Did Fintech Investment Sell Cars or Simply Peddle Celebrity Trust?

Apr 4 , 2026
By Daniel Fikadu

---

By using public figures alongside newspapers and broadcasters, Fintech Investment appeared to lend credibility to deals. Customers were not only buying Chinese-assembled BYD vehicles. They were buying the confidence that came with familiar faces and established plat-forms. That may have helped explain why the early Court move against celebrity “brand ambassadors” drew such attention. The question was whether trust itself had been commercialised, writes Daniel Fikadu (Danielfikadulawoffice@yahoo.com), attorney at law and founding partner at BEKA Law Firm .

---

The case about the business practice of the Fintech Investment Group (FIG) has become a defining legal dispute, converging claims of corporate misconduct, harm to clients, and the growing question of whether "influencers" and media outlets can be held accountable for what they promote.

What began as allegations of hundreds of millions of Birr in fraud over undelivered cars has widened into a test of how the courts weigh trust, liability, and due process, especially after sweeping injunctions were later eased and bank account suspensions were lifted in March 2026.

The wider dispute is whether Fintech Investment merely marketed cars or public trust. By using public figures such as Sarawit Fikre and Solomon Bogale, along with media outlets such as newspapers and broadcasters, the company appeared to offer more than a commercial transaction. It offered credibility, persuading its customers that they were not only buying Chinese assembled cars under the Build Your Dream (BYD) brand. They were also buying into the confidence that came with familiar faces and established platforms.

That helps explain why the court’s early move to freeze the assets of these "brand ambassadors" drew such attention. The legal logic appeared to rest on the view that if a public figure makes claims that others are likely to trust, and those claims help cause harm, then liability may not stop with the company itself. In that sense, the case implied a broader view of responsibility, one that extends beyond the old "let the buyer beware" - in legal jargon, caveat emptor - toward a more protective approach.

The civil and criminal issues in the case are also straightforward. Under the Civil Code, the relationship between Fintech Investment and more than a thousand of its customers turns on the basic rule that agreements must be kept. The Company’s failure to deliver BYD cars within the promised three-month window pointed to clear non-performance. The reported lapse of the performance bond with Tsehay Insurance added another layer. If a guarantee promised as part of a contract is not maintained, aggrieved customers may argue that the contract became voidable.

Then there is the more serious allegation about how refunds worked. Claims that customers could only be repaid "when new members join" uncovered the hallmarks of a pyramid structure. If proved, that would move the case beyond a breach-of-contract claim and into fraud. The accusation is sharpened by claims that the principals, Girmay Teklemichael and Daniel Yohannes, have a record of a similar transnational nature. That history, if established in Court, could strengthen the argument that this was not a failed business model but a deliberately organised scheme.

What made the case especially striking was the Court’s willingness, at least at first, to go after private properties, such as homes, vehicles and bank accounts, tied to the celebrity promoters. Ethiopia's corporate law usually shields individuals from company debts through the corporate veil. But the injunction signalled judges were willing to look past that protection where public figures may have acted as "de facto" agents of the business. By lending their positive social standing and social capital to a venture that, the allegations go, lacked real financial grounding, they were seen as tied to the resulting damage.

That approach did not fully hold. Judges at the Federal First Instance Court lifted the bank freezes, a move that marked an important turn in the case.

One reading is that the Court concluded the precautionary attachment had become too broad. Under the Civil Procedure Code, an injunction is supposed to be proportionate. Freezing the entire livelihood of a person or a media house could amount to judicial overreach if no direct intent to defraud has yet been shown. Another reading is more practical. The Court may have found that there are sufficient assets of the main defendants to pursue the claimed losses, making continued pressure on secondary parties less necessary.

Even with that reversal, the case has already sent a message to the creative and media industries. The lifting of the freeze offered temporary relief to the celebrities involved, but not a clean exit from scrutiny. The underlying issue remains whether stardom can be treated as a form of commercial assurance, and whether those who trade on it should do more due diligence before endorsing a business.

Be this as it may, the individuals involved in the case are still the victims. Some have reportedly sold their inheritance, jewellery, and their main vehicles to raise money, believing the promises made to them. Their claim is a demand to be restored, as far as possible, to the position they were in before the alleged fraud. Three questions now stand out.

Did public figures such as Sarawit or Mansur Jamal, the TikTok personality, make a reasonable effort to investigate Fintech Investment Group before promoting it and endorsing its offer? Could they still face civil claims for negligent misrepresentation? Can Girmay and Daniel provide sufficient collateral to refund what they owe their clients now that the freezes on influencer accounts have been lifted? And will regulators such as the Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA) or the Ministry of Trade & Regional Integration (MoTRI) respond by requiring influencers to sign "Liability Agreements" before lending their names to commercial campaigns in a fast-changing digital market?

---

PUBLISHED ON Apr 04,2026 [ VOL 27 , NO 1353]

---

[ssba-buttons]