Coller Says Cybercriminals Posing as the PE Secondaries Firm
Save
Secondaries investor Coller Capital said cybercriminals are exploiting its brand to tout questionable investment opportunities, in some cases masquerading as senior figures at the private-assets firm.
Cybercriminals have created fake websites made to look like Coller Capital's site and fraudulent WhatsApp groups that often involve cryptocurrency scams, the firm said in a disclaimer on its website labeled 'important notice.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Entrepreneur
a minute ago
- Entrepreneur
Food52 Exec Stole at Least $270K, Used Company Credit Card
Siloed departments and non-human expense-reporting software helped an employee scam her company out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. A former Food52 executive, Shannon Muldoon, 38, recently took a plea deal for making personal charges on the company credit card — for more than $270,000. Muldoon was indicted in August 2024 for one count of grand larceny in the second degree, but she won't face jail time; she accepted a plea deal earlier this summer for five years of probation, per an exposé this week from The Cut. "She basically walked away with all of the clothes. And the memories," a coworker told the outlet. Related: Another '30-Under-30' Business Superstar Was Convicted of Fraud — This Time for Defrauding JPMorgan Chase Out of $175M Muldoon was running Food52's branded content arm, Studio 52, and was issued a company credit card. According to the report, from 2021 to 2023, she charged hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expenses, including Botox, fancy gyms, designer clothes, and travel to wellness retreats. There were excessive charges from the luxury clothing site, Net-a-Porter, despite Food52's policy of not providing clothes for talent at photo shoots. (Executives learned of this policy after the fact.) Sophie Nathan, Shannon Muldoon, and Christine Tebcherany attend "Fitness Junkie" Book Launch at Longchamp on July 11, 2017, in New York City. Sean Zanni/Patrick McMullan | Getty Images However, Muldoon was keeping the expensing and labeling up to code, and the software that tracked employee expense reports didn't catch anything, according to the report. But after a company reorganization in 2022 and Muldoon taking extensive time off in 2023, colleagues began questioning things like why producing their videos was so expensive and how Muldoon afforded her lifestyle, which she was showcasing on Instagram. "The $270,000 in unauthorized purchases is a very conservative estimate as to Ms. Muldoon's theft," the Manhattan DA's office said, according to court documents seen by The Cut. "Our investigation showed additional unauthorized purchases from other luxury clothing brands, furniture companies, and other travel-related charges." Related: The Latest on Art World Scam Artist Anna 'Delvey' Sorokin Future Commerce points out that this case highlights a major failure of corporate oversight and how modern, automated expensing systems and approval processes can "enable years of unchecked financial abuse." The Cut reported that Muldoon has paid $15,000 in restitution so far, but could face penalties up to $262,000, which will be determined in September. Join top CEOs, founders and operators at the Level Up conference to unlock strategies for scaling your business, boosting revenue and building sustainable success.
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Sir Jim Ratcliffe's INEOS counter-suing Tottenham relating to Harry Kane's Bayern Munich move
Sir Jim Ratcliffe's car company INEOS Automotive is counter-suing Tottenham Hotspur for more than £1million. In legal documents filed to the High Court earlier this month, INEOS' lawyers have disputed Tottenham's claim from June, in which the Premier League club sued the company for £11million ($14.8m). Advertisement The legal dispute centres on the 'Official Partnership Agreement' between Tottenham and INEOS that was signed in December 2022. This agreement was intended to grant INEOS commercial sponsorship rights for almost five years, specifically relating to the 'INEOS Grenadier' brand in exchange for almost £17.5m in sponsorship fees, not including indexation. That sponsorship deal has now collapsed. Tottenham argued in their 'Particulars of Claim', filed to the High Court in June and seen by The Athletic, that they terminated the agreement on March 11 this year. They cited INEOS' failure to pay an indexation payment of almost £480,000, which was due by 16 August 2024, and a sponsorship fee of £5.1m, which was due by 1 December 2024, as well as another interest charge of almost £300,000. Tottenham's claim describes the failure to pay as a 'material breach of the agreement'. Tottenham have also claimed damages of more than £5.2m for breach of contract. INEOS has always maintained their right to terminate the agreement. In INEOS' 'Defence and Counterclaim', also seen by The Athletic, they argue that the company wrote to terminate the agreement in a letter dated December 6 2024, in effect from 30 June 2025. Their argument is that neither the indexation payment of almost £480,000 nor the sponsorship fee of £5.1m are therefore payable. INEOS further argue that Tottenham were 'not entitled to terminate the Agreement'. INEOS' counterclaim argues that Tottenham 'failed to grant' INEOS rights from 11 March 2025, when they wrote to INEOS to terminate the agreement, until 30 June 2025, 'when the Agreement terminated pursuant to the INEOS Termination Letter'. For these 112 days, INEOS has claimed damages of £1,073,972.60. The INEOS' counterclaim also makes reference to discussions between Tottenham and German car giant Audi at the time that Harry Kane was transferred from Tottenham to Bayern Munich in the summer of 2023. The 'Defence and Counterclaim' starts by referring to a 'highly significant series of events' in which Tottenham 'started negotiating with a major competitor to INEOS'. The counterclaim argues that the club 'was not entitled to have discussions with a Competitor in connection with any rights which were the same as, or substantially similar to, the Rights granted to INEOS'. Advertisement The document states that, on August 3 2023, Tottenham's then-chief commercial officer Todd Kline told INEOS chairman Ashley Reed he 'had been in discussions' with Audi: 'According to Mr Kline, the discussions and/or negotiations related to a proposed transfer of the Club's player Harry Kane to the German club FC Bayern Munich.' According to the document, this led to discussions which brought about a new agreement between Tottenham and INEOS, under the terms of which INEOS had the right to terminate the agreement after its third year, provided that INEOS provided the Club with no less than six months' written notice. Tottenham Hotspur declined to comment. Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle
Forbes
2 minutes ago
- Forbes
Economists Are Still Puzzled By Bitcoin—Should Anyone Be?
When one of the world's leading macroeconomists publicly apologizes for underestimating Bitcoin, it's worth paying attention. Ken Rogoff is a formidable scholar, and over the last decade—from my professor days at MIT to the design of Libra—I've learned a great deal from conversations with him. He has trained some of the best macroeconomists in the market, and I was fortunate to persuade a few to take crypto seriously, work with me over the years, and help move the space forward. But on Bitcoin, even after his mea culpa, Rogoff is still wrong. And I don't blame him. Much of what Bitcoin is, and represents, is an architectural departure from the macro playbook of recent decades. When I was a junior professor trying to understand cryptocurrencies and designing the MIT Bitcoin experiment, many senior colleagues worried I was throwing away a promising academic career on what they saw as a Ponzi scheme. As his Harvard colleague Rebecca Henderson has shown in her pioneering work on innovation, the changes that truly challenge incumbents are architectural—subtle structural shifts in how the pieces fit together. They're hard for those steeped in the status quo to grasp—even when they want to—so they get dismissed until they're obvious. Bitcoin is one of those architectural innovations in how we think about money and financial infrastructure. That's why many economists have a visceral reaction: it runs against much of what they've been taught and believe in. Concede the textbook: when done well, monetary policy can be extremely helpful. Confront the practice: few central banks are truly independent, fewer still consistent. Treat Bitcoin as a neutral asset and financial infrastructure, and the true pattern comes into focus. A Digital Gold Rush In a gold rush, it is important to not get caught in the frenzy—unless you're selling shovels and you profit regardless of the outcome. But is Bitcoin just a frenzy? More than a decade on, the answer is no, for a simple reason: Satoshi Nakamoto solved a thorny computer‑science problem—the double‑spending problem. Before Bitcoin, any digital money needed someone to control the ledger—a central bank, financial institution, or wallet provider. With cryptography and incentives, Satoshi created a currency that's scarce, hard to copy, and neutral: no one's in charge of defining ownership or recording transfers. Bitcoin's neutrality is novel. Though often compared to gold, its properties are different enough to be category‑defining. Yes, both are scarce, both swing in price, and both hold value because society agrees they do. Gold has industrial and jewelry uses, but most of its value comes from its role as a store of value. And while gold has the advantage of centuries, as more of life moves online, a digitally native asset like Bitcoin has unique advantages—from spending to custody. Finally, Bitcoin's utility goes beyond the asset: its network can operate as an open, neutral settlement layer—especially as scaling tech raises throughput to meet real‑world payments demand. What is a neutral form of digital money—and an open protocol for moving value—worth to society? Unpacking the Bitcoin Price Media and crypto community obsess over price swings, but on a log scale much of the drama fades and a steadier trend appears. That pattern matches the diffusion of innovation along an S‑curve—popularized by Everett Rogers—where a new technology works through successive segments of adopters. Bitcoin incubated within a small community of cypherpunks and developers. As its price rose, it drew a broader group of early adopters; then consumers and businesses—often in countries with unstable currencies—embraced it as an alternative savings tool and, at times, payment rails. Today, large financial institutions offer it, and sovereigns increasingly eye it to shape fintech and investment strategy. This diffusion process, combined with Bitcoin's fixed 21 million supply, inevitably translates the S-curve into a slow and steady price growth. So while regulatory and market uncertainty drive short-term swings, over longer periods of time addressable‑market expansion explains more of the data. What's Bitcoin's equilibrium price? Unknown—and it hinges on where we are on the S‑curve. If Bitcoin stays niche, the price could stall. If it goes truly mainstream, further exponential growth is possible. Investors model this against gold, the value of payment and card networks, and more. It's also prudent to consider the risk that some technological breakthrough or failure may render Bitcoin obsolete. Reassuringly, despite billions raised by would‑be alternatives, none has matched Bitcoin's network effects or institutional acceptance. Money‑As‑Software As our tools for recording debits and credits have evolved, so has our idea of money: from shells and beads to salt, metals, paper notes, and ultimately database entries—alongside the rise of central bank independence. Through booms and crises we've oscillated between harder and more flexible money—a pendulum swinging between the needs of creditors and debtors. Given that history, it isn't unreasonable to think that a hard, neutral money secured by cryptographic keys could play a real role in global finance—and possibly be what comes next. Like every form of money before it, Bitcoin has value because enough people agree it does—and as consensus grows, its trajectory looks more like gold's. That belief powers the 'all‑in' Bitcoin treasury companies—Strategy, Trump Media & Technology Group, and Twenty One—backed by SoftBank, Tether, and the Commerce Secretary's son's firm, Cantor Fitzgerald. Their logic: if Bitcoin becomes the ultimate safe haven, accumulate as much as possible—even with risky leverage—so long as interest and principal can be serviced in dollars. But there's a flipside to expectation‑driven value: if, for any reason, society stops believing Bitcoin will reliably store value and buy future goods and services, its price could collapse toward zero. Fiat currencies experience something similar when faith in governments' balance sheets fails, and while Bitcoin can't be debased, other shocks could trigger a comparable loss of trust. Ironically, reckless, leveraged buying by large Bitcoin‑treasury companies—meeting a sharp market correction—could be what undermines confidence in Bitcoin's progress along its S‑curve. Even then, the underlying innovation is likely to endure: as neutral infrastructure, it disintermediates, cuts costs, and creates real economic value—not just regulatory or tax arbitrage—a puzzle worthy of economists' attention, Rogoff's included.
