Across online merchant forums and financial complaint channels, a growing number of business owners are telling the same story: they sold, they processed, but they were never paid.
The companies at the center of these complaints — PaymentWeb Inc. of Alberta, Canada, and GatewayPay Ltd. of Bedford, England — are now under scrutiny after being reported to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for allegedly withholding or diverting merchant settlements. The allegations, which also touch on connected ventures such as Ceryneian Capital, point to a potential international network of disputed payments, false assurances, and shattered trust.
While investigations are ongoing, the accounts of affected merchants paint a troubling picture of how small businesses can be left powerless when payment processors turn rogue.
The First Signs of Trouble
For many merchants, the first red flag was simple: payments stopped arriving.
At first, excuses seemed plausible — “technical delays,” “bank reviews,” or “routine compliance checks.” But days stretched into weeks, and weeks into months. By then, customer payments had been successfully processed through the payment gateways, yet merchants were still waiting for their share.
“I thought it was just a temporary glitch,” said one e-commerce operator who processed transactions through GatewayPay for two months in early 2024. “Then communication stopped. They blocked our account dashboard, and we realized the settlements were gone.”
Like most victims, the merchant requested anonymity pending possible legal action. Their experience mirrors dozens of similar stories circulating on merchant community boards and watchdog sites.
The Companies in Question
At the core of the controversy are PaymentWeb Inc. (registered in Alberta, corporate number 2026567210) and GatewayPay Ltd. (registered in England, company number 15002221).
PaymentWeb’s listed address — Suite 2020, 10060 Jasper Avenue NW, Tower 1, Edmonton, Alberta — places it squarely within Canada’s fintech corridor. GatewayPay, meanwhile, trades from Wrest Park in Bedford, England, and promotes itself as a “secure payment gateway” serving international businesses, particularly those operating in high-risk sectors such as gaming and digital entertainment.
Investigators and industry insiders allege that both firms share operational leadership connected to Tyrone Franklyn Perry and John Donovan, names that also appear in other fintech ventures including Ceryneian Capital
Both men have yet to comment publicly on the allegations, and none of the claims have been proven in court.
Victims Describe a “Classic Withholding Scheme”
According to several merchants and former partners, the operation followed a consistent pattern:
1. Recruitment of high-risk merchants. GatewayPay and PaymentWeb marketed themselves to online sellers in industries often shunned by traditional processors — gaming, affiliate marketing, or subscription-based digital services.
2. Smooth onboarding. The companies provided easy account setup, high approval rates, and competitive fees.
3. Initial reliability. For the first few weeks, settlements were processed correctly to build trust.
4. Sudden withholding. Payments were abruptly delayed or suspended, often after a large volume of transactions. Merchants were told funds were “under compliance review.”
5. Silence or disappearance. Customer support stopped responding. Dashboards went offline. In some cases, domain and company names changed altogether.
“I lost nearly £60,000,” said another merchant who asked not to be identified for fear of reputational damage. “We were told there was a reserve period — that they’d release 10% weekly. Then the emails bounced, and the company rebranded. We never saw a penny.”
Experts in financial fraud describe such behavior as a settlement-diversion scheme — where payment intermediaries collect funds on behalf of merchants, then deliberately fail to remit those funds, moving them through other controlled entities to disguise the theft.
Regulatory Scrutiny Mounts
The Financial Conduct Authority has reportedly received a detailed complaint outlining the allegations, including documentation of missing settlements and screenshots of communication with company representatives.
The FCA has not yet issued a public statement, but experts say the matter could fall under unauthorized payment services or misrepresentation of financial licensing.
“If they were operating payment services without authorization or were misusing client funds, that’s a major breach of both UK and Canadian regulations,” said a London-based financial compliance consultant. “The cross-border structure makes it harder to pursue, but not impossible.”
Canadian authorities could also play a role, as PaymentWeb Inc. is incorporated under Alberta jurisdiction. Regulators there can coordinate with international partners if fraud or financial misconduct is suspected.
The Ripple Effect on Small Businesses
The human impact of such schemes is often devastating. For small merchants, withheld settlements can mean immediate cash-flow crises — unpaid suppliers, halted marketing campaigns, or even bankruptcy.
Some merchants reported being left with hundreds of customer chargebacks that they had no funds to cover, while others were forced to close operations entirely.
“It wasn’t just the money,” one victim explained. “It was the trust. We believed we were working with a licensed company. Everything looked legitimate — contracts, logos, even an FCA number that turned out to be fake.”
Industry watchdogs warn that such losses rarely result in restitution. When offshore payment entities collapse or vanish, tracing funds becomes nearly impossible without coordinated law enforcement action.
A Cycle of Rebranding
Investigators following the case note that the same individuals and assets appear to resurface under new brand identities — a classic evasion tactic.
After PaymentWeb’s online presence declined, GatewayPay rose to prominence. Now, new ventures such as Ceryneian Capital appear to carry forward similar branding and infrastructure, positioning themselves as investment or fintech firms rather than payment gateways.
Such rebranding not only confuses regulators but also allows operators to continue attracting new clients under fresh names while avoiding the stigma of prior complaints.
“Fraudsters exploit the fact that company registration is cheap and fast,” said the compliance consultant. “They dissolve, reincorporate, and restart — often before authorities can even finish one investigation.”
The Broader Industry Problem
This case highlights a growing vulnerability in global fintech: unregulated cross-border payment processors that operate in legal gray zones.
Traditional banks and licensed processors often avoid high-risk sectors, creating space for smaller, less transparent entities to step in. Many operate without proper oversight, holding client funds in pooled accounts that blur ownership lines.
Once a company begins withholding funds, victims face an uphill battle. International jurisdictions complicate legal recovery, and fraudulent operators can empty accounts long before enforcement agencies intervene.
Calls for Accountability
Merchant advocacy groups are now urging regulators to strengthen oversight and transparency in the payment processing industry.
“There needs to be a public database of who’s authorized to handle client funds,” said one payments-rights advocate. “If a company like GatewayPay can onboard hundreds of merchants and vanish overnight, something is broken in the system.”
They also call for improved cross-border cooperation between the FCA, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), and other agencies.
Meanwhile, affected merchants are banding together online, sharing documentation and exploring collective legal action to recover at least a portion of their missing settlements.
Silence from the Accused
As of publication, Tyrone Franklyn Perry, John Donovan, PaymentWeb Inc., GatewayPay Ltd., Ceryneian Capital have not issued public responses to the allegations.
Emails sent to the companies’ listed addresses received no reply. Phone numbers formerly associated with the firms are disconnected.
Until official statements are released or regulatory findings emerge, the full extent of the losses — and whether victims will see restitution — remains uncertain.
A Warning to Merchants Everywhere
The story serves as a cautionary tale for merchants operating online, especially in high-risk or international sectors.
Before integrating with any payment processor, experts recommend:
• Verifying regulatory licenses through official government databases.
• Requesting written proof of fund-segregation and settlement policies.
• Avoiding processors that promise unusually fast onboarding or lax compliance.
In the world of digital payments, trust is currency — and once it’s broken, recovery is often out of reach.
As one victim put it: “They took our money, our time, and our faith in the system. The least we can do now is warn others before it happens again.”
