Bitcoin Tower Dispute: Questions Grow Over Police Conduct as Months-Long Investigation Produces No Public Evidence Against Austrian Developers

Investigation by: Seringe S.T. Touray
Editor-in-Chief of The Fatu Network

This is Part Three of The Fatu Network’s ongoing investigation into the dispute surrounding the Bitcoin Tower and The Edge projects, following earlier reports published on April 12th and April 20th, which examined competing claims between Austrian developers Angelika Mitterer and Manuel Stofleth-Mitterer and their Gambian business partners, Ebrima Solomon Tamba and Marcel Lambertus Teunis van Andel.

What initially appeared to be a commercial fallout between shareholders has, over time, evolved into something far more intricate and disquieting. The dispute, centred around the unfinished Bitcoin Tower project in Bijilo and The Edge apartment development, now increasingly raises broader questions about the conduct, proportionality, and trajectory of the police investigation itself.

Since The Fatu Network first began reporting on the matter last month, additional layers have emerged. The Austrian developers maintain they have spent months cooperating with investigators from the Serious Crime Unit (SCU) at the police headquarters in Banjul, while simultaneously insisting that investigators have not presented them with clear evidence substantiating criminal allegations made against them.

The police investigation has largely been spearheaded by officers identified by the developers as Bakary Dibba and Senior Investigator Lamin Saidykhan. According to Angelika and Manuel, the process involved repeated summons, prolonged interrogations, multiple detentions, extensive scrutiny of financial records, and interventions into operational aspects of their business activities.

The developers state that throughout the investigation, they disclosed extensive financial material to investigators, including cryptocurrency wallets, transaction histories, investor records, financial overviews, and live demonstrations intended to provide transparency regarding the movement of funds connected to the projects. According to their account, investigators were given unusually broad visibility into their financial systems in an attempt to dispel allegations that funds had been concealed or misappropriated.

Yet despite months of questioning and extensive access to records, the developers say they were never confronted with substantiated documentation proving theft, fraud, or criminal diversion of funds. They maintain that no verifiable evidence has been placed before them demonstrating the criminal conduct repeatedly alleged in parallel narratives surrounding the dispute.

This latest phase of the dispute cannot be understood without revisiting the earlier revelations already examined by The Fatu Network.

In the first report published on April 12th, Angelika and Manuel alleged that their relationship with local partners deteriorated as concerns grew over undocumented expenditures, disputed payments, and attempts to exert pressure regarding project finances. Documents reviewed by The Fatu Network included audit findings questioning millions of dalasis in expenditures lacking supporting documentation, as well as records tied to disputed payments connected to approvals involving the Gambia Tourism Board.

The same report also examined a €165,000 private loan extended by Manuel to Tamba under a promissory note signed on May 16th 2023, with Tamba’s shares in Kasumai Real Estate Ltd pledged as collateral. By May 18th 2025, Manuel formally declared Tamba in default after, according to the notice reviewed by The Fatu Network, no repayments had been made toward the agreed instalments.

That financial conflict later became central to a larger struggle over ownership, control, and authority within the projects themselves.

In Part Two of the investigation, published on April 20th, Tamba forcefully rejected key parts of the Austrians’ account while simultaneously confirming the existence of the €165,000 loan. He alleged that Manuel controlled company finances and concealed revenue from apartment sales through cryptocurrency transactions, accusations which Angelika and Manuel strongly denied.

However, many of Tamba’s claims were themselves challenged by documents, timelines, and financial records later submitted by the Austrians. The resulting picture was one of competing narratives, conflicting chronologies, and an increasingly combustible battle over documentation and credibility.

It is against this already volatile backdrop that the police investigation now attracts heightened scrutiny.

According to the developers, one of the most contentious aspects of the investigation concerns the handling of their passports. They allege that their Austrian passports were confiscated without a clearly articulated legal basis and have still not been returned approximately nine months later. The developers further state that Austrian diplomatic representatives intervened and clarified to authorities that the passports constitute property of the Republic of Austria and cannot simply be retained indefinitely absent appropriate legal justification.

The developers also raise concerns regarding consular procedures during periods of detention. They claim they were not permitted to make phone calls and that the Austrian embassy was not properly notified during parts of the process. According to their account, this created additional distress because their young daughter was reportedly left temporarily without arrangements to be collected from school while both parents were in detention.

Another major point of controversy concerns bail conditions imposed during the investigation.

According to the developers, bail requirements at one stage reportedly reached approximately 480 million Gambian dalasis, an amount they argue was grossly disproportionate to the underlying allegations and roughly double the alleged financial scope of the theft accusations themselves. Questions have consequently emerged over whether the severity of the measures imposed aligns with the evidentiary basis publicly known thus far.

The investigation has also generated concerns surrounding the retention of working equipment. The developers state that investigators seized a laptop that had already been made fully accessible during the inquiry. According to their account, even after technical examinations reportedly concluded that the device contained no relevant evidentiary material, it was still not returned, with no sufficiently clear explanation provided for its continued retention.

Equally striking are allegations concerning the shifting nature of bail conditions and interrogation procedures. Angelika and Manuel allege there were repeated modifications to bail terms, prolonged questioning sessions, and sudden escalations during interrogations despite what they describe as continuous cooperation with investigators.

The broader implications of these allegations are difficult to ignore.

At the centre of the matter remains a commercial dispute involving loans, ownership rights, investor funds, apartment management, and competing claims over who legitimately controls one of The Gambia’s most ambitious real estate developments. Yet increasingly, the dispute appears to touch on larger anxieties surrounding legal predictability, investor protection, institutional conduct, and the vulnerability of foreign investors operating within highly sensitive commercial environments.

The developers themselves openly argue that the conflict can no longer be viewed purely as a conventional business disagreement. They point to what they perceive as disproportionate law enforcement measures, inconsistent investigative actions, and attempts to exert pressure during the broader battle for control over the projects.

While the allegations against Angelika and Manuel have not been judicially determined, The Fatu Network has reviewed a substantial volume of documents submitted by the Austrian developers, including contracts, audit findings, payment records, correspondence, court filings, and transaction documents supporting significant parts of their account. Many of the counter-allegations raised against them by local partners remain disputed and, in several instances, were not accompanied by supporting documentation at the time of reporting.

The Fatu Network has contacted Police Public Relations Officer (PRO) ASP Modou Musa Sisawo regarding allegations and concerns surrounding the conduct of the investigation, including questions relating to detentions, bail conditions, confiscated passports, and the broader handling of the case. A follow-up report will be published once the police provide their response.

Meanwhile, this investigation is now expanding beyond the Bitcoin Tower and The Edge developments themselves.

Since publication of the first two reports, The Fatu Network has been approached by additional individuals, including Gambians, who allege they were involved in separate land and development disputes connected to Ebrima Tamba and associated business networks. Several of these individuals, some of whom say they came forward after reading the earlier reports involving the Austrian developers, have already met with The Fatu Network and shared documents, correspondence, and accounts which, if substantiated, could significantly broaden the scope of this investigation.

Their accounts, while still under examination, contain striking similarities to some of the concerns previously raised by Angelika and Manuel regarding project control, financial dealings, and disputed land arrangements. The Fatu Network is actively reviewing these claims and conducting further verification before publication.

What began as a dispute over a single development project is now steadily unfolding into a much larger and more consequential investigation, one that increasingly intersects with questions of land ownership, investor vulnerability, institutional conduct, and the exercise of influence within high-value commercial conflicts.

Whether the months-long police investigation ultimately produces substantiated criminal findings, or whether it comes to be viewed primarily as an extension of a bitter corporate and ownership struggle, remains to be seen.

What is already undeniable, however, is that the Bitcoin Tower dispute has evolved far beyond an ordinary business disagreement. It has become a complex and politically delicate confrontation involving money, power, credibility, institutional conduct, and competing attempts to shape the narrative surrounding one of The Gambia’s most high-profile developments.

This is the third in a series of reports.