Amadou Elizabeth, also known as Javis (Jadrolita), a TikTok content creator, has threatened to sue fellow creator Hamazat Habeeb, aka Peller, on allegations of money laundering. In a recent TikTok livestream, Peller stated that money laundering occurs on the platform via the gifting system and hinted that Jarvis was involved in such operations. Clips from the livestream are now circulating on social media, with the inventor claiming that he assumed Jarvis was wealthy until she disclosed the truth.
He also claimed that a "gifter" who backed him during a livestream once asked for a 50:50 split of the money generated by TikTok gifting, which he declined, and used this as an example of how individuals launder money on TikTok.
Later, the duo cleared the air on the topic, and their recent activity on social media indicated that they had made up.
On Sunday, Jarvis' management, Aiso Entertainment, using the Instagram name #aisohub, responded to the dispute on TikTok, labeling the charge as untrue, slanderous, and destructive to her reputation.
Jarvis' management criticized Peller's accusations during a recent live session in a statement posted on Sunday by Aiso Entertainment, calling them "patently false," "malicious," and "devoid of any evidence."
The letter, dated November 2, 2025, accuses the 20-year-old influencer of initiating a "deliberate assault" on Jarvis's reputation, which they claim has been meticulously developed over years of innovative work and ethical behavior.
“The management of Jadrolita, alongside Jadrolita herself, unequivocally and categorically refutes this egregious claim in its entirety,” the statement read.
It further stated that Jarvis had "never engaged in any form of illicit financial conduct" and asked that Peller deliver an immediate public apology within 48 hours.
“We hereby demand that Peller and his management issue an immediate, unconditional, and publicly disseminated apology to Jadrolita and her team,” Aiso said, warning that failure to retract the statement would lead to legal action.
The management also stated that the claim constituted reputational sabotage and that the issue would not be disregarded.