At first glance, Cyberlux’s financial chaos might look like simple mismanagement—vendors going unpaid, a government contract gone sideways, and millions in taxpayer funds disappearing into a financial fog. But the more you follow the money, the more it starts to feel like something else entirely. This wasn’t just a company struggling to keep its head above water. The way Cyberlux handled its $38.8 million advance from HII Defense raises serious concerns about financial management, contract oversight, and whether funds were allocated as intended. The transactions that followed have left creditors—and the U.S. government—wondering where it all went.
On September 1, 2023, Cyberlux had barely over $20,000 in its bank account. A series of withdrawals drained that balance down to $2,297.01 by September 8. Then, in one fell swoop, Cyberlux received a $38,700,600 advance from HII Defense—taxpayer-funded money meant to produce 2,000 drones for Ukraine as part of a U.S. government assistance package. And instead of placing it into a separate account to ensure compliance with federal spending rules, Cyberlux quickly redistributed the funds through a series of transactions, raising questions about oversight and financial management. It is estimated that only 400 drones were delivered to the US Government before the contract was cancelled in May of 2024. Cyberlux did not reveal this material event to shareholders until November 2024.
Within days, more than $4.4 million had vanished from company accounts in transactions that had nothing to do with drone production. There was the $213,000 wire to Fletcher Jones Motorcars, presumably for a set of wheels a little fancier than a drone case. Nearly $1 million was transferred to a UK-based company called G2G Global Ltd., which had only been incorporated three weeks earlier and listed its business activity as “Risk and Damage Evaluation.” While there is no direct evidence of misconduct, the timing and nature of this transaction raise questions about its role in Cyberlux’s financial activities. It’s unclear what kind of risks Cyberlux needed evaluated, but it certainly wasn’t getting drones to Ukraine. Then there were the transfers—hundreds of thousands wired into personal and investment accounts linked to CEO Mark Schmidt. And, because it wouldn’t be a Cyberlux transaction spree without a twist, $3 million went to the former owner of Datron World Communications to finalize its acquisition. There is no indication that Datron’s ownership knew this was taxpayer money, but using government funds to buy a private company is a massive problem.
Meanwhile, vendors who actually delivered products—like Thin Air Gear, which manufactured 2,100 wheeled drone kit bags—weren’t paid. Cyberlux had the money to cut a check to a barely established UK company, but not enough to pay the companies supplying actual equipment for the contract. That led to Thin Air filing a federal lawsuit, accusing Cyberlux of civil theft for taking delivery of the bags without making good on the invoice. Thin Air Gear alleges that Cyberlux failed to pay after receiving goods, leading to a civil theft claim.
Then there’s Miami. Right around the same time that Cyberlux was moving money, Enida Rusi—the individual originally named in Cyberlux’s FBD Group acquisition—set up an LLC at 370 NE 75th Street, Miami. Conveniently, that’s the exact same address as Cyberlux’s “Special Activities Group.” And in yet another strange coincidence, Rusi was supposed to receive 200 million Cyberlux shares, but never did. Instead, that exact amount of shares ended up in the hands of Denis Kalenja, the former CEO of Albinvest an Albanian State Owned Company, who holds 30 million Cyberlux Series B shares with 200-to-1 voting power. If the goal was to make sure control of Cyberlux remained tightly in the hands of a select few, this arrangement certainly helped.
Through all of this, HII—the company that wired Cyberlux $38.8 million—has been conspicuously silent. Atlantic Wave tried to garnish funds from HII months ago, assuming there was still money on the table. HII’s response? A plea of nonjoinder, which essentially translates to, we don’t owe Cyberlux anything. And after that? Nothing. No lawsuits to recover taxpayer funds, no legal battle over contract performance, just radio silence. It’s the kind of quiet that raises more questions than answers.
The financial records and legal filings reviewed to date show a pattern that should concern anyone paying attention to how taxpayer money is spent. Cyberlux has not publicly rebutted these financial figures in any civil lawsuit since early 2024, which raises an obvious question—if these numbers aren’t accurate, why not challenge them? If the money was spent appropriately, why not provide a full accounting?
This is about transparency and accountability in the use of taxpayer-funded contracts. This is about a U.S. taxpayer-funded contract, money that was supposed to go toward a military aid package, and financial movements that don’t seem to line up with the intended purpose. If everything was above board, Cyberlux should have no problem explaining where the money went. Until they do, the scrutiny isn’t going anywhere.
Disclaimer
All posts, articles, and op-eds about Cyberlux Corporation are grounded entirely in information sourced from publicly available court records, government documents, and financial disclosures filed with OTC Markets. This content is intended for informational purposes only—it’s not legal advice, it’s not financial guidance, and it’s definitely not an invitation to dive headfirst into investment decisions. Our interpretations, opinions, and conclusions stem exclusively from these accessible resources. Ultimate adjudication of legal matters rests with the courts and qualified legal professionals. As always, you’re encouraged to verify independently because, let’s face it, trust but verify is a motto that never goes out of style. If you believe there is an error in our reporting and have verifiable proof, we encourage you to present it, and we will promptly review and address any inaccuracies.
