Story 234

1/2

Story 228 highlights the degree to which the powerful men in finance are complicit in keeping women in check and the uphill battle we face on Wall Street. It’s not just about individual behaviour, but the systems that enable it and then distance themselves from the consequences. We’re encouraged to focus on the incident, the personality, the “bad actor,” while ignoring the fact that the infrastructure which allows it to persist operates in plain sight.

Take the recent reporting on Telegram. For years, the platform has been linked to criminal activity — including drug trafficking, fraud, and the widespread distribution of non-consensual sexual content and AI-generated abuse targeting women. In August 2024, its founder, Pavel Durov, was arrested in France and subsequently placed under formal investigation in connection with allegations that Telegram failed to co-operate with authorities on these matters. That investigation is ongoing. None of this was obscure – it was all a matter of public record.

And yet, in May 2025, Telegram raised approximately $1.5 billion through a convertible bond issuance backed by major institutional investors, including BlackRock and Citadel. This was not early-stage speculation. Capital flowed in after the governance concerns, safety issues, and legal scrutiny were already well documented. The purpose of the financing was to refinance existing debt and stabilise the organisation — in effect, to ensure the platform could continue operating at scale. Worth noting these two firms maintain board seats on ICI.

The harm, the platform, and the capital that sustains it are treated as separate narratives when, in practice, they are closely connected. No one needs to explicitly endorse misogyny if they are prepared to fund — or simply sustain — the systems that allow it to persist. It appears in what is normalised, what is financed, and what is ultimately deprioritised.

It also explains why the fight is uneven and exhausting. Women are expected to manage behaviour, mitigate risk, and protect ourselves within systems that are simultaneously being reinforced by decisions made at a far remove. The challenge is not only to call out what is happening, but to recognise how many layers are quietly working to keep it in place.

Thank you to the brave women behind this platform for giving a safe place to air it.

Similar Posts

  • Story 127

    I am a 45 year old saleswomen who works in a European bank in London & has in the business a long time and pretty thick skinned. At my Christmas party last year I was talking to my American boss who was visiting from NY about our teenage children and how much more open they…

  • Story 69

    I worked at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong for almost a decade. For most of that time, my performance and commitment were never in question. That changed the moment I announced my pregnancy. From that point on, I noticed a clear shift in how I was treated. When I returned from maternity leave, a junior…

  • Story 132

    Sexual harassment allegations in the Private banking sector of a leading Asian financial hub that enables Family office setups is increasingly portrayed as evidence of systemic protection for those in power. Survivors and advocacy groups allege that law enforcement, regulatory bodies, and other authorities have suppressed complaints for too long to safeguard institutional standing and…

  • Story 83

    As someone still working for the said bank under scrutiny, I can identify with so many stories mentioned here and whilst it’s comforting knowing I’m not alone in my struggles, it’s also disheartening to see how deeply entrenched and common these issues are. I’ve experienced misogyny, been passed on for promotions, told I should have…

  • Story 372

    The Fear of Accountability That Breaks ERM Tech & Data There’s a particular form of organizational dysfunction that has survived Fraser’s transformation narrative: the management practice of shuffling underperforming employees across the team, or considering them for an unearned promotion to prevent them from quitting. Why? To avoid creating an HR record reflecting poorly on…