The Texas State Securities Board’s Billionico and Auratus emergency fraud order has been dismissed.

Billionico and Auratus were short-lived spinoffs of GSPartners, a fraudulent investment scheme run by Josip Heit.

TSSB issued a Billionico emergency cease and desist fraud order on April 22nd, 2024. Named Respondents in TSSB’s order were:

  • Billionico Academy, aka Billionico;
  • Daniel von Lison (right), aka Daniel Markus Lison, Daniel Markus von Lison, Daniel Freiherr, founder of Billionico
  • Primus Liquidity Holding Ltd;
  • Elite Club World;
  • Frank Deyle, CEO of Billionico;
  • Christian Cruz Riander, Sales Director of Billionico;
  • Marina von Lison (right), aka Marina Karp, Marina Baroness von Lison, Baroness Marina v. Lison, and Baroness Marina von Lison;
  • Scott Ifionayi, African President of Billionico;
  • Christopher Peacock, former GSPartners promoter turned Billionico promoter;
  • Auratus, Hong Kong shell company; and
  • Terry Lee, representative of Auratus

In response to TSSB’s fraud order, Billionico and Auratus blocked Texas residents from signing up on or around May 1st, 2024.

At time of publication Auratus’ website throws up a “suspected phishing” fraud warning in Google Chrome. Billionico’s website is still up but, as of May 2025, monthly website visits were too low for SimilarWeb to detect.

Following TSSB’s Billionico and Auratus fraud order, some Respondents, through an unsigned an undated filing, requested a hearing to defend the matter.

A hearing was scheduled between the TSSB and Billionico and Auratus Respondents for over July 8th and 9th, 2025.

Having otherwise all but disappeared, nine Billionico and Auratus Respondents filed a Special Appearance and Motion for Summary Disposition on June 6th, 2025.

In a nutshell, the Billionico and Auratus Respondents argued the TSSB lacked jurisdiction over them.

The merits of TSSB’s investigation and previously cited evidence of fraud was not directly challenged. Instead, the Billionico and Auratus Respondents filed sworn declarations stating they “do not sell securities, let alone promote or sell them in Texas”.

This is of course contradicted by TSSB’s investigation, enforcement order and standing Auratus securities fraud warnings from Australia and New Zealand.

BehindMLM’s own Auratus review additionally further confirmed Auratus offering unregistered securities to consumers.

TSSB didn’t respond to the Special Appearance filing but did file a response to the Motion for Summary Disposition (MSD).

In it, Staff argues that it should not have to present any evidence in support of its allegations at SOAH until the hearing on the merits.

Further, Staff argues, because Respondents’ MSD and attached evidence contradict some of Staff’s allegations in the Order, there are necessarily fact issues that preclude summary disposition.

SOAH disagreed with TSSB’s position, noting TSSB’s response was insufficient at addressing the MSD filing. Ultimately however, SOAH ruled the MSD filing as moot.

This was due to SOAH’s July 1st order on the Special Appearance filing;

Because [the Respondents] are all nonresidents, to establish personal jurisdiction over Respondents, Staff must allege either that

(a) there is general jurisdiction because Respondents have engaged in continuous and systematic contacts with Texas to
support general jurisdiction, or

(b) there is specific jurisdiction because Respondents have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting
activities in Texas, and the cause of action against them arises out of or relates to those activities.

The Order contains conclusory allegations that Respondents are illegally offering securities for sale in Texas, but the only contact with Texas described in the Order is a single March 2024 communication where the Board’s Enforcement Director in Texas allegedly tried to communicate with Mr. Riander, but Mr. Riander declined to speak with him.

The Order contains no allegations of continuous or systemic contacts that might support the Board’s exercise of general jurisdiction over any Respondent.

Indeed with both Billionico and Auratus being abandoned towards the end of 2024, it would be difficult to cite present examples of “continuous or systemic contacts”.

Turning to specific jurisdiction—that is, whether Respondents have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas—the ALJ finds nothing in the Order that alleges any contacts by Respondents with Texas, let alone contacts that gave rise to the Board’s claims.

Nothing in the Order suggests that any Respondent has targeted Texas or done business here, or even maintained a
website that targets Texas or Texans.

SOAH consequently dismissed TSSB’s Billionico and Auratus emergency fraud order.

After Billionico and Auratus collapsed, Josip Heit rebooted yet again with DAO1 and Apertum Foundation.

TSSB issued an emergency Apertum securities fraud cease and desist order on March 20th, 2025. The matter is up for hearing before SOAH between October 20th to 24th.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Heit and the Apertum fraud Respondents have cited the Billionico and Auratus dismissal in a new July 2nd filing.

Respondents Apertum Foundation, Josip Heit, Dirc Zahlmann, Bruce Hughes, and Dennis Loos respectfully submit this notice of supplemental authority in connection with their pending motions for summary disposition.

On June 30, 2025, the Honorable Sarah Starnes of the State Office of Administrative Hearings (“SOAH”) set aside an emergency cease-and-desist order issued by the Texas State Securities Board (the “Board”) for lack of personal jurisdiction over the respondents in a case that mirrors this one.

The Billionico Order case further supports Respondents’ arguments here that SOAH should set aside the Board’s action against them for lack of jurisdiction.

Rather than prove they aren’t committing securities fraud, Heit and his co-respondents argue;

The Board lacks personal jurisdiction over Respondents, who are a foreign entity and individuals with no meaningful ties to
Texas.

TSSB has yet to respond to the latest July 2nd filing.

In addition to the DAO1 and Apertum case, TSSB also has a standing emergency fraud order against Heit over the original GSPartners fraudulent investment scheme.

That matter is up for hearing before SOAH between November 3rd to 6th.

Both hearings, if they go ahead, will require Heit and his co-Respondents to attend in person. BehindMLM has previously reported on US federal investigations into Heit.

While I can’t say for sure, I suspect TSSB didn’t bother too much with the Billionico and Auratus case as it’s redundant in light of DAO1 and Apertum.

With the same underlying allegations of unregistered securities offerings, there’s significant overlap between the Billionico and Auratus, Apertum and GSPartners (GSB) cases.

What we can ascertain is TSSB will likely have to respond differently to the filed MSD in the Apertum case, failing which they risk a repeat of the Billionico and Auratus dismissal.

Heit settled GSPartners and GSB fraud allegations with over two dozen North American regulators in September 2024.

As part of the settlement, Heit and GSB agreed to refund GSPartners investments in settling jurisdictions.

Consumers outside of these jurisdictions were purportedly offered refunds but BehindMLM is unaware of any GSPartners investor receiving one. To the contrary, we have received multiple reports of GSPartners support ghosting victims once a refund was requested.

The North American settling jurisdictions GSPartners victim claim submission deadline expired on May 22nd. Since then there have been no public updates.

Pending a ruling on the Apertum MSD filing, stay tuned.