In the evolving world of digital finance, the line between innovation and exploitation can blur dangerously fast. This tension now surrounds two businessmen, Tyrone Franklyn Perry and John Donovan, whose names have surfaced in reports alleging financial misconduct, including unlicensed gambling facilitation, diversion of merchant settlements, and deceptive corporate practices.
According to complaints already lodged with regulators such as the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the pair are allegedly linked to a network of payment and financial service brands operating under names including PaymentWeb Inc., GatewayPay Ltd, Ceryneian Capital.
While none of the allegations have yet been proven in court, the situation highlights the growing risk that unregulated payment networks can pose to merchants, investors, and consumers.
The Core Entities: A Map of the Network
Documents and corporate filings show that PaymentWeb Inc., registered in Alberta, Canada, operates from Suite 2020, 10060 Jasper Avenue NW, Tower 1, Edmonton. Its Alberta Corporate Access Number is 2026567210, and Business Number 741802623.
PaymentWeb’s listed business model involves payment processing and digital settlement services, functions that typically require licensing or oversight when dealing with third-party funds. However, sources allege that the company has been involved in processing transactions for illegal gambling activity and in withholding or diverting merchant settlement funds.
In the United Kingdom, another company, Gateway Pay Ltd—trading as GatewayPay—shares connections with the same circle of individuals. Registered at Room 73, Wrest House, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, England, with company registration number 15002221, GatewayPay’s website (gatewaypay.io) promotes it as a payment gateway platform for high-risk merchants.
Both brands, observers claim, have served as fronts for a pattern of financial deception: operating in the grey zones of online payments, moving money across jurisdictions, and switching brand identities when scrutiny arises.
Beyond Payments: The Expansion into Capital and Technology
In 2024, a new name entered the picture—Ceryneian Capital (ceryneian.capital), a self-described financial and venture investment firm. Investigators and industry sources have linked it to the same ecosystem allegedly managed by Perry and Donovan.
Publicly, Ceryneian Capital presents itself as an asset management and advisory business focusing on “alternative investments.” Privately, according to whistleblower statements and online business records, it may represent a continuation of the same payment-processing activity under a new brand identity—an apparent attempt to rebrand away from PaymentWeb and GatewayPay following regulatory complaints.
Allegations of Merchant Settlement Theft
Perhaps the most serious accusation leveled against the network is the misappropriation of merchant settlements. Multiple independent sources allege that merchants using the payment gateway services were not paid out in full, with settlement amounts either delayed indefinitely or diverted altogether.
In practical terms, these claims suggest that businesses relying on these payment processors may have seen customer funds processed but never received their share—leaving them out of pocket and without recourse.
Such conduct, if verified, would constitute fraud and potentially money laundering, both serious offenses in most jurisdictions. The FCA and other regulatory bodies treat such behavior as red flags indicative of broader systemic misconduct.
A Pattern of Changing Identities
One common tactic in alleged financial schemes is rapid corporate identity cycling—registering new entities and websites as older ones attract scrutiny.
PaymentWeb and GatewayPay appear to fit that pattern. When negative reports began circulating in merchant and compliance forums, PaymentWeb’s online presence dwindled. Shortly afterward, GatewayPay’s branding grew more visible, followed by the emergence of Ceryneian Capital as a “new” venture.
Investigators suggest that by shifting brand identities, the operators can maintain the flow of funds and client relationships while distancing themselves from prior complaints.
This tactic complicates enforcement: regulators often must re-establish links between individuals and successive legal entities to build a case.
Regulatory Response and the FCA Report
Sources close to the investigation confirm that a report has been filed with the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concerning GatewayPay’s activities. The FCA, responsible for overseeing financial services and consumer protection, has not yet made a public statement regarding the case.
The complaint reportedly details claims of unlicensed payment processing, merchant settlement theft, and identity manipulation by directors and beneficial owners. If the FCA finds evidence of misconduct, potential outcomes could include regulatory bans, criminal referrals, or asset freezes under UK and international financial crime laws.
Canadian and South African authorities may also be drawn into parallel investigations, given the entities’ registered addresses and operational footprints in those jurisdictions.
The Broader Context: Digital Payments and Criminal Exploitation
The alleged scheme underscores a growing global problem: the misuse of digital payment infrastructure to mask illicit financial flows.
As legitimate businesses increasingly depend on online payment gateways, criminals exploit the same systems to launder proceeds from gambling, scams, or unlicensed investments.
“The challenge for regulators,” notes one compliance analyst, “is that payment processors can appear completely legitimate until the flow of funds is examined. By then, the money is often dispersed across multiple jurisdictions and accounts.”
Illicit operators frequently blend legal and illegal revenue streams, allowing them to maintain bank accounts, process legitimate transactions, and hide misconduct behind a veneer of authenticity.
The Human Impact: Merchants Left in Limbo
Behind the technical details are real victims—small and medium-sized merchants who depended on these platforms to receive payments from customers.
Several claim they were left unpaid, sometimes for months, after providing products or services. Some were reportedly told that compliance reviews or “reserve requirements” delayed settlement, explanations that later proved false.
In the absence of regulatory recovery mechanisms, these businesses may never reclaim lost funds. Many hesitate to come forward publicly for fear of reputational damage or further loss.
Calls for Transparency and Accountability
As cross-border financial crime becomes increasingly complex, calls are growing for more regulatory transparency and international cooperation.
Experts urge authorities to create centralized databases of payment providers, require greater disclosure of beneficial ownership, and enhance monitoring of companies that repeatedly dissolve and reappear under new names.
For legitimate fintech firms, these scandals threaten the industry’s reputation. “Every time one of these networks is exposed,” said one UK-based payments lawyer, “it makes it harder for honest companies to build trust. The sector needs clear lines between innovation and deception.”
The Road Ahead
As of this writing, neither Tyrone Franklyn Perry nor John Donovan has publicly responded to the allegations. None of the companies named—PaymentWeb Inc., GatewayPay Ltd, Ceryneian Capital,—have issued statements addressing the reports or the ongoing FCA inquiry.
Whether the claims lead to enforcement action or fade into the backlog of global financial disputes remains to be seen. What is certain is that digital payment ecosystems, when left opaque, create opportunities for misuse on a massive scale.
For regulators, this case serves as a stark reminder: the frontier of fintech innovation is also the frontier of financial crime—and transparency, more than technology, remains the most powerful defense.
