“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” — Carl Sagan

When I received an email from an MHT Trading Bot investor in Germany, I thought I was simply following up on another collapsed investment scheme.

The investor had lost €3,000 and wanted me to look at a Telegram message inviting victims to a Zoom Meeting where they were promised “full transparency”, legal updates from India and a roadmap to recover their money.

I accepted the invitation expecting to hear about MHT Trading Bot.

Instead, I found myself inside a PLAYGLOBAL Digital presentation.

What followed was not what I expected. As I began asking straightforward questions about the relationship between PLAYGLOBAL and the MHT recovery effort, the conversation quickly shifted. Rather than receiving documentary evidence, I found myself on the receiving end of privacy complaints, legal threats, invitations to speak with lawyers in India and repeated assurances that supporting documentation would soon be provided.

Over the following weeks I examined the PLAYGLOBAL website, reviewed corporate records, analysed public statements, verified the identity of the Indian lawyer involved, inspected domain registrations, scrutinised promotional material and requested documentary evidence supporting the many claims being made.

To be clear, PLAYGLOBAL has repeatedly stated that it is not the company behind MHT Trading Bot. This article does not allege otherwise. Instead, it documents the publicly visible overlap between individuals involved in the MHT recovery effort and PLAYGLOBAL, examines the claims being made to investors, and assesses what evidence has—or has not—been produced to support those claims.

As always, my role is not to tell you what to believe. My role is to present the facts, highlight the unanswered questions and allow readers to draw their own conclusions based on the available evidence.

How I Ended Up Inside A PLAYGLOBAL Zoom Meeting

The investigation did not begin because I was looking into PLAYGLOBAL. It began when an MHT Trading Bot investor from Germany contacted me after reading my previous investigation into the scheme. The investor explained that after investing €3,000, the payouts gradually became smaller, less frequent and eventually stopped altogether. Like many investors before them, they were told there were technical issues, missing business partners and legal proceedings underway in India.

Several weeks later, the investor forwarded me a message that had been circulating inside the MHT Telegram community. It invited members to attend a Zoom Meeting where they were promised “clarity” about what had happened, together with updates on the legal action allegedly being pursued in India.

The invitation promised:

  • official updates from those leading the recovery effort
  • an explanation of the alleged fraud in India
  • legal documentation and progress reports
  • a clearer picture of how victims might recover their losses

Having investigated numerous investment schemes over the years, I considered this an opportunity to hear directly from the people claiming to be coordinating the recovery effort.

I joined the meeting as any member of the public could.

What I found was unexpected.

Rather than attending a presentation solely about MHT Trading Bot, I found myself listening to representatives from PLAYGLOBAL Digital. As the discussion progressed, I began asking straightforward questions about the relationship between PLAYGLOBAL, the MHT recovery effort and the legal claims being presented.

Those questions became the catalyst for everything that followed. Instead of simply receiving documentary evidence, I found myself dealing with privacy complaints, legal threats, correspondence from an Indian lawyer and a growing number of claims that required independent verification.

The Zoom Meeting That Changed The Investigation

The Telegram invitation promoted the meeting as an important update for MHT Trading Bot investors. Attendees were told they would finally receive clarity about what had happened in India, the progress of the legal action and the next steps in the recovery process.

Expecting an update focused on MHT, I joined the Zoom meeting.

Instead, I found myself inside a PLAYGLOBAL Digital support session.

As the presentation unfolded, it became apparent that PLAYGLOBAL representatives were closely involved in discussing the MHT recovery effort. During the meeting I asked several straightforward questions about PLAYGLOBAL, the relationship between the organisations and the evidence supporting the legal claims being presented.

The answers were limited.

Rather than producing documents or providing specific references that could be independently verified, I was told that further information would become available later. The discussion eventually moved on without addressing many of the questions that I believed any investor would reasonably ask.

That meeting marked the beginning of a much larger investigation.

What followed was an unexpected series of events:

  • privacy complaints submitted to YouTube
  • legal threats demanding the removal of my reporting
  • direct correspondence with PLAYGLOBAL representatives
  • communication with an Indian lawyer said to be acting for MHT victims
  • repeated assurances that legal documents and evidence would soon be provided

At that point, the investigation was no longer just about MHT Trading Bot. It had become an investigation into the public claims being made by PLAYGLOBAL representatives, the evidence supporting those claims and whether investors were being provided with information that could be independently verified.

Separating Facts From Assumptions

One of the first things I wanted to establish was whether PLAYGLOBAL and MHT Trading Bot were the same organisation.

Based on the information available to me, I could not conclude that they were.

In fact, throughout my correspondence, PLAYGLOBAL representatives consistently maintained that PLAYGLOBAL has no corporate connection to MHT Trading Bot. I believe it is important to include that position fairly and accurately.

At the same time, there were several observations that could not simply be ignored.

I found a visible overlap between the MHT recovery effort and PLAYGLOBAL through:

  • individuals appearing in both discussions
  • PLAYGLOBAL representatives participating in recovery presentations
  • an Indian lawyer who confirmed he became involved after being introduced by PLAYGLOBAL personnel
  • public statements describing PLAYGLOBAL’s role in assisting MHT victims

None of these observations, on their own, prove that PLAYGLOBAL operated MHT Trading Bot.

However, they do explain why I continued asking questions.

As an investigative journalist, I am not interested in guilt by association. People are entitled to assist victims of fraud, and there is nothing inherently improper about introducing lawyers or supporting legal action.

The more important question is whether the public claims being made about those recovery efforts can be independently verified.

That distinction is critical.

Throughout this article I have deliberately separated documented facts, public statements and unverified claims. Where evidence exists, I will present it. Where claims have been made but supporting documentation has not yet been produced, I will say so.

That approach is fundamental to responsible investigative journalism and allows readers to reach their own conclusions based on the available evidence rather than speculation.

PLAYGLOBAL’s Vision Versus The Public Evidence

Before reaching any conclusions, I spent considerable time reviewing PLAYGLOBAL’s official website. At first glance, it presents an ambitious vision of a global organisation operating across technology, healthcare, renewable energy, luxury developments, real estate and digital assets. The messaging is polished, professional and deliberately aspirational.

Throughout the site, PLAYGLOBAL describes itself as an exclusive community focused on long-term value creation rather than short-term profits. It speaks of elite investors, sustainable wealth, research and development, tokenised assets, global partnerships and a proposed US$100 billion Super Asset Fund. The overall impression is one of a well-connected international organisation with significant ambitions.

There is certainly no shortage of vision.

What I found more challenging was independently verifying many of the website’s biggest claims.

The website refers to global operations, proprietary technologies, healthcare initiatives, large-scale infrastructure projects, luxury developments and international investment opportunities. However, I found comparatively little supporting documentation that would allow an outsider to verify many of these statements. I was unable to locate audited financial statements, completed flagship projects, independently verified case studies or other publicly available evidence demonstrating the scale of activity being described.

That does not mean these projects do not exist.

It simply means that, based on the material currently available to the public, many of PLAYGLOBAL’s most significant claims rely largely on the company’s own descriptions rather than independently verifiable evidence.

As with every investigation I publish, I believe there is an important distinction between vision and verification. A compelling vision may attract attention, but it is evidence that ultimately builds trust.

Who Is Behind PLAYGLOBAL?

According to its website, PLAYGLOBAL SA is headquartered in Luxembourg and is led by Daniel Baumgartner (Chairman & CEO), Manuel Neuwirth (Vice-Chairman & COO) and Thomas Liebert (CFO). The company also promotes an extensive Advisory Board comprising individuals from backgrounds including law, finance, healthcare, architecture, technology and international business.

On paper, the leadership team appears impressive. Many of those featured describe successful careers spanning investment banking, corporate law, engineering, medical research, government advisory roles and international business development. Several members also maintain professional LinkedIn profiles that are consistent with the biographies published on the PLAYGLOBAL website.

That, however, is only one part of the picture.

An advisory board can add credibility to an organisation, but it is important to understand what role those individuals actually perform. Public biographies and professional achievements do not, by themselves, validate every statement made elsewhere on a company’s website or by its promoters.

As I reviewed the material, I found myself asking several practical questions. Have all of the individuals featured actively agreed to be associated with PLAYGLOBAL’s current business activities? What level of oversight do they exercise? Have they independently reviewed the company’s investment propositions, tokenisation strategy and public representations?

Those are not accusations—they are reasonable questions that any prospective investor might ask before placing their trust, or their money, into an organisation.

As this investigation progressed, one name in particular would become increasingly relevant: Daniel Baumgartner. His role extended beyond serving as PLAYGLOBAL’s Chief Executive Officer. He would later be identified as the person who introduced Indian lawyer Sandeep Roy to the MHT Trading Bot recovery effort, creating the first documented link between PLAYGLOBAL and the legal action being pursued on behalf of MHT victims.

The Lawyer Who Entered The Story

As my investigation gathered momentum, PLAYGLOBAL representatives encouraged me to speak directly with an Indian lawyer they said was leading the legal action against those responsible for the MHT Trading Bot collapse.

His name was Sandeep Roy.

Initially, I approached this cautiously. I had been provided with an email address using the domain srvlaw.in, a website that appeared to have been registered only recently and, at the time of my enquiries, displayed little more than a “Coming Soon” page. Naturally, this raised questions during my due diligence.

Rather than simply accepting the introduction, I began verifying what I could.

I examined the domain registration, searched for public records and looked for evidence of the lawyer’s professional background. Shortly afterwards, I received a direct email from Sandeep Roy himself. He invited me to verify his credentials by searching for his LinkedIn Profile and later connected with me directly through LinkedIn, confirming that I was communicating with the genuine individual.

That answered one question, but it raised several others.

In his correspondence, Mr Roy explained that he became involved after Daniel Baumgartner introduced him to members of the MHT recovery group. According to Mr Roy, he subsequently identified the individual he believes to be the principal suspect, prepared a criminal complaint and is now pursuing legal action through the appropriate authorities in India.

These are significant claims.

As any investigative journalist should, I requested documentation that could be independently verified, including FIR numbers, court references, police acknowledgements and details of any proceedings that had already commenced.

At the time of writing, I have received explanations describing the legal strategy and the work allegedly undertaken, but I am still awaiting the supporting documentation that would allow those claims to be independently verified.

For me, that distinction is important. Verifying the identity of the lawyer is one thing. Verifying the legal proceedings is another entirely.

Following The Evidence, Not The Narrative

Lawyer IndianOne of the most interesting aspects of this investigation has been comparing the public narrative with the evidence that has been made available.

Throughout the Zoom presentations, Telegram updates and subsequent correspondence, investors have been told that substantial progress has been made. References have been made to criminal complaints, police investigations, enforcement agencies, legal action in India and, on more than one occasion, the possibility of Interpol becoming involved.

Those are serious statements.

As a journalist, I don’t dismiss claims simply because they sound ambitious. Equally, I don’t accept them simply because they are confidently presented. My responsibility is to ask the same question every investigator should ask:

What evidence can be independently verified?

To date, I have received explanations, photographs, LinkedIn profiles and assurances that significant legal work is underway. I have also been invited to Zoom meetings and encouraged to speak directly with those involved.

What I have not yet received are the documents that would allow me to independently confirm many of the public claims being made.

That doesn’t mean those documents don’t exist.

It simply means I cannot report them as established fact until I have seen them for myself.

This distinction matters because the audience for these updates is made up largely of people who have already suffered financial losses. They deserve more than optimism and reassurance. They deserve information that can be independently verified.

If criminal proceedings are progressing, that would be welcome news.

If official documents support the public statements being made, I will report that fairly.

Until then, I believe the most responsible approach is to distinguish what has been claimed from what has been independently confirmed. That is not scepticism for its own sake—it is simply the standard I apply to every investigation I publish.

The PLAYGLOBAL Website Raises More Questions Than It Answers

As I continued my due diligence, I spent considerable time reviewing PLAYGLOBAL’s official website. I wasn’t looking for marketing material—I was looking for evidence.

The website presents PLAYGLOBAL as an established international organisation headquartered in Luxembourg, describing an ecosystem that spans technology, healthcare, renewable energy, luxury assets, real estate, digital finance and global investment opportunities. It repeatedly refers to ethical investing, sustainability and creating long-term value for future generations.

The language is certainly compelling.

What caught my attention, however, was the scale of the claims.

PLAYGLOBAL describes itself as having origins dating back to 2010, speaks of an international network involving governments, royal families, high-net-worth individuals and sovereign wealth funds, and even states that its project portfolio was once valued at more than US$20 billion. Elsewhere, the company promotes a proposed US$100 billion Super Asset Fund alongside PLAYGLOBAL Digital and a tokenised investment ecosystem.

Those are extraordinary figures.

Naturally, I began looking for the supporting documentation that would normally accompany claims of that magnitude.

I expected to find independently verifiable information such as audited financial statements, completed flagship projects, regulatory registrations, annual reports or publicly available evidence demonstrating the scale of the operations being described.

Instead, much of what I found relied on the company’s own descriptions of its ambitions and future plans.

That does not mean the projects are fictitious, nor does it mean they will never materialise. However, when an organisation presents itself as a major international investment group managing significant assets and promoting exclusive investment opportunities, I believe it is reasonable for prospective investors to expect a corresponding level of transparency.

The more I read, the more I found myself returning to the same simple question:

Where is the independently verifiable evidence that supports the scale of the claims being made?

The Investment Language Is Difficult To Ignore

One of the most important parts of the PLAYGLOBAL website is the way it speaks to potential participants. Although the company repeatedly frames itself around values, innovation and sustainability, the language used throughout the website is heavily centred on investors, exclusive access, asset portfolios, returns, value appreciation and long-term financial benefit.

That matters.

This is not a website simply describing a social club or a technology incubator. PLAYGLOBAL describes itself as a platform for developing, financing and implementing exclusive projects. It says access is restricted to a selective group of investors and that projects are chosen because they are not available on the open market.

The website also speaks about scarcity driving value:

“Value through Limited Availability”

That phrase stood out to me because scarcity is often used in investment marketing to make people feel they are being given access to something rare, privileged and urgent.

PLAYGLOBAL also refers to:

  • stable returns over the long term
  • natural value appreciation
  • exclusive investment opportunities
  • long-term benefits for investors
  • projects not available on the open market

This type of language raises important regulatory questions, particularly when PLAYGLOBAL Digital is also discussing tokenisation, master tokens, sub-tokens and access to real-world assets.

If a company is promoting tokenised access to investment-style opportunities, especially to people in Europe, it is reasonable to ask what legal and regulatory framework applies.

Is there a prospectus?

Is there a regulated fund?

Is there a MiCA-compliant white paper?

Is there a licensed crypto-asset service provider involved?

Who is responsible if the claims made to investors turn out to be inaccurate?

Those questions are not technicalities. They go directly to investor protection. When people are being asked to trust an exclusive ecosystem with ambitious claims about funds, assets and future value, the legal structure matters just as much as the marketing.

When Questions Led To Legal Threats

I’ve been investigating Ponzi schemes, MLMs and investment fraud for years, so I’m no stranger to criticism. If a company believes I’ve made a factual error, I genuinely welcome the opportunity to correct it. That’s why I routinely offer a right of reply before publishing my findings.

This investigation took a different turn.

Shortly after attending the Zoom meeting and asking questions, I began receiving emails demanding that I remove my reporting. I was told that PLAYGLOBAL Digital had nothing to do with MHT and that I should stop mixing the two together. Privacy complaints were subsequently lodged with YouTube, resulting in the removal of my video under YouTube’s Privacy Guidelines.

That decision surprised me.

The meeting I attended was publicly accessible. I joined using a Zoom link that had been circulated within the MHT community, and anyone with that link could attend. I was present throughout the meeting, asked my questions openly and later reported on what had been said. I did not publish home addresses, telephone numbers, financial records or any other private personal information.

Instead, my reporting focused on:

  • the public statements made during the meeting
  • the relationship between the individuals involved
  • the claims being presented to investors
  • the evidence supporting those claims

Following the removal of my video, I exercised YouTube’s appeal process and explained why I believed the content constituted investigative journalism in the public interest rather than a breach of privacy.

What I found particularly interesting was that, despite the legal threats and privacy complaints, communication with PLAYGLOBAL representatives and their lawyer continued. Rather than ending the conversation, they continued corresponding with me, answering some questions, introducing me to their lawyer and expressing a willingness to discuss the matter further.

For me, that reinforced one simple principle.

The easiest way to resolve legitimate questions is with evidence—not takedown requests.

My Investigation Is Still Ongoing

One of the biggest misconceptions about investigative journalism is that every question must be answered before an article can be published.

That isn’t how responsible investigations work.

Sometimes the public interest lies in documenting what is known, what has been claimed, and what remains unanswered. Waiting indefinitely for every promised document or explanation can simply delay important reporting while new investors continue making decisions based on the information currently available.

That is why I have decided to publish my findings now.

Since attending the Zoom meeting, I have continued corresponding with PLAYGLOBAL representatives, communicated directly with their Indian lawyer, reviewed company material and examined every piece of evidence that has been provided to me.

I have also requested documentation that would allow me to independently verify a number of significant public claims, including references to criminal complaints, legal proceedings and investigations in India.

Some of those requests remain outstanding.

If additional evidence is produced tomorrow, next week or next month, I will examine it with the same level of scrutiny that I have applied throughout this investigation. If it supports the claims being made, I will report that fairly. If it raises further questions, I will report those as well.

Investigations should follow the evidence—not a predetermined conclusion.

For that reason, I consider this article to be a living investigation rather than the final chapter. As new documents, corporate records, regulatory information or legal filings become available, I will continue updating this report so readers have the most accurate information possible.

My commitment has always been the same:

Ask the difficult questions. Verify the evidence. Report the facts.

Whether those facts ultimately support or contradict the claims being made, they deserve to be examined openly and objectively.

PLAYGLOBAL Digital And The Token Ecosystem

While reviewing the PLAYGLOBAL website, I discovered that the company isn’t simply promoting an international business network. It is also developing what it describes as an exclusive digital ecosystem built around blockchain technology and tokenised assets.

According to PLAYGLOBAL, this ecosystem centres on a Master Token, supported by various Sub-Tokens and a digital application known as “The Key.” The company says this structure will provide members with access to current and future projects within the PLAYGLOBAL ecosystem.

One statement immediately caught my attention.

PLAYGLOBAL Digital describes itself as “the only vehicle” through which members of its community can gain access to the proposed PLAYGLOBAL Super Asset Fund. It further states that participation is 100% tokenised while simultaneously holding up to 10% of the conventional PLAYGLOBAL Super Asset Fund for bonuses.

Those are significant representations.

Whenever I investigate a token offering, I look beyond the marketing language and begin asking practical questions that any prospective participant should also consider.

For example:

  • What legal rights does the token actually provide?
  • Does ownership of the token represent an investment, a membership, or something else entirely?
  • Who controls the underlying assets?
  • How is the token valued?
  • Who determines its price?
  • What happens if the underlying projects fail to materialise?

These are not criticisms of blockchain technology. I have consistently said throughout my investigations that blockchain itself is not the problem. The important issue is understanding exactly what people are being asked to purchase and what legal protections exist if things do not proceed as expected.

At the time of writing, I have been unable to locate a publicly available token white paper, comprehensive tokenomics, independently verifiable asset valuations or detailed documentation explaining precisely how the Master Token, Sub-Tokens and the proposed Super Asset Fund interact from a legal and financial perspective.

For prospective participants, those details are arguably far more important than the marketing material itself. Before committing funds to any tokenised ecosystem, investors should fully understand what they are buying, what rights they acquire and what protections exist should the project fail to deliver on its stated objectives.

The Super Asset Fund: Big Ambitions, Few Public Details

One of the most ambitious concepts promoted throughout the PLAYGLOBAL ecosystem is the proposed PLAYGLOBAL Super Asset Fund.

The company describes it as a cornerstone of its long-term strategy, claiming it will provide access to a portfolio of carefully selected projects spanning multiple industries. According to the website, the fund will combine traditional assets with digital technology, while PLAYGLOBAL Digital is promoted as the exclusive gateway through which members can participate.

On paper, it sounds impressive.

As I read further, however, I found myself asking the same questions I would ask of any investment fund, regardless of who was promoting it.

Where is the fund established?

Who is responsible for managing it?

Who independently values the underlying assets?

Who audits the fund?

What regulatory framework governs its operation?

Those questions are particularly relevant because the website refers to a US$100 billion Super Asset Fund. Claims of that magnitude naturally invite scrutiny, and prospective participants deserve to understand exactly what sits behind those figures.

I searched for the type of information commonly associated with investment funds, such as fund documentation, audited financial statements, independent custodians, administrators, regulatory disclosures or publicly available reports that would help explain the structure in greater detail.

At the time of writing, I was unable to locate that information on the public-facing website.

That does not necessarily mean the documentation does not exist.

It simply means that someone considering participation would currently need to rely largely on the company’s own representations rather than independently verifiable public information.

For any organisation promoting significant investment opportunities, transparency is just as important as vision. The larger the claims, the greater the expectation that supporting documentation will be readily available for prospective investors to examine before making an informed decision.

The Luxembourg Company Behind The Claims

PLAYGLOBAL’s website identifies PLAYGLOBAL SA as the Luxembourg company behind the brand. Its imprint lists the address as 70, Grand-Rue, L-1660 Luxembourg, names Daniel Baumgartner, Manuel Neuwirth and Thomas Liebert as authorised directors, and provides a commercial registration number and VAT number.

That is useful information, but it is only the starting point.

A company registration can confirm that an entity exists, but it does not automatically verify the scale of the business described on its website. It does not prove the existence of a US$100 billion fund, completed global projects, institutional investor relationships, or the value of any asset portfolio.

Those are separate claims requiring separate evidence.

The public website describes PLAYGLOBAL as an international organisation with activity across Europe, the Middle East, North America, real estate, healthcare, luxury goods, technology transfer, renewable energy and digital assets. Yet the basic corporate information available on the website does not, by itself, substantiate the full scale of those claims.

This is an important distinction for readers to understand.

A registered company can still make ambitious claims that require verification. Likewise, a polished website and an impressive list of locations do not replace audited accounts, regulatory filings, fund documents, contracts, ownership records or independent project evidence.

For me, the question is not simply:

Does PLAYGLOBAL SA exist?

The more important question is:

Do the publicly available records support the scale of what PLAYGLOBAL says it is doing?

The Website Security Scan

As part of my due diligence, I also reviewed the technical footprint of PLAYGLOBAL’s website. This is not the central issue in the investigation, but it is another data point worth recording.

An Automated Scan of playglobal.lu produced a poor security rating and identified multiple configuration issues, including missing security headers such as Content Security Policy, anti-clickjacking protection, Strict Transport Security and X-Content-Type-Options. The scan also identified the website as running on common WordPress-related technologies, including plugins such as Contact Form 7, Slider Revolution, Site Kit, MailChimp for WordPress and WPBakery.

This does not prove fraud.

Many legitimate companies use WordPress, and many websites fail automated scans because of missing security headers or configuration weaknesses. However, when a company presents itself as an international organisation dealing with digital assets, tokenisation, investment structures and exclusive financial opportunities, its technical infrastructure becomes relevant.

At the very least, it raises a reasonable question:

If PLAYGLOBAL Digital is presenting itself as part of a sophisticated blockchain and asset-management ecosystem, why does its public web presence appear to have such basic security and configuration issues?

That question is not definitive evidence of wrongdoing, but it is another example of the gap between the company’s highly sophisticated marketing language and the publicly visible evidence currently available.

A Fair Opportunity To Respond

Throughout this investigation, I have made a genuine effort to engage directly with the people involved rather than simply publishing my own assumptions.

Following the Zoom meeting, I corresponded with Marco, Christian Bührig, representatives from PLAYGLOBAL and, eventually, Indian lawyer Sandeep Roy. My intention was never to create conflict. It was to understand the facts and verify the claims being made.

To their credit, communication did not stop.

PLAYGLOBAL representatives consistently maintained that PLAYGLOBAL is not MHT Trading Bot and asked me not to conflate the two organisations. Mr Roy also confirmed his identity through his established LinkedIn profile and explained how he became involved after being approached by Daniel Baumgartner, who asked him to assist MHT victims in India.

Those responses answered some of my questions.

They did not, however, answer all of them.

Despite ongoing correspondence, I am still waiting for documentation that would allow me to independently verify several significant public claims relating to the legal proceedings in India. As any journalist should, I remain open to reviewing that evidence if and when it is produced.

I also made it clear that if factual inaccuracies are identified in this investigation, or if additional documentary evidence becomes available, I will review it objectively and update this article where appropriate.

Good investigative journalism should never be about winning an argument.

It should be about following the evidence, correcting the record when necessary and ensuring readers have the fullest picture possible before making up their own minds.

Questions That Still Deserve Answers

After reviewing the correspondence, the website, the promotional material and the explanations I have received, I believe there are still several important questions that deserve clear and independently verifiable answers.

These are not “gotcha” questions. They are the same questions I would ask of any organisation promoting investment opportunities, digital assets or recovery initiatives involving people who have already suffered financial losses.

For example, I would still like to know:

  • Where is the PLAYGLOBAL Super Asset Fund legally established?
  • Is the fund regulated, and if so, by which authority?
  • Has a MiCA-compliant white paper been prepared for the digital token ecosystem, where required?
  • What legal rights do holders of the Master Token actually receive?
  • How are the underlying assets independently valued?
  • Who audits the assets and the fund?
  • Which publicly verifiable court proceedings currently exist in India?
  • Can the FIR, police complaint and court reference numbers now be disclosed?
  • What official documents support the public updates being shared with investors?

These questions should not be viewed as hostile.

Transparency builds confidence.

If documentary evidence exists to support the public claims being made, producing that evidence would strengthen confidence among existing supporters and provide reassurance to anyone considering becoming involved in the future.

Equally, if some information cannot yet be disclosed because of ongoing legal proceedings, that can also be explained. Most reasonable people understand that certain matters remain confidential while investigations are active.

What is more difficult to understand is asking people to place their trust in ambitious claims without providing the documentary evidence that would allow those claims to be independently verified. That remains the central issue at the heart of this investigation.

Independent Analysis By The Avengers Anti-Fraud Alliance

While preparing this investigation, one of the members of the Avengers Anti-Fraud Alliance (AAA), independent blockchain investigator CrYptO G, carried out his own preliminary investigation into PLAYGLOBAL Digital.

Rather than relying solely on the Zoom presentation or marketing material, his report examined the public corporate information, the technical infrastructure, MiCA regulatory requirements, historical links to MHT Trading Bot, and the transparency of the proposed token offering.

His assessment identifies a number of significant due diligence concerns, including:

  • The apparent absence of a publicly available MiCA-compliant white paper.
  • No independently verifiable token contract, tokenomics, or published smart contract address.
  • No publicly identifiable independent audit of the token or platform.
  • No evidence located of MiCA authorisation or a notified white paper on the public CSSF or ESMA registers at the time of his research.
  • Marketing material containing large investment claims that, in his opinion, are not accompanied by sufficient publicly verifiable evidence.
  • The involvement of individuals previously associated with the MHT Trading Bot community in promoting the new opportunity, creating what he describes as a potential re-victimisation risk for former investors.

Importantly, the report makes clear that these findings represent preliminary assessments based on publicly available information, not findings of criminal wrongdoing. It also encourages regulators and investors to independently verify the matters raised before making any financial decisions.

Although my own investigation has followed a different path, I found it interesting that many of the questions raised independently by CrYptO G closely mirror the same issues I asked during the PLAYGLOBAL Zoom meeting. Both investigations ultimately arrive at a similar conclusion: extraordinary claims require independently verifiable evidence.

If you’d like to examine the report in full, you can download it below and review the underlying research for yourself.

PDFDownload: PlayGlobal Digital — Preliminary Investigative Report (PDF)

Where The Investigation Goes From Here

This investigation is far from over.

Since joining what I believed would be an MHT Trading Bot recovery meeting, the story has taken several unexpected turns. What began with an invitation from an investor has since led to Zoom meetings, legal correspondence, privacy complaints, direct conversations with PLAYGLOBAL representatives and ongoing communication with their lawyer in India.

Along the way, some questions have been answered.

Others remain outstanding.

I will continue following this story wherever the evidence leads. If PLAYGLOBAL, its representatives or their legal team provide verifiable documentation supporting the claims discussed throughout this article, I will examine that material objectively and publish any updates that are warranted.

Likewise, if new corporate records, regulatory filings, court documents or other evidence become available, they will form part of this continuing investigation.

My position has not changed.

I am not opposed to innovation, blockchain technology or legitimate investment opportunities. Nor do I publish allegations simply because they generate attention.

What I care about is evidence.

People who have already lost money deserve transparency, not uncertainty. Prospective investors deserve independently verifiable information before committing their hard-earned savings. And organisations making significant public claims should expect those claims to be examined carefully.

If you’ve been involved with MHT Trading Bot, PLAYGLOBAL, or have information that could assist this investigation, I’d be pleased to hear from you. Every document, email, presentation, company record and first-hand account helps build a clearer picture.

As always, I encourage readers to do their own research, ask difficult questions and never rely solely on marketing material when making financial decisions.

The facts should always speak louder than the promises.

Where The Evidence Leads

When I first opened the email from an MHT Trading Bot investor, I had no intention of investigating PLAYGLOBAL. I simply accepted an invitation to what I believed would be an update for victims hoping to recover their money.

That single Zoom meeting led me down a path I could never have anticipated.

Since then, I have reviewed corporate material, examined the PLAYGLOBAL website, verified the identity of an Indian lawyer, analysed domain registrations, scrutinised public statements, exchanged numerous emails with those involved and continued requesting documentary evidence to support the claims being made.

Throughout this process, I have tried to remain fair, objective and evidence-driven.

Where claims could be verified, I have said so.

Where questions remain unanswered, I have said that too.

It is important to emphasise that this article is not an accusation that PLAYGLOBAL is MHT Trading Bot. PLAYGLOBAL representatives have consistently denied any corporate connection, and I have reflected that position throughout this investigation.

What I have documented is something different.

I have documented the overlap of individuals, the public representations that have been made, the documentary evidence I have reviewed, the evidence I am still waiting to receive and the questions that I believe any reasonable person would ask before placing their trust—or their money—into any organisation making claims of this scale.

Ultimately, this investigation is not about deciding who is right.

It is about encouraging critical thinking.

If an organisation is asking people to believe in exclusive opportunities, ambitious investment projects and extraordinary future growth, then those claims should be capable of standing up to independent scrutiny.

That is the purpose of investigative journalism.

Not to tell you what to think.

But to make sure you have enough verified information to decide for yourself.

Update: After this article was prepared, PLAYGLOBAL Chairman Daniel Baumgartner sent a lengthy email requesting that the investigation be removed in its entirety. The correspondence expressed concerns about privacy, reputational harm and potential interference with recovery efforts. However, it did not provide the case references, court filings, FIR numbers or other documentary evidence that I had repeatedly requested. Should such evidence be supplied, I will review it objectively and update this article where appropriate.

Disclaimer: How This Investigation Was Conducted

This investigation relies entirely on OSINT — Open Source Intelligence — meaning every claim made here is based on publicly available records, archived web pages, corporate filings, domain data, social media activity, and open blockchain transactions. No private data, hacking, or unlawful access methods were used. OSINT is a powerful and ethical tool for exposing scams without violating privacy laws or overstepping legal boundaries.

About the Author

I’m DANNY DE HEK, a New Zealand–based YouTuber, investigative journalist, and OSINT researcher. I name and shame individuals promoting or marketing fraudulent schemes through my YOUTUBE CHANNEL. Every video I produce exposes the people behind scams, Ponzi schemes, and MLM frauds — holding them accountable in public.

My PODCAST is an extension of that work. It’s distributed across 18 major platforms — including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, and iHeartRadio — so when scammers try to hide, my content follows them everywhere. If you prefer listening to my investigations instead of watching, you’ll find them on every major podcast service.

You can BOOK ME for private consultations or SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS, where I share first-hand experience from years of exposing large-scale fraud and helping victims recover.

“Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.”

My work exposing crypto fraud has been featured in: