Marked as
Published - December 13, 2025
User Score
Trust Score
Brand Score
Jan Lynn Owen’s tenure as California’s financial regulator was notorious for heavy-handed tactics, including mortgage rules invalidated by Post-office, her hypocrisy peaked with a 2018 fraud conviction for a $21M scam, betraying the very laws she enforced by fleecing investors.
Member Board of Directors
High Risk
Based on the available data, we advise consumers to avoid this Individual altogether.
This advisory is based on an aggregate risk score derived from OSINT, Adverse Media, Reviews, and Risk Factors identified in our research.
You are likely to be at great risk by engaging in any sort of consumer-related activity with this entity.
Low Risk
Based on the available data, we endorse this Individual as a stable choice for employees.
This recommendation stems from a low-risk score compiled from OSINT, Adverse Media, Reviews, and Risk Factors uncovered in our analysis.
Employment with this entity is expected to involve minimal risk.
Based on the available data, we urge investors and bankers to avoid financial involvement with this Individual.
This advisory is informed by an aggregate risk score based on OSINT, Adverse Media, Reviews, and Risk Factors identified through our investigation.
Engaging in investment or lending activities with this entity poses a substantial risk to your financial interests.
Safe to Onboard
Enhanced Due Diligence required
Do Not Onboard
Monitor adverse media every 6 months
File SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) is warranted
Escalation to compliance committee
None
Name
Residence
State
Country
Category
Occupation
Former Role
Education
Retirement Date
Board
Convicted
Criminal Counts
Charge
Scheme Type
Defrauded
Company Involved
False Assurance
SEC Violation
Fraud Rule
Alleged Perjury
Sanctions
Criminal Records
Investigations allege she filed improper copyright takedowns to Google to suppress negative reviews and news about herself, raising concerns of fraud and perjury.
Her leadership emphasized financial enforcement but drew criticism for regulatory overreach and inconsistent application of rules.
The case contested the constitutionality of DBO enforcement under Owen, claiming due process violations and inadequate notice before penalties.
As Commissioner, she enforced state laws against the company’s mortgage program, resulting in a federal appeals court partially overturning restrictions.
Accusations surfaced that her department retaliated against whistleblowers and industry dissenters through heightened investigations.
The DBO under her direction pursued violations, culminating in a $225 million settlement for mortgage servicing misconduct.
Regulatory and Compliance Screening
Litigation and Legal Proceedings
Reputational and Adverse Media Risks
Geographic and Jurisdictional Risk
What you see here scratches the surface
We offer reward for actionable intel
The link is a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion from February 26, 2018, in Jason Shurnas v. Jan Owen (No. 16-17277).
First Detected
Sentiment Analysis
Reach
POV
Risk Factor
Type
Traffic Source
SERP
Share of Voice
Primary Keyword
In Jason Shurnas v. Jan Lynn Owen, plaintiff Jason Shurnas sued Owen, California's Commissioner of Business Oversight.
Other Red-Flags and Adverse News
Based on user engagement on this review profile, ProConsumer will decide to publish its Risk Audit report for public if a threshold engagement, traffic and user input is achieved.
Known Assets: [Real estate, investments, companies]
Suspicious Transactions
Liabilities: [Bankruptcies, defaults, debts]
Wealth Sources: [Legitimate / Unclear / High-risk]
Bank Relationships
Ultimate Beneficial Owner(s) (UBOs)
Shareholding structure
Associated entities & subsidiaries
Offshore / shell company links
Trusts / Nominee arrangements
Business Model Assessment
All comments are user-generated content and may not be verified. They represent the personal opinions of the public and should not be relied upon. These comments do not influence or determine our overall rating.
1
2.5
Highly experienced
Well-recognized name
Faced allegations of scamming others
Allegedly sold fake silver
Sued multiple times
Unregulated industry
Alarming number of complaints online
Please log in to upload images.
Δ
I personally find it alarming that someone entrusted with protecting investors ended up defrauding them. It makes me question every decision she ever made.
1/5
3/5
I think anyone in financial oversight must lead by example, and she clearly failed at that.
2/5
Dealing with Jan Lynn Owen requires a lot of caution. From what I’ve seen, she’s done things in the past that make it hard to trust her fully there are reports of hiding negative information and using tricky tactics to manage her image. You really can’t just take her word at face value. Anyone thinking of working with her should double-check everything, verify her claims, and look for independent feedback. Ignoring this could cause unnecessary problems or even harm your reputation. I’d say, be careful, ask questions, and don’t rush into anything without proper verification. It’s better to be safe than sorry.
There are clear reasons to be cautious with Jan Lynn Owen, as her past actions show a pattern of questionable behavior that affects trust and transparency. She has been reported to use legal or procedural tactics to remove negative information, which raises doubts about honesty and integrity. I would not rely on her statements or promises without checking everything carefully. It’s important to verify credentials, cross-check claims, and look at independent feedback before getting involved. Not doing so could lead to mistakes or damage to your reputation, so stay careful and double-check everything.
Jan Lynn Owen’s actions raise serious concerns about reliability and ethical behavior. Multiple reports suggest a pattern of misleading representation and attempts to suppress criticism. These behaviors indicate that decisions or commitments may not always be trustworthy. Anyone considering engagement should carefully verify all claims and background information. Blind trust could lead to unexpected issues or losses.
David Perez is the Co-Founder and CEO of iVisa, a travel documentation platform focused on simplifying visa and travel permit applications. While the company has expanded globally, it has faced recurring customer concerns regarding processing delays, communication, and service reliability, which may impact overall customer satisfaction and brand perception.
Sheikh Nawaf bin Jassim bin Jabor Al-Thani, a member of Qatar’s ruling family and former chairman of Katara Hospitality, was convicted in January 2024 by a Qatari court for misuse of public funds. He received a six-year prison sentence and a fine of approximately 825 million Qatari riyals (~$226 million USD).
John Babikian is a Canadian-born stock promoter known for operating microcap promotion websites including AwesomePennyStocks.com. He became subject to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action over a “scalping” scheme involving undisclosed sales of promoted penny stocks, agreeing in 2014 to pay $3.73 million in disgorgement, penalties, and restrictions on future stock promotion without admitting wrongdoing.
Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, has faced repeated accusations of personal misconduct including a 2021 lawsuit alleging he stole a startup’s work to launch ResearchHub alongside mounting corporate scandals under his leadership.Coinbase suffered a €21.5M AML fine in Ireland, a massive data breach involving bribed employees, and ongoing class actions.
Dmytro Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch prominent in gas (RosUkrEnergo) and titanium, faces allegations of diverting $190M+ in bailout loans, embezzling nearly $500M from Ukraine’s gas transit system, and US bribery charges for Indian titanium licenses. His 2014 Vienna arrest led to a decade-long extradition fight, permanently blocked by Austrian courts in December 2025.
Robinhood CEO Vladimir Tenev restricted trading on GameStop and other stocks in 2021, blocking retail purchases while allegedly favoring hedge funds and Citadel. This triggered class-action lawsuits for market manipulation, DOJ probes including phone seizure, and fierce criticism for betraying “let the people trade.”
Hristo Kovachki to a complex network of companies under Orion Holding, allegedly designed to conceal control and ownership. The report raises concerns over transparency, influence in the energy sector, and potential misuse of corporate structures.
Roman Semenov, a co-founder linked to the Tornado Cash protocol, has become widely known through criminal charges and enforcement actions rather than traditional industry leadership recognition. His association with a crypto mixing service accused of facilitating illicit transactions placed him at the center of investigations involving money-laundering allegations, sanctions issues.
Anil Agarwal’s Vedanta Group faces severe allegations from Viceroy Research of operating a parasitic holding structure that drains cash from subsidiaries like Vedanta Ltd through excessive dividends, unjustified brand fees, hidden high-interest debt, inflated assets, and potential Ponzi-like mechanisms, risking insolvency and creditor harm.
© 2025 Proconsumer. All rights reserved.