Rivals are questioning Selman Turk's Pitch@Palace prize, which he received just days before sending the Duke of York a large sum of money. Photo / Getty Images
Rivals are questioning Selman Turk's Pitch@Palace prize, which he received just days before sending the Duke of York a large sum of money. Photo / Getty Images
Prince Andrew is facing questions over why a Turkish "fraudster" was handed a Pitch@Palace award.
Selman Turk received the Pitch@Palace People's Choice Award nine days before he arranged a transfer of £750,000 into the Duke of York's account, which was described as a "wedding gift" for Princess Beatrice.
Now his rivals at the Dragon-Den style event and a former director of Pitch@Palace have raised questions about the circumstances of the payment.
A former business associate of Turk has also claimed that Turk "intimated to me in various conversations the money was all to do with ensuring Heyman AI [Mr Turk's business venture] did well at Pitch@Palace".
Turk was voted winner on November 6, 2019 following a competition hosted by Prince Andrew at St James's Palace.
Nine days later, on November 15, Nebahat Evyap Isbilen authorised a £750,000 payment into the Duke's personal account on the instruction of Turk, her financial adviser. Mrs Isbilen is now suing Mr Turk, accusing him of fraud.
It has since emerged that Turk and the Duke had become friends by the summer of 2019, but their relationship was not disclosed at the Pitch@Palace event.
Turk had one minute to pitch his idea for a digital banking company. His victory, which came after an online vote by the public, surprised some people at the event.
A director from one of the rival companies said: "I think there was a little bit of surprise that [Heyman AI] won the People's Choice Award. Not to degrade what they're doing, but it was a surprise given that it was the People's Choice Award and they're a banking app.
"Our understanding was that it was an award which was voted for and it was an odd one as other pitches seemed to really engage people in the room.
"I remember that moment, staring back and thinking: 'Really? Is that what the people voted for?'"
Prince Andrew pictured at a Pitch at Palace event. Photo / Getty Images
Another chief executive, Ishani Malhotra, founder and chief executive of medical technology company Carcinotec, was "shocked" that Prince Andrew had received money connected to Turk just days after the event.
The payment has also been questioned from within Pitch@Palace, with a former director telling The Telegraph: "I would be very disappointed if this has happened.
"I have a lot of respect for Prince Andrew and I genuinely believe that he had a mission to help young entrepreneurs because it was his calling and not because he was trying to make money out of it. If this is true it would be very disappointing."
Another said he had no recollection of Turk or his bank, Heyman AI, despite being intrinsically involved in Pitch@Palace events.
He said the People's Choice award was the least prestigious and was given little weight.
In a signed affidavit submitted to court, Mrs Ibsilen also questioned the timing of the payment, adding: "I can only wonder if there is any connection between this event and the Duke of York Transfer on 15 November 2019."
The Duke refused to comment when approached by The Telegraph.
Pitch@Palace is currently "on pause" but an online statement suggests it still plans to relaunch with a "brand update" in the future, despite the scandal that has engulfed the Duke.
Its sole director is Arthur Lancaster, an accountant who took over to oversee what is left of the company in an administrative role.
Lancaster, a chartered tax adviser, was criticised by HMRC last month after a company he directs was fined £150,000 for failing to comply with a tax investigation.
AML Tax (UK) Limited was ordered to hand over its records to enable HMRC to calculate the tax owed, which is currently estimated to be more than £3 million.
Mary Aiston, HMRC counter avoidance director, said: "AML Tax used a series of tactics to try and frustrate HMRC's efforts to work out the tax that was legally due, in a sustained campaign of non-compliance.
"I'm delighted their obstructive conduct has been penalised."
The Duke is understood to have been unaware of the HMRC investigation and has no personal dealings with Lancaster.
A spokesman for AML Tax said that they had no intention of withholding information but difficulty accessing old records after the company stopped trading, compounded by Covid restrictions, meant that the original statements "were prepared from memory and lacked detail".
HMRC "have now been provided with all the documentation for the particular year in question," they added.
"It should be noted that the Tribunal decided the substance of the case in favour of the AML Tax and the penalty finally imposed was less than 10 per cent of what HMRC had originally sought."
