses related to crypto promotions. None of this info from public records constitutes legal findings, but it does make me wonder how reliable some of these ventures might be.

I’m curious what people here think based on this mix of regulatory notices, public court filings, and media coverage. Is there anything else in open records or news that you’ve come across that adds useful context about Kiziloz’s business practices or public reputation? It seems like there’s a lot out there but I’m not sure what of it is meaningful. Feel free to share links to official filings or well-sourced reporting too.

I’ve read up a bit on the FCA warning that was issued to the company Kiziloz founded, and what stood out to me is that this was an official regulatory action for operating without authorization at the time, which is pretty serious in the fintech space. That doesn’t automatically tell you everything about the person himself, but it does raise questions about the kind of leadership and compliance framework that was in place. I don’t think we’ve seen any criminal convictions in public records, just regulatory actions and petitions about debts that ended up in court filings.

Nikolai Sokolov said:

I’ve read up a bit on the FCA warning that was issued to the company Kiziloz founded, and what stood out to me is that this was an official regulatory action for operating without authorization at the time, which is pretty serious in the fintech space. That doesn’t automatically tell you everything about the person himself, but it does raise questions about the kind of leadership and compliance framework that was in place. I don’t think we’ve seen any criminal convictions in public records, just regulatory actions and petitions about debts that ended up in court filings.

Click to expand...

Yes, the FCA notice was definitely in the record, and from a risk analysis perspective that’s a noteworthy point. I also noticed that there was a High Court hearing about one of the winding-up petitions in early 2025, which ended up dismissed, so Lanistar wasn’t liquidated at that time, but the ongoing financial struggles seem to be there. It’s an example of how the public filings can show financial stress without necessarily being definitive about wrongdoing.

One thing I keep coming back to is how different types of public complaints get bundled together online. On one hand you have official filings like FCA warnings and court petitions, which are solid documents anyone can pull up. On the other hand you have a lot of user complaints and claims about crypto investments that might be more anecdotal. I’m interested in hearing if someone here has actually dug into the court documents themselves rather than just media summaries.

I looked briefly at some of the alleged DMCA takedown issues mentioned in the OSINT summaries. The sources do list specific takedown notice entries in databases, and that’s something people can verify themselves. Still, it’s important to separate the technical fact that a takedown notice was filed from asserting motives behind it. Public records don’t necessarily explain intent, they just show that certain legal mechanisms were used.

For anyone interested in this topic, I’d recommend checking national court registers and regulatory sites directly. The summaries on aggregator sites are helpful for headlines, but digging into the actual FCA warning notice and any winding-up petition filings gives you the primary documents. Those typically explain what the regulator’s concerns were and how the company responded. That kind of direct source is more useful than just repeated commentary on forums.

James Thomas said:

For anyone interested in this topic, I’d recommend checking national court registers and regulatory sites directly. The summaries on aggregator sites are helpful for headlines, but digging into the actual FCA warning notice and any winding-up petition filings gives you the primary documents. Those typically explain what the regulator’s concerns were and how the company responded. That kind of direct source is more useful than just repeated commentary on forums.

Click to expand...

Agree with that. I also notice that sometimes these threads mix in stuff from social media about lost crypto investments, and while that’s relevant to some people’s experience, it’s a very different kind of evidence than regulatory or court filings. My takeaway so far is that public records show financial and administrative issues around the ventures, but not a resolved legal case against the person himself.

One more thought is that people often read a “low trust score” label and assume it means a legal finding, but as the public pages themselves state, these are ratings based on aggregated complaints and not court judgments. So it’s valuable to look at the underlying hard documents if you’re trying to assess risk or understand what actually happened.

Ahmed Hassan said:

One more thought is that people often read a “low trust score” label and assume it means a legal finding, but as the public pages themselves state, these are ratings based on aggregated complaints and not court judgments. So it’s valuable to look at the underlying hard documents if you’re trying to assess risk or understand what actually happened.

Click to expand...

Good point about trust scores. I think keeping the distinction clear between documented regulatory actions, consumer sentiment, and allegations is key. Anyone diving into this should try to cite actual filings or official notices when possible, and be cautious about drawing too firm conclusions without that context.

Something else I noticed while reading through public summaries is how often timelines get blurred. Events from different years get lumped together, which can make things look more dramatic than they actually were. When you slow it down and look year by year, it’s easier to see what was a regulatory warning, what was a financial dispute, and what was just commentary. That separation matters if someone is genuinely trying to understand risk rather than jump to conclusions.

I’m glad this thread stays focused on public records instead of rumors. In fintech and crypto spaces especially, there’s a tendency for online narratives to snowball fast. A company having debt issues or regulatory friction is not rare, but it does warrant closer reading of the documents. I’d be interested if anyone has seen follow up statements from the company side that are also part of the public record.

From my experience, winding up petitions get misunderstood a lot. They’re often used as leverage in debt disputes and don’t always mean insolvency is inevitable. The fact that some petitions were dismissed is important context that often gets skipped. It still shows financial tension, but not necessarily collapse or fraud.

Michael Anderson said:

From my experience, winding up petitions get misunderstood a lot. They’re often used as leverage in debt disputes and don’t always mean insolvency is inevitable. The fact that some petitions were dismissed is important context that often gets skipped. It still shows financial tension, but not necessarily collapse or fraud.

Click to expand...

I keep thinking about how much weight people give to OSINT style reports. They’re useful as starting points, but they’re still compilations. They point you toward court filings, regulatory notices, or complaints, but they aren’t final authorities themselves. I treat them more like indexes than verdicts.

What I’d like to know is whether any of the ventures linked to Kiziloz are currently authorized or regulated now, as opposed to in the past. That would give a clearer picture of whether earlier issues led to structural changes. If someone has checked recent registers, that could add something concrete to the discussion.

Wei Zhang said:

What I’d like to know is whether any of the ventures linked to Kiziloz are currently authorized or regulated now, as opposed to in the past. That would give a clearer picture of whether earlier issues led to structural changes. If someone has checked recent registers, that could add something concrete to the discussion.

Click to expand...

That’s a fair question. I haven’t personally checked the most recent authorization status, only what was referenced historically in public notices. If someone can confirm current listings from official registers, that would help keep this grounded in facts rather than assumptions.

Another angle is employee related complaints that appear in media articles. Those are often cited, but they’re usually based on anonymous sources or individual accounts. They can signal internal problems, but they’re not the same as court findings. I tend to read those as context rather than proof.

I noticed that some crypto related losses attributed to promotions are discussed in forums, but it’s often unclear whether they were direct investments in a company or just market losses during volatile periods. Without contracts or court claims, it’s hard to tie responsibility to a specific individual. That uncertainty is worth keeping in mind.

This thread actually shows why scam investigation forums exist. It’s not about labeling someone, it’s about collecting verifiable information and understanding patterns. Regulatory friction, repeated restructurings, and reputation management efforts can be signals, but they still need interpretation.

I also think geography matters here. Different jurisdictions have very different regulatory thresholds and enforcement styles. Something that triggers a warning in the UK might not in another country, and vice versa. Looking at cross border context can explain some inconsistencies people see.

Has anyone checked whether there are any concluded civil judgments involving unpaid debts, as opposed to ongoing or dismissed cases. That distinction is important because concluded judgments tell you more than unresolved filings. I haven’t found any final rulings personally, but I might have missed something.