Source: Ventus Energy press inquiry and response (May 20-21, 2026)

Email exchange between the author and Henrijs Jansons, CEO of Ventus Energy Group OÜ, regarding the BaFin administrative order of May 5, 2026. Published as source material for the 6 months Ventus Energy investigation update.

Formatting adapted for web; original correspondence on file.

Outgoing: Press inquiry (May 20, 2026)

From: Karsten Aichholz <e-mail redacted>
To: Henrijs Jansons <e-mail redacted>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 18:07 UTC
Subject: BaFin order of May 5, request for comment

Dear Mr. Jansons,

I am writing a follow-up article on the BaFin administrative order of May 5, 2026, requiring Ventus Energy Group OÜ to cease its unauthorized deposit-taking business and immediately repay investors.

I would like to offer Ventus the opportunity to comment on the following points before publication:

1. The BaFin order is dated May 5. On May 13, Ventus told investors that German lending was paused due to "constructive dialogue with relevant regulatory stakeholders in Germany." Why was the order not disclosed to investors at that time?

2. What is the timeline for repaying German investors as required by the order?

3. Does Ventus intend to appeal the BaFin order?

I will include any response, in full or in relevant part, in the article. Please reply by Thursday May 22 EOD.

Karsten Aichholz

Response: Henrijs Jansons, CEO (May 21, 2026)

From: Henrijs Jansons
To: Karsten Aichholz <e-mail redacted>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 17:32 UTC
Subject: Re: BaFin order of May 5, request for comment

Dear Mr. Karsten,

Regarding the BaFin letter: although the decision is dated May 5, we only received it in our email inbox on May 12 at 13:15 Estonian time. Our legal advisors scheduled a call at 19:00 Estonian time and reviewed the order and outlined the required next steps. Following this review, the necessary technical and operational changes were implemented overnight, allowing lenders to be informed very the next morning.

Unfortunately, our experience to date is that your reporting on the so-called "Ventus Energy saga" has been highly selective and one-sided.

At the beginning of this process, we engaged with you in good faith by answering questions and providing comments. However, we feel that parts of the information provided were either take out of context or manipulated, certain calculations and statements published by you contained inaccuracies and highly speculative and unrealistic assumptions, and subsequent corrections or narrative changes were made only after these issues were pointed out.

In addition, over recent months we have received information from multiple independent sources suggesting that the ongoing publication campaign against Ventus Energy may be coordinated in nature. We have also received indications alleging that certain articles were commissioned and tied to compensation arrangements. We are not in a position to independently verify these claims, but given the circumstances, we do not consider further engagement productive.

Accordingly, we will not provide substantive responses to the questions included in your email.

At the same time, I note your statement: "I will include any response, in full or in relevant part, in the article. Please reply by Thursday May 22 EOD." I trust that this response will likewise be reflected accurately and in context in any future publication, in line with the journalistic standards you reference.

H