- BoG, SEC Warn Public Against ‘Daily Wealth Guide’ Crypto Scam Using Doctored Mahama Video
The Bank of Ghana and the Securities and Exchange Commission have warned the public against an alleged crypto investment scam operating under the name “Daily Wealth Guide”, after a manipulated video circulated on social media purporting to show President John Dramani Mahama endorsing the platform.
In a joint public notice dated September 1, the two regulators said scammers were promising large financial returns to Ghanaians through the crypto investment platform and cautioned the public not to deposit money with individuals or entities behind the scheme. They said the video appearing to show President Mahama promoting the platform had been doctored and should not be treated as a legitimate endorsement.
The warning highlights the growing challenge confronting financial regulators as fraudsters increasingly use social media, manipulated audiovisual content and the popularity of digital assets to attract unsuspecting investors. By attaching the image or apparent endorsement of a high-profile public figure to an investment proposition, fraudulent schemes can create a false sense of credibility before potential victims have had an opportunity to verify the entity behind the offer.
The BoG and SEC said invitations to members of the public to place money in such schemes amount to deposit-taking under the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016, Act 930. Under Section 4(i) of the Act, only a body corporate licensed by the Bank of Ghana may undertake deposit-taking business.
The regulators added that the Bank of Ghana had not licensed any entity or individual to engage in crypto investment, making the regulatory status of the “Daily Wealth Guide” proposition particularly significant. According to the notice, individuals or entities engaged in the activity commit an offence and may be penalised and required to refund funds received from members of the public.
The notice also warned of potentially severe administrative sanctions. Persons or entities involved may be liable to penalties ranging from 500 to 100,000 administrative penalty units under Section 53(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2020, Act 1044, while cases may also be referred to law-enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution.
The intervention comes at a time when the distinction between legitimate financial innovation and fraudulent investment solicitation is becoming increasingly important. Crypto-related terminology can be used to market products that appear technologically sophisticated, but investors still need to establish whether the entity taking their money is properly licensed and subject to regulatory oversight.
That distinction is particularly important because unusually high promised returns remain one of the common features of investment fraud. The regulators’ notice focuses directly on scammers promising large sums of money, underscoring the need for investors to treat claims of exceptional or guaranteed returns with caution rather than assuming that association with cryptocurrency automatically makes an opportunity legitimate.
The BoG advised members of the public to verify the licensing status of any individual or institution before depositing funds and to place deposits only with entities authorised by the Bank of Ghana or other relevant regulators. The warning effectively puts responsibility on potential investors to conduct basic regulatory checks before transferring money.
The regulators also directed their warning at the media industry, an important channel through which questionable investment schemes can gain public visibility. Radio stations, television networks and online platforms were specifically advised not to permit advertisements by the purported “foreign investors” without first confirming their licensing status.
That aspect of the notice broadens the regulatory concern beyond the individuals directly operating the alleged scheme. Advertising can give an unregulated financial product a degree of legitimacy, particularly where audiences assume that products appearing on established media platforms have undergone some form of due diligence.
For broadcasters and digital publishers, the warning therefore creates a stronger expectation of verification before accepting financial-services advertising. The regulators are effectively arguing that media organisations should not operate simply as passive advertising channels where investment products involving public funds are concerned.
The use of a doctored presidential video adds another dimension to the problem. Advances in digital manipulation and artificial intelligence are making it increasingly possible to create convincing videos in which public figures appear to promote products or make statements they never endorsed.
For financial regulators, this creates an enforcement challenge that traditional licensing rules alone cannot solve. Even where an entity is unlicensed, fraudulent promotional content can spread rapidly across social media before regulators, platforms or law-enforcement agencies are able to intervene.
The “Daily Wealth Guide” case therefore illustrates why investor protection is increasingly becoming a joint challenge involving regulators, law-enforcement agencies, media organisations, technology platforms and consumers themselves. Licensing checks remain fundamental, but digital literacy and public awareness are becoming equally important defences against increasingly sophisticated scams.
The Bank of Ghana has asked members of the public to report suspected illegal activity to its Financial Stability Department and provided telephone numbers and an official complaints email address for that purpose. It said the Bank and SEC would seek assistance from law-enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute persons found culpable.
The regulatory message is therefore clear: an impressive digital presentation, an association with cryptocurrency or an apparent endorsement by a public figure does not establish that an investment scheme is legitimate.
For potential investors, the first question should not be how much a scheme promises to pay, but whether the entity receiving their money is licensed to do so. In the case of “Daily Wealth Guide”, the BoG and SEC have now explicitly warned that the platform being promoted through the doctored video should not be treated as an authorised investment operation.
