Modern truth has ceased to be the ultimate authority. The word “post-truth” became Oxford Dictionaries’ Word of the Year back in 2016, defined as a condition in which “objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
In the years since, the situation has only deteriorated. Experts now describe an epidemic of informational noise and a wave of distorted narratives.
In today’s world, the era of “post-truth” coincides with the lightning-fast distribution of information—often faster than fact-checking mechanisms can operate. Research shows that false stories spread, on average, faster and further than truthful ones. Social platforms can make even the most absurd content go viral.
Fake news has long since stopped being accidental misinformation. It is now a powerful industry with multi-million turnovers. According to expert reports, more than a hundred companies operate online specialising in fabricated PR content, “news” websites and tailor-made scandals produced on demand. Visually indistinguishable from professional journalism, such material becomes a weapon for those seeking to destroy reputations, pressure investors or manipulate public opinion.
The motives may be political or commercial, but the result is the same: a chaotic “wave of fakes” that erodes trust and causes tangible harm to business and reputation. On average, around 70% of start-ups targeted by false online accusations lose up to half of their customer base within three months.
How the Investigation Began
Our investigation started with a review of a series of suspicious articles on websites of, shall we say, questionable reputation, targeting the British payments platform PayFuture. All the materials followed the same template and consisted of a random assortment of unproven accusations aimed at the company’s co-founder and CTO, Zaki Farooq.
The texts were filled with assertions disguised as final verdicts. The only remarkable thing was the sheer volume of published “media” materials. From 2024 to the present day, the number of near-identical articles has run into the hundreds.
Zaki Farooq has worked in the fintech sector since 1992. His current project, PayFuture, operates in more than 40 countries and focuses on emerging markets such as India, Bangladesh and others. Farooq publicly positions the company as a provider of anti-fraud solutions—yet he himself became the target of a storm of fake allegations.
Farooq responded in full accordance with best practices in information protection: “Recently, false claims have appeared in the media, on social networks, in leaflets and other materials about PayFuture’s activity. These accusations, which also mention members of my family, are entirely false and baseless.”
While we hope the courts will ultimately put an end to this smear campaign, his case is far from unique.
Similar mechanisms of fighting disinformation campaigns have already been described in international journalism. For example, the #StoryKillers investigation exposed groups such as the Israeli outfit “Team Jorge,” which offered—at six-figure fees—“tailored influence tools.” They claimed they could hack the email accounts of “targets,” fabricate documents, stage “fake protests,” or launch a “caravan bombardment” of the internet with coordinated smear content.
Another striking example is the story of Swiss trader Hazim Nada. His business was destroyed by a barrage of false allegations about ties to terrorism. Only later did leaked documents reveal that this had been a years-long, state-sponsored disinformation campaign orchestrated by the UAE.
The logic of “post-truth” applies here as well: any attempt by PayFuture to rehabilitate its reputation is immediately portrayed by fake-news authors as an effort to “hide the truth.” This is a classic manipulation—any legitimate response is framed negatively (the “Streisand effect”).
In such conditions, unverified insinuations increasingly eclipse verified facts. The goal of the perpetrators is not to disprove information but to flood the media with fabrications that remain embedded in search results and news feeds for years.
Jitender Vats and the Pseudo-Fintech Scheme
As the investigation progressed, journalists established that the wave of disinformation originated from an Indian “entrepreneur” involved in a series of dubious projects — Jitender Vats. A native of Delhi, he typically introduced himself as the owner of a company called “PaymentsMe.” There is, however, one problem: the company simply does not exist.
As colleagues who previously worked with him noted: “Jitender has excellent instincts. He could convince anyone to invest after just two messages in a messenger. He never created actual companies because it was unnecessary hassle. What he always had was the right ‘client kit’: a legend, a demo dashboard, a nice logo. Such people are useful when funds need to be raised quickly. He delivered the illusion of a ready product long before anything really existed.”
Vats aggressively promoted questionable payments companies across Middle Eastern markets, presenting himself as their regional representative.
He has no verified business ties to registered legal entities in India. His activities involved the use of fictitious domains, and “PaymentsMe” is not listed in any official registry. All his contact details trace back to unofficial addresses.
A review of Vats’ LinkedIn, Telegram and X (Twitter) accounts shows years of involvement in client-acquisition schemes under invented brands. He was previously linked to the Verve Payments platform, which also lacked transparent registration and operated alongside shuttered entities. This behavioural pattern—using fictitious authority and non-existent companies—indicates a systematic effort to build trust among potential clients, without the slightest semblance of legality.
We believe that PayFuture, as a legally licensed UK-based payments company, became an unwelcome competitor to Vats’ schemes. Unable to compete with PayFuture legitimately, Vats seemingly resorted to attacking the company through an orchestrated wave of fabricated publications.
Our team is continuing to monitor developments and identify other potential victims of Jitender Vats and his partners. The collected materials will be submitted to law-enforcement bodies in the UK, India and the UAE for full investigations and appropriate actions.
Recommendations for Fintech Companies
In the context of escalating information attacks, legitimate companies must actively safeguard their reputations. To minimise the impact of fake news, lawful businesses should adhere to several key recommendations:
– Constant monitoring of the media environment and mentions: early detection of disinformation allows for a rapid response.
– Transparency and strong reputation: build long-term trust through open and ethical operations.
– Regular publication of activity reports, financial statements and audit results to strengthen the confidence of clients and partners and reduce vulnerability during smear attempts.
– Rapid response to fabrications: act according to a pre-established crisis-management plan and issue fact-based rebuttals across all available platforms.
– Engagement with audiences: maintain dialogue through responses to comments and reviews. A loyal client community becomes a defence against falsehoods.
– Co-operation with regulators and law-enforcement agencies: notify oversight bodies of significant disinformation or fraud schemes.
– Do not hesitate to pursue legal remedies; in cases of outright defamation, prepare to file claims.
At the same time, be mindful of the “Streisand effect”: legal action is best complemented by a carefully planned PR strategy.
Reliable protection from information attacks requires a comprehensive mix of preventive measures, corporate transparency and swift crisis response. Experts agree: the only way to “defeat” fake news is to stay one step ahead.
These principles help prevent a handful of fabricated stories from escalating into a full-scale crisis of trust.
By: Alison Mutler
Read more:
Fintech Under Attack