Practically everything you are saying here is nonsense as it relates to a partnership. The partnership agreement for the actual fund, ie not the entities created for purposes of someone acting as the GP, will lay out the economics, who can do what, how/if the the general partner can be replaced, what they can and cannot do.

The statement that he owned 75% of the fund is deliberately misleading. That he was in control of an entity that acted as the GP of a partnership means "he was acting as GP". But, that doesn't sound as nefarious, and it doesn't sound so sensational, and that's why it's not being said that way.

The only way to know if something shady is going on is to read the partnership agreement of the actual fund. That's where the rubber meets the road.