VOO case: Suspicion of strategic insolvency at Graz-based aviation start-up

The Graz-based start-up VOO launched with a vision of digital flight booking and blockchain technology. Now, two companies are facing financial ruin. But while insolvency proceedings are underway in Austria, there are indications that assets may be transferred abroad, raising concerns among some observers about the interests of investors.

Double insolvency and many unanswered questions

On 2 July 2025, both VOO Aviation Service GmbH and its sister company, VOO flights GmbH, filed for insolvency. The proceedings are pending at the Graz Regional Court. While the aviation division primarily developed software solutions for the aviation industry, VOO flights operated a digital booking platform for private jets. According to the Credit Protection Association (KSV), operations will not be continued and the assets will be liquidated. Creditors have until mid-August to file their claims.

Vision and reality

VOO set out to make booking private jet flights as easy as booking a hotel. An app was supposed to allow flight prices to be calculated and booked in real time – a disruptive promise for a conservative industry. However, market acceptance, technical completion and investor confidence apparently failed to materialise. The documents submitted to the court refer to ‘lack of sales’, ‘unrealised functions’ and a market that has not developed ‘as expected’.

Offshore connections? Traces to Dubai, Switzerland and Hong Kong

Research by our editorial team and publicly available company information suggest that the Graz insolvency may only tell part of the story. According to this research, there are indications that assets may have been transferred to foreign companies even before the insolvency application was filed, including to:

VOO International DMCC (Dubai)
→ Listed on the official website voo.group as the central organisational unit.
VOO AG (Switzerland)
→ Registered in the commercial register moneyhouse.ch, possibly responsible for token processing.
Pareto Avinoc Ltd. (Hong Kong)
→ Listed in the official imprint of avinoc.com as the managing entity for AVINOC tokens.

These structures appear to play a role in the flow of capital surrounding the AVINOC token, a digital asset that was originally marketed as a utility token for the VOO platform. Token sales were advertised to the public with slogans such as ‘tokenisation of the aviation industry,’ but where the money collected ultimately ended up remains largely unclear.

Patterns from previous projects – and familiar faces

According to some industry observers, the VOO case shows parallels to projects such as ZENIQ/Safir, XERA.Pro/XPRO and WeWe Global, where aggressive marketing campaigns, multi-level distribution and offshore structures played a central role.

Names that have already appeared in other token projects are also cropping up at VOO: Gernot Winter, formerly active at JUWELIS and ZENIQ, is the managing director of AVINOC Holding GmbH according to the company register. Peter Skerl and Erwin Dokter, both with links to previous token projects, also held strategic positions.

Critics see a recurring pattern here: big promises, technical buzzwords, prominent advertising figures, while in the background assets may be transferred to locations that are difficult for creditors and authorities to access.

Strategically controlled insolvency?

In light of this information, experts are discussing whether the current insolvency in Graz is merely the failure of an ambitious start-up or whether it is possibly a strategically controlled liquidation in which assets were previously removed from the reach of creditors.

Several creditors report a lack of information, missing accounting documents and unclear liabilities between the Austrian and foreign VOO entities.

According to some observers, tax considerations may also have played a role.

Authorities called upon: Review by FMA, BMF & international cooperation agencies necessary

In view of the cross-border structures and the marketing of AVINOC tokens as an investment product, the Financial Market Authority (FMA), the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) and international regulatory authorities are also responsible for examining:

Were investor funds used lawfully?
Are there reporting requirements under financial services law?
Were transactions to Dubai, Switzerland or Hong Kong carried out in a timely manner?

Some lawyers are already talking about possible criminal investigations for intentional creditor discrimination if the allegations are substantiated.

What remains of VOO?

It is currently unclear whether the technology developed by VOO is even usable. Industry experts believe it is possible that certain modules or rights may continue to exist beneath the surface – possibly already in new corporate structures abroad.

For former employees, investors and token buyers, however, the damage is already palpable: many are left with nothing, and trust has been destroyed.

Conclusion

The VOO case is a prime example of a growing problem in the European tech and crypto scene: the lines between ambitious start-up visions and potentially structured capital withdrawal are often blurred. Whether VOO was ultimately a failed company or a deliberately planned withdrawal will now have to be clarified by the courts and investigating authorities.

Note

This article is intended solely for information, journalistic analysis and independent opinion-forming within the meaning of Article 5 of the German Basic Law and Section 51 of the German Copyright Act. All information is based on publicly available sources and careful research, but no guarantee can be given for its accuracy, completeness or timeliness.

The mention of companies, persons or projects is based on verifiable facts or clearly identified expressions of opinion. Publication is protected by freedom of the press; sources are subject to journalistic source protection.

Sources: KSV1870, ORF Steiermark, 5min.at, voo.group, moneyhouse.ch, avinoc.com, BEKM US