Information current as of 11 August 2026

Buy gold and receive a discount every month. Two per cent. Four per cent. For years. And at the end, the gold originally ordered is still supposed to be available for delivery.

That is how TGI AG's model was advertised. The decisive question, however, is not whether such a calculation looks attractive on paper. The decisive question is:

Where does the money for the ongoing payments come from – and, at the same time, is all the gold required for every customer actually available?

This analysis reconstructs the model, examines the economic questions behind it and continues the chronology with the developments that followed the publication of our original report in June 2026.

Editorial note: This article distinguishes between verifiable facts, statements made by the company, regulatory measures, matters under suspicion and our own economic assessment. Ongoing proceedings must not be equated with final judicial findings. The presumption of innocence applies to all individuals and companies concerned.

1. Overview: What Is TGI?

TGI AG, based in Liechtenstein, offered gold models under which customers ordered gold while also being promised monthly benefits over an extended period. The best-known models were “Customer Basic 2%” and “Sales Premium”, which was advertised with a monthly benefit of four per cent.

According to the company's account, these benefits were to be made possible by exceptionally high margins in the gold trade or by access to gold from mining operations. Immediate physical delivery of the gold was not necessarily envisaged. Depending on the model, delivery was not due until after a longer contractual term.

This created two distinct levels that must be examined separately:

the agreement and the monthly benefits promised in it; and

the actual economic backing in gold behind the customers' orders.

An agreement can establish a claim. It does not, however, answer whether the gold required to fulfil that claim already exists, has been clearly allocated, is insured and can be delivered at any time.

2. The Issue: Existing Gold or a Promise for the Future?

The entire model stands or falls on one simple question:

Was all the gold required for each customer order purchased when the agreement was concluded and economically allocated to that customer – or was it intended to be acquired later using production, trading income or new revenue?

If all the gold exists from the outset and has been properly segregated, a later increase in the gold price does not generally create a procurement problem when delivery becomes due. The gold is already there.

If, however, the gold still has to be purchased or produced at a later date, a rising gold price changes the calculation significantly. The company must then finance not only the monthly benefits. At the end of the term, it must also procure gold that may have become considerably more expensive in the meantime.

Unrefined Gold Is Not Fine Gold

Advertising claims relating to mining frequently refer to large quantities of gold contained in rock. But the amount of gold in the ground is not the same as the amount of deliverable fine gold.

The steps and costs between the two include:

mining and transporting the ore;

processing and the actual yield;

refining and melting losses;

energy, staff and machinery;

financing, insurance, storage and logistics; and

taxes, fees and regulatory costs.

If, for example, a calculation assumes 20 grams of gold per tonne of rock, that figure initially represents only the theoretical metal content. The decisive questions are what proportion remains as marketable fine gold after all losses – and what the total cost of producing it is.

The Sample Calculation from Our Report

Our report deliberately uses simplified assumptions to illustrate the scale involved. It does not claim that these figures represent audited internal data from TGI AG.

Assume that a customer ordered €100,000 worth of gold in 2022 at an assumed gold price of €51 per gram. That would correspond to approximately 1,960 grams of fine gold.

If the assumed market price later rose to €87 per gram, that amount of gold would already be worth approximately €170,000.

Using a simplified calculation, the monthly benefits would add:

€72,000 under the two-per-cent model over 36 months; or

€144,000 under the four-per-cent model over 36 months.

In this example, the total economic burden would therefore amount to approximately €242,000 or €314,000, respectively – based on an original order of €100,000.

This calculation is not proof of insufficient backing. It illustrates the evidence that would be required in order to assess whether the model is financially sustainable.

3. What Evidence Would Be Required?

Advertising statements or general references to mining projects would not be sufficient for a robust examination. In particular, the following would be required:

quantitative evidence of the existing fine-gold inventory;

clear allocation of the gold to individual customer orders;

independent storage and inventory confirmations;

information concerning ownership, segregation rights and protection against third-party access;

audited production figures for the mines referred to;

verifiable recovery rates and refining losses;

complete production, financing and logistics costs;

an explanation of how the monthly benefits are financed;

protection against gold-price and currency risks; and

audited annual financial statements and reliable proof of liquidity.

During the contractual changes discussed at the time, reference was also made to a bank guarantee or bond security and to a “TGI Subfund”. When our original report was prepared, however, we had not been provided with any publicly and unambiguously verifiable information concerning a fund name, an ISIN, a custodian or a published prospectus that would have allowed these claims to be verified conclusively.

Announced transfers or novations of agreements do not automatically answer the central economic question either. A new contractual document does not, by itself, change the actual gold inventory, liquidity or pool of assets available to meet liabilities.

4. Chronology: What Happened Next

Our detailed TGI report was completed on 10 June 2026. Several significant developments have occurred since then.

April 2026: Warning in Austria and Measures in Germany

On 22 April 2026, the Austrian Financial Market Authority published an investor warning. According to the warning, TGI AG did not hold an Austrian licence to conduct banking activities requiring authorisation, in particular deposit-taking business. The authority later added that the lawfulness of publishing the warning had been confirmed by a decision dated 16 June; TGI filed an appeal against that decision on 14 July. Austrian FMA: Warning concerning offers by TGI AG

Germany's Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, BaFin, also took action against parts of the offering in 2026. According to the published reports, its action in April concerned the products “Customer Basic 2%” and “Customer Basic 2% + Loyalty Discount” because no sales prospectus had been published. TGI responded that, in the company's view, the authority's classification was incorrect. TGI statement regarding the BaFin measure

26 May 2026: Order Issued by the Liechtenstein FMA

In an order dated 26 May 2026, Liechtenstein's Financial Market Authority instructed TGI to immediately cease the distribution and public offering of the products “Customer Basic 2%”, “Sales Premium” and “Sofortrabatt”.

In the authority's view, TGI was conducting deposit-taking business through these products without the required authorisation. The authority also ordered TGI to cease holding funds belonging to third parties within four months. The order was immediately enforceable, although it was not yet final at that time. The FMA further stated that TGI was neither licensed nor registered with it. Liechtenstein FMA: Measures against TGI AG

On 11 June, the FMA published a further clarification after, according to the authority, false or misleading information had been circulated about the meaning of the order. Liechtenstein FMA: Clarification concerning TGI AG

2 June 2026: Regulatory Action and Ongoing Investigations

On 2 June 2026, official measures were carried out at TGI AG's business premises in Vaduz. According to the company's own press release, the allegations under investigation concerned possible violations of the Banking Act as well as suspicions of aggravated fraud committed on a commercial basis and money laundering.

On 4 June, TGI firmly rejected the allegations and stated that it was cooperating with the authorities. The company expressly referred to the presumption of innocence. These allegations must therefore be treated as matters under ongoing investigation – not as criminal offences that have been established. TGI statement regarding the allegations

19 June 2026: BaFin Orders the Business to Be Wound Up

According to publicly available reports, on 19 June 2026 BaFin ordered TGI to cease and wind up the unauthorised deposit-taking business connected with “Sales Premium”. The measure therefore concerned not only the public marketing of the product but also the unwinding of the business challenged by the authority. Stiftung Warentest: Raid at gold dealer TGI

Late July 2026: End of the Existing Agreements

At the end of July, it was announced that the existing Liechtenstein agreements were to be terminated. Prior public communications had created the impression that customers would receive immediate payment on 1 August.

The process described later was different: TGI was to repurchase the customers' gold at the applicable daily price. Customers were required to initiate the sale themselves through the back office. A processing period of approximately six to eight weeks was then stated.

This is a material difference, both economically and in terms of communication: “immediate payment” and “initiate a sale, followed by several weeks of processing” are not the same thing.

Specific questions therefore remain open for every customer:

What quantity of gold is shown in the back office?

Who legally owns that gold?

Where is it stored, and who confirms the inventory?

Which price will actually be used for settlement?

What deductions or fees apply?

At what point does the stated processing period begin?

Which company ultimately owes the payment?

5. Mauritius: A New Beginning or Just a New Sign on the Door?

In parallel with the termination of the existing Liechtenstein agreements, a relaunch under TRUST GOLD International Ltd. in Mauritius was announced. The information available in this context referred to a previously existing company named INVICTA Markets Ltd. and to an address associated with Legacy Capital in Ebène.

New models or benefits were also announced, including:

three per cent per month for a term of twelve months;

four per cent per month for a term of 24 months;

eight per cent for a period of two months; and

up to ten referral or “world pools”, each paying up to 0.2 per cent.

For the time being, these are advertising claims or statements made by the company. They do not constitute proof of existing gold, sufficient liquidity or regulatory authorisation.

The move to Mauritius leaves five central questions unanswered:

Which assets were actually transferred to the new company?

Did the new company also assume obligations towards existing TGI customers?

Which regulator is responsible for the new products?

What licences or registrations exist for the specific services being offered?

How are the gold inventory, customer ownership and ongoing benefits independently verified?

Based on the documents reviewed for this article, we had not seen any publicly and unambiguously verifiable evidence of a Mauritian financial-services licence covering the specific models being advertised. This does not automatically mean that the entire offering is unauthorised. It means only that the regulatory basis had not been demonstrated by the available information.

Establishing a company abroad does not automatically displace the rules of the countries in which products are actively marketed. Which rules apply depends on the precise contractual structure, the economic function of the arrangement and the manner in which it is distributed.

6. What Has Been Established – and What Has Not?

Established or Publicly Documented

Products offering monthly benefits of two and four per cent existed.

In May 2026, the Liechtenstein FMA prohibited the further distribution of certain models and ordered TGI to cease holding funds belonging to third parties.

The Austrian FMA published an investor warning.

German authorities challenged parts of the offering; according to published reports, the winding-up of the “Sales Premium” business was ordered.

Official measures were carried out at TGI on 2 June.

TGI denies the criminal allegations.

The termination of the existing Liechtenstein agreements and a relaunch in Mauritius were announced.

Not Conclusively Established in Publicly Available Evidence

complete gold backing allocated individually to every customer agreement;

the actual production volume and economic viability of the mining operations cited in support of the model;

the financing of all monthly benefits;

the total amount of freely available liquidity;

the extent and legal effect of any transfer of assets or obligations to Mauritius;

regulatory authorisation specifically covering the newly announced models; and

the actual timetable for the complete payment or delivery owed to all customers.

7. Summary

The TGI story requires explanation not because gold is an unusual product, but because several economic promises had to be fulfilled at the same time:

the customer orders gold;

the customer receives high monthly benefits over a long period;

the gold is still supposed to be available for delivery in full at a later date; and

throughout that period, the company must bear all costs and price risks.

Such a model can be assessed reliably only if the gold backing, payment flows and production figures are independently verified. That evidence lies at the heart of the unanswered questions.

The regulatory measures taken in 2026 did not resolve those questions. They made them more significant. Nor does the announced relaunch in Mauritius reset the economic calculation to zero. A new company, a new location or new contractual models are no substitute for transparent evidence showing where the gold is held, who owns it and how the monthly benefits are financed.

No opinion. A chronology – and a calculation that must be disclosed in full.

The Full Report

The detailed report “Analyse TGI” contains the full economic analysis, model calculations and unresolved questions requiring examination.

The report is available as a free download in German only. No English-language version of the full report is currently available. HustlerBiz serves solely as the download and distribution platform.

Download the full report – German only

Satirical Commentary: TRUZT GOLD

The factual analysis is accompanied by our independent satire and public-information project TRUZT GOLD. The website exaggerates the advertising logic behind the model and deliberately highlights the unresolved contradictions.

TRUZT GOLD is not an official website of TGI AG, TRUST GOLD International Ltd. or any affiliated company. The website is clearly labelled as satire and is kept editorially separate from this documentary account.

Podcast: Grantler und Piefke

Developments surrounding TGI are also covered in the podcast Grantler und Piefke.

Sources and Context

This article is based on Gunnar Wolf's report “Analyse TGI”, dated 10 June 2026, public statements issued by the competent financial-market supervisory authorities, company publications and the subsequent developments documented up to 11 August 2026.

Any company or individual wishing to allege a factual inaccuracy or submit additional verifiable documents may provide a statement for publication. Verifiable corrections will be clearly identified and incorporated into the chronology.