On December 2nd I posted an article detailing document manipulations, hidden related party transactions, inflated valuations and potentially exorbitant fees by Ventus Energy. In response, the company promised its 5,000 investors a full, independent audit to clear the air. On December 23 they published it.
There’s just one problem: It wasn’t an audit.
What Ventus Originally Announced
The original announcement, archived on December 25, used the word “audit” liberally:
“The audit was initiated in response to publicly circulated misinformation…”
“The audit has now been completed, and the auditors have delivered their conclusions.”
“Scope of the Audit Review”
“The Executive Summary outlines the key findings and conclusions of the independent audit.”
To a retail investor, this language suggests rigorous independent verification, the kind performed by qualified auditors following established auditing standards. But that’s not what happened.
What They Actually Got
The document Ventus published is titled “REVIEW SUMMARY“. Not audit. In fact, the word audit isn’t even mentioned in that document.
The document itself contains a critical disclaimer:
“The summary is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as containing any legal opinions, conclusions, or recommendations. All answers are based exclusively on the materials reviewed and the defined scope of work.”
In other words: BDO Law reviewed documents that Ventus provided to them, answered questions that Ventus asked them, and explicitly stated their findings shouldn’t be treated as conclusions.
This is fundamentally different from an audit, which involves independent verification, sampling procedures, and professional auditing standards.
I Asked BDO Directly
There was one last thing worth eliminating: whether Ventus could plausibly claim this still qualified as an “audit” under any standard. On December 26, I emailed BDO Law SIA to clarify:
“A company called Ventus Energy Group OÜ has published a document prepared by your firm, titled ‘Review Summary’ and signed by Vita Liberte, and is publicly describing it as an ‘independent audit.’
Is a Review Summary prepared by BDO Law SIA an audit?”
BDO’s Managing Partner, Vita Liberte, responded:
“This is to confirm that BDO Law SIA has issued Independent Review of Ventus Energy transactions, limited exclusively to identifying factual elements related to the structuring and execution of specific transactions.”
Not an audit. An “Independent Review” that was “limited exclusively to identifying factual elements.” BDO Law confirmed exactly what their document stated: they reviewed materials and identified facts. They did not audit anything.
The Quiet Edit
A quick Ctrl+F on the BDO document turns up zero results for the word “audit.” That alone should have been enough to settle the matter.
Despite this, several influencers immediately published posts claiming Ventus had been exonerated by an independent audit. Apparently without reading the document.
At that point, the facts were already clear to me. I didn’t email BDO to clarify anything for myself.
I emailed them to force a binary outcome: either stand behind the word “audit,” or stop using it.
BDO is a reputable firm. They do not allow their work to be publicly misrepresented. By putting the question to them directly, it was clear that they would reach out to their own client and fix it. And they did.
We can now compare the version on Ventus’s website before BDO was made aware of the mischaracterization and after.
Compare the archived versions:
December 25, 2025 (original):
- “The audit was initiated…”
- “The audit has now been completed…”
- “Scope of the Audit Review”
- “…conclusions of the independent audit“
December 29, 2025 (current):
- “The review was initiated…”
- “The review has now been completed…”
- “Scope of the Review“
- “…conclusions of the independent review“
BDO wasn’t hired to conduct an audit. So they didn’t allow their client to use that word.
Ventus, however, did not catch everything in their edits. The page title still reads “Independent audit firm review,” and the text still refers to “auditors” and “the auditor’s report.”
The Art of Asking the Right Questions
But calling it an “audit” was just one part of the whole charade.
The real trick was the questions.
Watch.
Powerhouse Jugla: Where Did the Money Go?
The actual problem:
Ventus raised €3M from retail investors for Jugla. For that €3M, they received 20% of the company at closing. The total acquisition price was stated as €10M. There’s a mismatch: 20% of €10M would be €2M, not €3M. What happened to the missing million?
The loan agreement explicitly permits deducting “fees and costs” before funds reach the project. Investors have to wonder: How much of their €3M actually went to the acquisition vs. how much was deducted as fees?
The question that needed to be answered:
A complete funds flow statement showing where the €3M from retail investors actually went.
The question Ventus asked BDO:
“The structure of SIA ‘JUGLAS JAUDA’ (‘PH Jugla’) acquisition, the procedure of share transfer and related payments.”
The answer they got:
BDO confirmed:
- An SPA was signed on August 8, 2024
- VEH J currently holds 49% ownership
- €6,676,823.64 was paid to the sellers (€3.33M in 2024, €3.34M in 2025)
- “The provisions of the SPA are confidential”
What this tells us about the actual problem:
Nothing.
BDO confirmed that payments happened. They did not address:
- Where the €3M from retail investors actually went
- What fees were deducted from investor funds
- Why €3M was raised for 20% when 20% of €10M is only €2M
Ventus asked BDO to confirm they transferred money. BDO confirmed money was transferred. The actual question, how much of the €3M was skimmed as fees, was never asked.
Powerhouse Dambis: The Outdated Valuation
The actual problem:
Powerhouse Dambis earned €88,309 in 2024. Ventus paid €6.36M for it. That’s a lot for an asset that, outside of Europe’s energy crisis, has never earned more than €126,185 annually, and spent five months of 2024 shut down because it couldn’t operate profitably.
At the end of 2024, the company raised money to buy that power plant. It used a valuation issued on March 28, 2023 with cut off date December 31st 2022 to justify the price. The problem? That valuation was 2 years out of date and the revenue it predicted for 2024 was nearly double of what the plant actually ended up earning. Ventus knew that by then and used the valuation anyway.
One implication is hard to ignore: the seller was Ventus’s majority shareholder, Jānis Timma. Investor money may have been used to acquire an insider’s asset that had been shut down for five months due to unprofitability, at a price justified by a valuation Ventus already knew was obsolete.
The question that needed to be answered:
What is the current Fair Market Value of the Dambis plant based on its performance, and does the €6.36M acquisition price reflect this value?
The question Ventus asked BDO:
“The acquisition of SIA ‘Eco Energy Riga’ (‘Eco Energy Riga’) shares from JT, including, the methodology used for valuation and its alignment with market practices.”
The answer they got:
BDO confirmed:
- An SPA was concluded on January 30, 2025
- The purchase price was €2,000,000
- A valuation was prepared on March 28, 2023 by a certified appraiser
- “The methodology employed aligns with International Valuation Standards (IVS)”
- The valuation determined fair market value at €12,000,000
What this tells us about the actual problem:
Nothing.
BDO confirmed a valuation exists and that it followed IVS methodology. They did not address:
- Whether a March 2023 valuation remains valid after profits collapsed 93%
- Why no updated valuation was commissioned before the 2025 acquisition
Ventus asked BDO to confirm a valuation methodology was used. BDO confirmed a methodology was used. The actual question, whether the valuation is still valid, was never asked.
The Office: Confirming the Doctoring
The actual problem:
My investigation documented that CEO Henrijs Jansons edited a valuation PDF, placing white rectangles over the original addressee (“SIA CR Investments”, the renamed Crowdestor Investments) and inserting a text box reading “Ventus Energy OU” before publishing it to investors. The edit history showing Jansons’ name was still visible in the file metadata.
The question that needed to be answered:
Can a valuation report that has been visibly altered by the CEO, without the consent of the original appraiser, still legally be used for fund raising?
The question Ventus asked BDO:
“Modifications to the acquisition documentation concerning the office located at Vīlandes Street 6, Riga (‘Office’), specifically, what changes were made.”
The answer they got:
BDO confirmed:
- The original valuation was dated December 11, 2024, addressed to SIA CR Investments
- “A separate version of this report, published on the Ventus Energy Group website, does not bear a secure electronic signature and appears to have been altered after issuance”
- “White rectangular overlays have been placed over the original addressee on the first and third pages, and a new text box has been inserted”
- “No other modifications to the valuation report were identified”
What this tells us about the actual problem:
BDO confirmed the doctoring happened exactly as documented. But they framed it neutrally, as if noting the weather.
They did not address:
- Why a CEO would alter a signed professional document
- Why the Crowdestor connection was hidden
- Whether publishing an altered valuation to investors is appropriate
- What this suggests about other documents Ventus has published
Ventus asked BDO to confirm what changes were made. BDO confirmed what changes were made. The actual question, what the legal consequences of the doctoring were was never asked.
Regulatory Compliance: An Absence of Evidence
The actual problem:
Ventus Energy Group OÜ has raised €65.8M from nearly 5,000 retail investors across Europe. The company has no crowdfunding license, no lending authorization, and is registered as a “web portal” with €4,166 in share capital.
The question that needed to be answered:
Is Ventus legally authorized to operate?
The question Ventus asked BDO:
“Review of documentation confirming the Ventus Energy Group legal conformity with Estonian legislation, including, the 3 May 2025 Cobalt legal opinion and correspondence with the Estonian regulator.”
The answer they got:
BDO noted:
- “The Estonian Financial Supervision Authority has not issued any formal finding of non-compliance”
- “Nor [has any] public enforcement action been taken against Ventus Energy Group”
- Ventus “has concluded that it operates outside the scope of regulated crowdfunding”
- Finantsinspektsioon “referenced such powers under Financial Supervision Act in the letters reviewed”
What this tells us about the actual problem:
BDO confirmed the regulator hasn’t taken action yet. They also noted, almost in passing, that the regulator “referenced such powers” in their correspondence. That’s not exactly a clean bill of health.
In fact BDO stated the opposite: Ventus asked for ‘confirming legal conformity with Estonian legislation’. BDO didn’t say yes. They used a lot of words to avoid outright saying no. That’s not the same.
They did not address:
- Whether Ventus actually complies with Estonian or EU law
- Whether “no enforcement yet” equals “legal”
- Why the regulator felt the need to reference enforcement powers
- Whether Ventus’s self-assessment that it’s exempt is correct
Ventus asked BDO to confirm no enforcement action has been taken. BDO confirmed no enforcement action has been taken. The actual question, whether the business model is legal, was never asked.
The Pattern
Four questions. Four times the same trick:
- Identify the actual concern raised in my investigation
- Craft a narrow question that sounds related but doesn’t actually address it
- Get BDO to confirm something technically true but irrelevant
- Present the confirmation as if it answers the concern
This isn’t an audit. It’s not even a proper legal review. It’s a carefully choreographed exercise in looking like you’ve answered questions while actually avoiding them entirely.
Why This Matters
The distinction between an “audit” and a “legal review” isn’t semantic. It goes to the heart of investor protection.
An audit involves:
- Independence from the client
- Verification procedures beyond reviewing provided documents
- Professional standards and liability
- Conclusions the auditor stands behind
A legal review involves:
- Answering questions the client asks
- Reviewing materials the client provides
- Explicit disclaimers against relying on findings
- No independent verification
Ventus paid a law firm to answer carefully crafted questions, then presented the responses as an “independent audit” to reassure investors – until the author of the document forced them to stop calling it an audit.
The Disclaimer They Hope You Don’t Read
BDO’s document ends with this:
“This document has been prepared solely for the purpose of performing the agreed-upon assignment, and is addressed specifically to recipient identified above, and we did not have the interest of anyone other than the recipient in our contemplation when we carried out our work. Accordingly, we may not have addressed issues of relevance to any third parties. Therefore, any use of this document by such third parties is entirely at their own risk and BDO shall not be liable for any losses, damages or expenses incurred by such third parties using or implementing the advice, recommendations or any other material provided herein.”
Translation:
This isn’t standard legal boilerplate. A law firm could simply state ‘we are not liable’ and be done. Instead, BDO goes out of its way to mention ‘third parties’ – meaning investors like you – three separate times, each time warning you not to rely on their findings.
That level of repetition is not an accident. It’s the legal firm’s equivalent of grabbing you by the shoulders and saying, “Do not trust the people who are showing you this document.” They are creating the maximum possible professional distance from their own client’s actions.
Conclusion
Ventus commissioned a limited legal review, marketed it to investors as an “independent audit,” quietly rewrote the announcement after BDO confirmed it was not an audit, and still has not answered the underlying questions raised in my investigation.