The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed charges against NovaTech, a multi-level marketing (MLM) company, and its principals, Cynthia Petition and Eddy Petion, for orchestrating a fraudulent scheme that defrauded more than 200,000 investors globally and raised over $650 million in crypto assets. The SEC’s complaint also targets several top promoters of the scheme, including Martin Zizi, Dapilinu Dunbar, James Corbett, Corrie Sampson, John Garofano, and Marsha Hadley. From 2019 through 2023, the Petions operated NovaTech as an MLM-based crypto asset investment program. Investors were enticed with promises that their funds would be invested in cryptocurrency and foreign exchange markets, with Cynthia Petion assuring them of guaranteed profits from day one. However, according to the SEC, the reality was far different. NovaTech used the majority of the raised funds to pay returns to earlier investors, effectively operating as a Ponzi scheme. Only a small portion of the funds was actually invested in trading, while millions were siphoned off by the Petions for personal gain. As the scheme collapsed, most investors were left unable to withdraw their funds, suffering significant financial losses. The SEC’s complaint reveals that NovaTech‘s top promoters, including Zizi, Dunbar, Corbett, and Sampson, were instrumental in recruiting a vast network of investors. Even after becoming aware of regulatory actions taken against NovaTech by U.S. and Canadian authorities, these promoters continued to recruit new investors, downplaying the risks and red flags. NovaTech rewarded these promoters with substantial commissions for their efforts, further fueling the expansion of the scheme. The SEC has charged NovaTech, the Petions, and their promoters with violating the antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties. While all defendants face significant legal consequences, Zizi has agreed to a partial settlement, which includes a $100,000 civil penalty and a permanent injunction against future violations, with additional monetary penalties to be determined. Report Crypto Fraud to FinTelegram CategoriesCrypto Schemes MLM SchemesTagsCorrie SampsonCynthia PetitionDapilunu DunbarEddy PetitionJames CorbettJohn GarofanoMarsha HadleyMartin ZiziNovaTech

As part of our follow-the-money strategy, which involves systematic analysis of high-risk sectors, we have identified a new domain being utilized for processing payments related to unauthorized online casinos and gambling operations: ChanneltoPay.com. This domain is not associated with any visible website and appears to function solely as a payment gateway (API). We are seeking to determine the registrant and operator responsible for this payment domain. The Background In recent years, the cyberfinance sector has witnessed a significant evolution in the methods employed by financial service providers to manage payment transactions, particularly within high-risk industries such as online gambling and adult entertainment. One notable trend that has gained momentum is the deployment of privately registered domains for processing payments. This approach, while not entirely new, has seen a marked increase in adoption over the past few months, raising questions and concerns within the financial and regulatory communities. Privately registered domains are increasingly being used by regulated financial service providers to operate payment gateways and facilitate deposits and withdrawals for high-risk merchants. These domains are often utilized to maintain a layer of anonymity and to circumvent the challenges associated with processing payments in sectors where traditional banking relationships may be strained or altogether unavailable. The rise of open banking has further bolstered this trend, providing new avenues for these domains to integrate with various financial platforms and expand their reach. In the unauthorized online casino industry, as well as the adult entertainment sector, the use of anonymously operated domains for payment processing has become particularly prevalent. These sectors, often scrutinized for their high-risk nature, have turned to these private domains to handle transactions in a manner that is both efficient and discreet. The ChanneltoPay Domain A prominent example of this trend is the payment domain https://pay.channeltopay.com, which has garnered significant attention in recent months. This domain is primarily associated with the online casino segment and is linked to payment processors such as Swiss Mandato, Contiant, and PaymentIQ from Worldline, all of which are active in the high-risk sector. The domain has been observed facilitating transactions for casinos under the Dama Group, an operator with an offshore license in Curacao. Despite lacking regulatory permits in European Economic Area (EEA) jurisdictions and the UK, Dama Group casinos continue to attract customers from these regions, raising further regulatory concerns. ChanneltoPay.com Key Data Domainshttps://ChanneltoPay.comhttps://pay.channeltopay.comDomain utilizationPayment gatewayTop referring websiteshttps://sugarcasino.comhttps://pgwsoft.comhttps://pay.zpgd.mehttps://locowin.comLinked websiteshttps://pay65.mandato.globalhttps://paymentiq.iohttps://paywith.contiant.comhttps://platincasino.linkOwner and operatorunknownTraffic-connected payment processorsMandato, Contiant, PaymentIQConnected merchantsDama Group (online casino operator)with Cyprus payment processorStrukin Ltd Share Information If you have any information about the owner or operator of the domain, please let us know via our whistleblowing system Whistle42. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesHigh-risk payment processors Illegal gambling Illegal Payment Services tickerTagsContiantDamaDama GroupMandantoPaymentIQStrukinWorldline

It seems to be a never-ending story about Terraform Labs founder and former crypto mogul Do Kwon and his extradition from Montenegro. On August 8, 2024, a Montenegrin Supreme Court ruling postponed Do Kwon‘s extradition to South Korea. The court decided to wait for further clarifications from the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office regarding the legal conditions for extradition. Previous Court Rulings: Earlier, on August 1, 2024, the Montenegro Appellate Court had ruled that Kwon should be extradited to South Korea, rejecting a request from the United States. This decision was part of a series of conflicting rulings as both countries sought his extradition following his arrest in March 2023 for using a fake passport while attempting to flee to Dubai. Legal Background: Kwon is wanted for his alleged involvement in a massive fraud scheme linked to the collapse of the TerraUSD cryptocurrency, which resulted in losses exceeding $40 billion. He faces serious charges in both South Korea and the United States, including capital market violations and securities fraud. His business partner has already been extradited to South Korea. In June 2024, the U.S. SEC announced that Terraform Labs and Do Kwon agreed to pay more than $4.5 billion to settle the fraud case. In September, Interpol, the international police organization, issued a “red notice” calling for his arrest, acting at the request of the South Koreans. Current Status: Following the latest postponement, the case will return to the Higher Court in Montenegro, which will evaluate the legal conditions for extradition to both countries. The final decision will rest with Montenegro’s Justice Minister, adding another layer of complexity to Kwon’s legal situation. Read our reports on Do Kwon here. This ongoing saga reflects the broader implications of cryptocurrency regulation and the legal challenges faced by figures in the industry. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesFinTelegramTagsDo KwonTerraform Labs

Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, faces fresh accusations from federal prosecutors in his ongoing tax evasion case, who allege he accepted payments from a Romanian oligarch seeking to exert influence over U.S. government agencies. The charges form part of a broader legal case against Hunter Biden, who is accused of evading $1.4 million in taxes between 2016 and 2019 while allegedly spending millions on luxury items, drugs, and escorts. The new allegations, revealed in a court filing submitted Wednesday in a Los Angeles federal court, center on Biden’s alleged relationship with Romanian businessman Gabriel Popoviciu. The filing claims that Popoviciu, who was facing corruption charges in Romania at the time, hired Hunter Biden in 2015 for legal services while Joe Biden was serving as Vice President under then-President Barack Obama. Prosecutors allege that Biden, along with an associate, received compensation from Popoviciu as part of an effort to influence U.S. policy and public opinion, specifically urging U.S. authorities to investigate the Romanian case against Popoviciu. This development is the latest in a series of controversies surrounding Hunter Biden, whom Republicans have long accused of “influence peddling” by leveraging his father’s political position for personal gain. Despite these persistent accusations, Congressional investigations have so far failed to produce definitive evidence of wrongdoing. The filing also reveals concerns within Hunter Biden‘s circle about the potential political fallout from the arrangement, with Biden and his associates allegedly seeking to conceal the true nature of their work due to fears of its impact on Joe Biden‘s political career. Prosecutors believe that the payments from Popoviciu, totaling $3 million, were split between Hunter Biden and two associates. Gabriel Popoviciu, identified as the Romanian oligarch in question, was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2017 on real estate fraud charges, which he has consistently denied. These latest revelations have fueled further criticism from Republican lawmakers, who have been vocal about their suspicions of Hunter Biden‘s foreign business dealings. His legal troubles extend beyond the tax evasion case. Less than two months ago, he was found guilty on three charges in a federal gun trial in Delaware. Although he faces a potential maximum sentence of 25 years in prison, experts believe it is unlikely that he will receive such a severe penalty, given his status as a first-time, non-violent offender. The tax evasion trial is scheduled to begin in September in California, where Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty to the charges. As the legal battles intensify, the allegations surrounding his involvement in foreign influence schemes will likely continue to be a focal point of political and public discourse. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCorruption Tax Crime United StatesTagsBarack ObamaGabriel PopoviciuHunter BidenJoe Biden

Russia’s Federal Financial Monitoring Service (Rosfinmonitoring) reported that clients involved in suspicious transactions migrate from QIWI Bank to other financial institutions. This shift comes in the wake of the CBR‘s decision to revoke QIWI‘s banking license earlier this year, citing severe violations of federal banking laws, including anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) regulations. The Russian Regulatory Issues Rosfinmonitoring‘s Deputy Head, German Neglyad, addressed the issue in a recent statement. “We are closely monitoring this situation, particularly with clients who were previously with QIWI Bank and conducted suspicious financial transactions. Many of these clients have indeed moved to other lending institutions for their banking needs,” Neglyad noted. Regulatory Crackdown and License Revocation The revocation of QIWI Bank’s license on February 21, 2024, was a significant blow to the institution, which had already been under intense scrutiny due to its involvement in high-risk transactions. The Bank of Russia (CBR)’s decision was driven by QIWI‘s failure to comply with federal banking laws, particularly those designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The bank was found to have facilitated payments for illegal activities and had opened accounts using individuals’ personal data without their consent. In response, the Central Bank appointed a provisional administration to oversee QIWI’s operations until a liquidator could be appointed. Ongoing Struggles with Western Sanctions These recent developments are just the latest in a series of challenges for QIWI, which has been grappling with the impact of Western sanctions. Previous reports from FinTelegram highlighted the increasing pressure on the institution as sanctions tightened, cutting off access to key international markets and financial networks. QIWI‘s troubles were exacerbated by its attempts to navigate these restrictions, leading to a decline in operational stability and investor confidence. The Strategic Trap QIWI finds itself in a precarious strategic trap, caught between the tightening grip of Western sanctions and the stringent control exerted by Russian authorities. Although the company is headquartered in Cyprus, its operations and compliance are heavily influenced by Russian regulations. This dual allegiance has placed QIWI in a vulnerable position, particularly as it faces increasing scrutiny from international markets. On June 26, 2024, QIWI received a delisting notice from Nasdaq. In response, QIWI requested an extension from the Nasdaq Hearings Panel on July 7, 2024, to appeal this decision, reflecting the company’s desperate attempts to maintain its foothold in the West. This delisting threat further complicates QIWI‘s already tenuous position as it struggles to navigate the conflicting demands of Russian oversight and the punitive measures imposed by Western sanctions. Operational Impact and Market Reaction Despite the revocation of its banking license, QIWI has maintained that its operations remain solvent. The company continues to provide services, although it has experienced significant disruptions, particularly in its payment processing capabilities across Russia. As of the end of 2022, QIWI reported having 29 million users and 13.8 million active wallets, underscoring the scale of its operations. However, the market’s response to the license revocation was swift and severe. QIWI‘s shares plummeted by nearly 50%, reaching an all-time low. This sharp decline reflects broader concerns about the company’s financial health and the increasingly hostile regulatory environment it faces. Over the past three years, QIWI‘s stock has declined by 42.91%, a stark contrast to the MSCI World index, which saw a 16.94% increase over the same period. Uncertain Future Amid Liquidation Process Looking ahead, QIWI‘s future remains uncertain. The company is in the process of liquidating its Russian assets, a move that was initiated in January 2024. While QIWI is working to ensure a smooth transition during this process, the combination of regulatory scrutiny, market volatility, and ongoing challenges related to Western sanctions casts a long shadow over its prospects. As QIWI navigates this tumultuous period, the broader implications for the Russian financial landscape remain to be seen. The migration of high-risk clients to other banks underscores the ongoing risks within the system, highlighting the need for robust regulatory oversight across the board. FinTelegram will continue to monitor these developments as they unfold. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCentral Bank of Russia Compliance Money Laundering Rosfinmonitoring Russia tickerTagsGerman NeglyadQIWIQIWI Bank

The leading US crypto exchange Coinbase has sharply criticized the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) recent proposed rulemaking seeking to ban certain political event contracts, arguing that the move would unjustifiably stifle a burgeoning area of the economy. In a statement posted on X, Paul Grewal, Coinbase‘s Chief Legal Officer, emphasized the potential of event markets within the future economy and expressed concern over the CFTC’s approach. Event contracts are a type of financial derivative that allow traders to speculate on the outcome of specific events, typically framed as binary “yes” or “no” questions. These contracts enable participants to place bets on various future occurrences, such as political elections, economic indicators, or sporting events. “Event markets are a promising area of our future economy, and that is why we are responding today to the CFTC’s notice of proposed rulemaking,” Grewal wrote. “We fully support the CFTC’s mission to uphold the integrity of the U.S. derivatives market and believe they can provide a robust regulatory framework for this emerging class of contracts. However, this proposal, if adopted, will ban many prediction contracts without good reason.“ The CFTC’s proposal, introduced in May, aims to prohibit event contracts that speculate on political outcomes and other sensitive areas, including gaming, war, terrorism, and assassination. These contracts would be barred from trading or clearing through CFTC-registered entities. The proposal has garnered support from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has urged the CFTC to quickly finalize the rule. Warren and other Democratic legislators have argued that allowing political betting would undermine the integrity of U.S. elections by turning them into commodities. Coinbase argues that the CFTC’s proposal suffers from a fundamental definitional issue. According to Grewal, the proposal’s broad definition of “gaming” could inadvertently capture contracts related to non-political events, such as Nobel Prizes and the Oscars. He noted that this definition is inconsistent with legislative history and could disrupt state-level regulations, potentially leading to unintended negative consequences for emerging markets under CFTC oversight. Grewal also criticized the proposal’s blanket categorization of certain contracts as being against the public interest, arguing that this stance exceeds the CFTC’s statutory authority and fails to acknowledge the societal benefits of prediction markets. In a formal letter to CFTC Secretary Christopher Kirkpatrick, Coinbase urged the agency to withdraw the proposal and collaborate with academic, industry, and policy stakeholders to develop a more balanced regulatory approach that fosters innovation while safeguarding market integrity. The debate around event contracts comes at a time of rising popularity for these markets. Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket have allowed users to bet on the outcomes of various future events, including U.S. elections. Since 2021, the CFTC has noted a significant increase in event contracts listed for trading on registered exchanges, reflecting the growing interest in this space. As the CFTC considers its next steps, the outcome of this regulatory debate will likely have far-reaching implications for the future of event markets in the U.S. and the broader digital asset ecosystem. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCFTC Crypto ComplianceTagsCoinbasePaul Grewal

JPMorgan Chase, a financial powerhouse in the U.S., and ING Group, a dominant banking institution in the Netherlands, have both ventured into the acquisition of FinTech companies to expand their digital capabilities. However, these acquisitions’ strategies and subsequent management have diverged significantly, reflecting differences in corporate governance, regulatory environments, and responses to crises. Here is our comparative analysis. The Cases The takeover of fintech companies by established financial institutions is generally an enormous challenge that should not be underestimated. This is also shown by the two cases where the due diligence and risk management apparently failed. This comparative analysis examines JPMorgan‘s acquisition of Charlie Javice‘s startup Frank and ING‘s acquisition of Payvision, highlighting how each bank’s approach has led to different outcomes, particularly in managing the fallout from these acquisitions gone wrong. Case Study 1: JPMorgan and the Acquisition of Frank Background and Acquisition Strategy: In 2021, JPMorgan Chase acquired Frank, a FinTech startup specializing in student loan financing, for $175 million. The acquisition was part of JPMorgan‘s broader strategy to enhance its digital offerings and appeal to younger, tech-savvy consumers. However, the deal quickly turned sour when it was revealed that Frank‘s founder, Charlie Javice, allegedly inflated the company’s customer base from less than 300,000 to over 4 million. This misrepresentation led JPMorgan to file a lawsuit accusing Javice of fraud, falsifying records, and hiring a data scientist to create fake accounts. Javice, in turn, countered that JPMorgan was trying to deflect from its due diligence failures. Background information: Charlie Javice has denied the allegations and countered that JPMorgan is trying to shift the blame for a failed acquisition onto her. She argued that the bank could not have been misled about Frank’s value given the due diligence materials and publicly available information. Additionally, Javice was arrested on charges of conspiracy, wire, and bank fraud related to these allegations. She was released on a $2 million bond on April 4, 2023. As part of her release conditions, she surrendered her passports and agreed to travel restrictions between New York City and southern Florida. Her trial is set to take place in October 2024. Regulatory and Legal Response: JPMorgan responded swiftly to the discovery of alleged fraud by initiating legal action against Javice and cooperating with federal authorities, which led to her arrest on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, and bank fraud. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon publicly labeled the acquisition a “big mistake,” signaling transparency and accountability to shareholders and the public. The bank’s proactive legal measures and public acknowledgment of the failure reflect a strategy to minimize reputational damage and demonstrate a commitment to corporate governance. Case Study 2: ING and the Acquisition of Payvision Background and Acquisition Strategy: In 2018, ING acquired a 75% stake in Payvision, a high-risk payment processor, for €360 million. The fintech was founded in 2002 by Rudolf Booker together with Gijs op de Weegh (COO) and Cheng Liem Li (CCO). The acquisition was intended to strengthen ING‘s position in omnichannel payments and expand its services in the growing e-commerce sector. However, Payvision‘s involvement in processing payments for controversial industries, including gambling, adult content, and investment fraud, soon surfaced. Even worse, it turned out that Payvision was heavily involved in facilitating cybercrime organizations with their payment services. In 2020, the Dutch regulator DNB investigated Payvision and discovered systematic violations of financial laws and anti-money laundering regulations. DNB subsequently filed a criminal complaint with the authorities. Investigations were carried out, and fines were imposed on some of the former board of directors. The Payvision founders consequently stepped down in April 2020. ING announced in October 2021 that it would close Payvision. Operating expenses declined 9.1% to €2,926 million from €3,218 million in 2020. Expenses in 2021included a €44 million impairment on Payvision, while 2020 included a €260 million goodwillimpairment and €124 million of restructuring provisions and impairments (ING Group Annual Report 2021). ING is said to have lost between €450 and 500 million for the failed Payvision takeover. These issues attracted negative media attention and led to significant reputational damage for ING. Background information: At the beginning of 2019, the masterminds of two internationally active cybercrime organizations were arrested: the German Uwe Lenhoff and the Israeli Gal Barak. Both organizations were customers of Payvision and laundered hundreds of millions in stolen funds through them. Lenhoff died in prison in the summer of 2020 (cause of death unknown) and Barak was sentenced to several years in prison in September 2020 for investment fraud and money laundering. The criminal files show in detail the incredible extent of the money laundering and the deep involvement of Payvision. Like Frank, Payvision‘s transaction volume was heavily inflated by money laundering transactions with fraudulent customers. Today, victims of former Payvision customers are still suing Payvision and ING for their role as cybercrime facilitators. Regulatory and Legal Response: Unlike JPMorgan, ING‘s response to the problems at Payvision was less transparent and lacked the same level of decisive action. Although ING eventually decided to shut down Payvision in 2021, the bank did not pursue legal action against Payvision‘s founders, nor did it make any public claims for damages. This inaction has raised concerns about ING‘s approach to risk management and accountability. Despite the substantial financial loss, ING‘s leadership, including former CEO Ralph Hamers and his successor Steven van Rijswijk, remained largely silent on the matter, failing to adequately address shareholder concerns or publicly acknowledge the acquisition’s failure. Comparative Analysis Jurisdictional and Regulatory Differences: The differing responses by JPMorgan and ING can partly be attributed to the regulatory environments in the U.S. and the Netherlands. The U.S. legal system allows for more aggressive litigation, which JPMorgan utilized to mitigate the impact of the Frank acquisition. In contrast, the Dutch legal system and ING‘s more reserved corporate culture may have contributed to ING‘s less confrontational approach. However, these jurisdictional differences do not fully explain the stark contrast in how the two banks handled the fallout from their acquisitions. Corporate Governance and Risk Management: JPMorgan‘s approach reflects a more robust corporate governance structure, where swift legal action and public transparency are used to protect the bank’s interests and reassure shareholders. ING, on the other hand, appears to have taken a more cautious and less transparent route, which has led to questions about its commitment to shareholder value and effective risk management. Impact on Shareholders and Public Perception: JPMorgan‘s proactive stance, including legal action and public acknowledgment of the failed acquisition, likely helped to contain the damage to its reputation and maintain shareholder confidence. In contrast, ING‘s reluctance to take similar steps in the Payvision case may have exacerbated shareholder losses and damaged its public image, particularly given the ethical concerns surrounding Payvision‘s business practices. Conclusion The contrasting approaches of JPMorgan and ING to FinTech acquisitions highlight the importance of corporate governance, regulatory compliance, and transparency in managing complex transactions. While both banks faced significant challenges, JPMorgan‘s more aggressive legal and public relations strategy appears to have better protected its interests and those of its shareholders. In contrast, ING‘s handling of the Payvision acquisition raises concerns about its commitment to transparency and accountability, particularly in the face of substantial financial and reputational risks. As financial institutions continue to navigate the rapidly evolving FinTech landscape, these case studies offer important lessons on the critical role of due diligence, risk management, and corporate governance in ensuring successful acquisitions. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesAnalysis tickerTagsCharlie JaviceCheng Liem LiFrankGijs Op de WeeghINGING GroupJamie DimonJPMorganJPMorgan ChasePayVisionRalph HamersRudolf BookerSteven van Rijswijk

Binance, the world’s largest and certainly most controversial crypto exchange, wants you to believe it’s the hero of the crypto world, announcing it has recovered or frozen over $73 million in stolen funds so far in 2023. But make no mistake: while Binance paints itself as a protector of user assets, it’s hard to ignore the shadow of scandal and legal trouble hanging over its operations. Its co-founder and former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, currently serves prison time. The Real Binance Story Despite its self-congratulatory press release, Binance is under fire globally for far more serious issues. U.S. authorities found that Binance facilitated massive money laundering. Allegedly, the exchange has been used by criminals to launder billions of dollars, contributing to its growing reputation as a hub for illicit financial activities. Binance and its former CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) have pleaded guilty in a $4.2 billion settlement. CZ, still the dominant Binance shareholder, is currently serving a 4-month prison sentence in the U.S. In Nigeria, Binance faces criminal charges for operating illegally, adding to a growing list of countries where regulators are cracking down on the platform’s dubious practices. A Nigerian court has scheduled the trial for Binance over tax evasion charges to begin on October 11, 2024. The case involves allegations against two Binance executives, Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla, who face separate trials for tax evasion and money laundering. Conclusion: A Tarnished Reputation Binance’s announcement of $73 million in recovered funds is undoubtedly designed to bolster its image as a responsible and security-conscious leader in the crypto industry. However, this attempt to showcase its commitment to user protection is overshadowed by the significant legal and regulatory issues that continue to haunt the company. With ongoing investigations and charges in multiple jurisdictions, Binance‘s reputation is increasingly tarnished, raising doubts about its future as a leading player in the global cryptocurrency market. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCrypto Crime Crypto Schemes Money LaunderingTagsBinanceChangpeng ZhaoCZNadeem AnjarwallaTigran Gambaryan

Ruja Ignatova, infamously known as the “Missing Cryptoqueen” and wanted by the FBI for masterminding the $4.5 billion OneCoin crypto fraud scheme, has now been subjected to a global asset freeze. This unprecedented legal action, initiated on behalf of defrauded investors, aims to prevent the movement or sale of her assets in a bid to secure compensation for those impacted by the massive scam, BBC reports. The Vanished Crypto Queen The Bulgarian national Ruja Ignatova, who disappeared without a trace after disembarking from a Ryanair flight in Athens in 2017, has remained elusive despite an international manhunt. Recent reports from the BBC suggest that her disappearance may be linked to the Bulgarian underworld, with connections to a suspected organized crime boss who may have played a role in her vanishing act. The U.S. authorities continue to offer a $5 million reward for information leading to Ignatova’s arrest, underscoring the ongoing challenge of bringing her to justice. Read the Ruja Ignatov reports here. Konstantin Ignatov, the brother of Ruja Ignatova, played a significant role in the OneCoin fraud scheme. After Ruja’s disappearance in 2017, he assumed leadership of OneCoin. He was arrested in March 2019 at Los Angeles International Airport and subsequently pleaded guilty to charges including wire fraud and money laundering. As of March 5, 2024, Konstantin Ignatov has been released from prison after serving 34 months. This acknowledged his cooperation with prosecutors, including testifying against former lawyer Mark Scott, who was convicted of laundering $400 million from OneCoin. Ignatov was ordered to pay $118,000 in restitution and will remain under court supervision for two additional years following his release Legal Action and the High Court Ruling For the countless victims of the OneCoin fraud, efforts to reclaim their lost investments have largely been unsuccessful. The UK freezing order is part of a larger group action brought by more than 400 OneCoin investors. This legal effort is being led by Jennifer McAdam, a Scottish woman who, along with her family and friends, lost over £200,000 in the OneCoin scheme. It is estimated that OneCoin investors have lost more than £100 million in the UK alone. The investors involved in the group claim are represented by the law firm Mishcon de Reya. Expanding the Scope of the Freeze The freezing order extends beyond Ignatova to include seven other individuals and four companies allegedly connected to the OneCoin operation. Among those targeted are: Sebastian Greenwood, OneCoin’s co-founder, is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in the United States for his role in the fraud. British businessmen Christopher Hamilton and Robert MacDonald, also subject to the asset freeze, have faced accusations from U.S. authorities of laundering proceeds from OneCoin. However, efforts to extradite them to the U.S. for trial have thus far been unsuccessful. Prominent OneCoin promoters, including Kari Wahlroos, Muhammad Zafar, Moynul Islam, and Monirul Islam, are also under the freeze order. Although some promoters claim to have been victims of the collapse like other investors, they are alleged to have profited significantly by recruiting new investors into the scheme. Additionally, the order targets two Guernsey-based companies that Ignatova reportedly used to purchase luxury properties, including a £13.5 million penthouse in Kensington and a £1.9 million apartment in the same building intended for her bodyguards. Share Information If you have any information about the collapsed crypto fraud scheme OneCoin, please share it with us via our whistleblowing system Whistle42. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCourt Cases Crypto Schemes United KingdomTagsChristopher HamiltonJennifer McAdamKari WahlroosKonstantin IgnatovMark ScottMonirul IslamMoynul IslamMuhammad ZafarOnecoinRobert MacDonaldRuja IgnatovaSebastian Greenwood

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a consent order of permanent injunction and equitable relief against FTX Trading Ltd. and Alameda Research LLC. The court ordered the now-bankrupt entities to pay a staggering $12.7 billion in monetary relief to compensate customers and victims of one of the largest frauds in the digital asset space. This judgment marks a pivotal moment in the CFTC’s ongoing efforts to hold fraudulent actors accountable in the digital asset markets. The court’s order requires FTX to pay $8.7 billion in restitution and an additional $4 billion in disgorgement. These funds are earmarked to further compensate victims who suffered significant losses due to the fraudulent scheme masterminded by Samuel Bankman-Fried and his inner circle at FTX. Record-Breaking Recovery for Victims The court’s findings are damning. FTX and Alameda were found to have violated the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations by making material misrepresentations and omissions to their customers. The companies falsely promoted themselves as a “safe and secure” platform for buying and selling cryptocurrencies, claiming that customer assets were held in custody and segregated from FTX’s own funds. In reality, these customer assets, including significant holdings in Bitcoin and Ether, were commingled and misappropriated, fueling the fraudulent activities at the heart of FTX’s operations. Division of Enforcement Director Ian McGinley highlighted the unprecedented scale of the recovery secured by the CFTC, noting that the $12.7 billion judgment is the largest such recovery in the agency’s history. Related Proceedings and Future Implications The consent order follows a CFTC complaint filed in December 2022, which charged its co-founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and his associates with orchestrating the fraudulent scheme. The case has also seen consent orders of judgment against former FTX executives Caroline Ellison, Zixiao “Gary” Wang, and Nishad Singh, with the CFTC continuing its litigation against Bankman-Fried and other individuals involved. In a related development, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved a settlement in which the CFTC agreed not to seek additional civil monetary penalties against FTX. Instead, the CFTC’s disgorgement claims will be subordinated to those of the victims, ensuring that the maximum possible compensation is directed toward those who were defrauded. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesBankruptcies CFTC Crypto Compliance tickerTagsAlameda ResearchCaroline EllisonFTXFTX TradingGary WangIan McGinleyNishad SinghSam Bankman-Fried

In its effort to supervise the digital asset (crypto) market, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has announced a significant milestone by awarding over $1 million to a whistleblower whose information proved pivotal in an enforcement action. This award underscores the growing importance of whistleblowers in uncovering illicit activities within the rapidly expanding digital asset space. Director of Enforcement, Ian McGinley, emphasized the CFTC’s commitment to rooting out unlawful conduct in these markets, especially as they become more intertwined with the financial lives of everyday Americans. He noted that digital asset cases accounted for nearly half of the CFTC’s enforcement docket in the last fiscal year, with a substantial portion of whistleblower tips related to this sector. The CFTC’s Whistleblower Program The CFTC’s Whistleblower Program, established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, has been instrumental in the agency’s enforcement strategy. Since its inception, the program has awarded approximately $380 million to whistleblowers, with these tips leading to enforcement actions resulting in nearly $3.2 billion in monetary sanctions. Whistleblowers can receive between 10% and 30% of the monetary sanctions collected in cases they contribute to, with all awards paid from the CFTC’s Customer Protection Fund. Notably, this fund is financed entirely by sanctions imposed on violators, ensuring that no money is taken from harmed customers. Report Crypto Fraud to FinTelegram CategoriesCFTC WhistleblowerTagsIan McGinley

In January, Brian Krebs, the cybercrime expert behind KrebsOnSecurity, exposed rapper Punchmade Dev, who glorifies cybercrime in his music videos, as a key figure behind online stores selling stolen bank account and payment card data. Now, the 22-year-old Kentucky native, identified as Devon Turner, is suing Kentucky-based PNC Bank after it blocked a $75,000 wire transfer and froze his account amidst an active law enforcement investigation. Background and Allegations Devon Turner, a/k/a Punchmade Dev, gained notoriety for songs like “Internet Swiping” and “Million Dollar Criminal,” which have earned millions of views. His online presence promoted tutorials on committing financial crimes and advertised Punchmade-themed stores selling illicit financial data. KrebsOnSecurity traced Turner’s activities, linking him to various online shops that offered access to compromised CashApp and PayPal accounts, check printing software, and personal financial data. Despite Turner’s denial of involvement in the lawsuit via his social media, he has not responded to repeated requests for comment. The Lawsuit On June 26, Turner filed a lawsuit against PNC Bank, alleging “unlawful discriminatory and tortuous action” after being denied a $75,000 wire transfer. Turner claims that a follow-up call revealed his account had been closed due to “suspicious activity,” and he was no longer welcome at PNC Bank. Turner’s complaint highlights his success as a business owner. He claims to have generated millions of dollars and employed over 30 people. Among his ventures are OBN Group LLC, also known as Punchmade LLC, and a record label called DevTakeFlightBeats Inc. Turner alleges that PNC Bank staff made disparaging remarks about his financial status, suggesting it was unusual for someone like him to have substantial funds. Turner acknowledges that PNC flagged his account for law enforcement attention, which he dismisses as a mistake. Legal and Financial Consequences Turner’s lawsuit details his attempt to withdraw $500,000 from his PNC account, which the bank denied, claiming the funds were seized indefinitely. Turner’s Instagram account has more than 860k followers, and his Telegram channel has more than 75,000 subscribers, all “no doubt seeking that sweet “C@sh App sauce,” which apparently has something to do with moving cryptocurrencies through Cash App in a way that financially rewards people able and willing to open up new accounts,” KrebsOnSecurity notes. Punchmade Dev persona, with a large social media following, continues to promote his schemes. Krebs finds it “incredibly ironic” that Punchmade can’t even register a domain name anonymously. Conclusion Brian Krebs’ investigation has shed light on Turner’s cybercriminal activities, raising questions about his public persona versus real-life actions. Despite his claims of legitimacy, the evidence points to significant involvement in financial crimes, making his lawsuit against PNC Bank a complex and ironic twist in his ongoing saga. For more detailed coverage and investigative insights, credit goes to KrebsOnSecurity. Report Cybercrime Activities to FinTelegram CategoriesCourt Cases Cybercrime DataTagsBrian KrebsDevon TurnerOBN GroupPunchmadePunchmade Dev

The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) has indicted Roman Pikulev, a/k/a Roman Boss, a Russian national, for his role in founding and operating Cryptonator, an unlicensed crypto exchange alleged to have processed over $235 million in illicit funds. According to the indictment, Pikulev and his associates ran Cryptonator from 2014 until March 2023 and operated as an international money laundering scheme, catering primarily to criminals. Law Enforcement Actions Cryptonator received proceeds from a variety of crimes, including computer intrusions, hacking incidents, ransomware scams, fraud markets, and identity theft schemes. The platform’s website has been taken down by the U.S. Justice Department, Internal Revenue Service, and German law enforcement agencies, including the German Federal Criminal Police Office. Roman Pikulev, a/k/a Roman Boss Cryptonator was never registered with the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) despite conducting business in the United States, which constitutes a federal felony. The Justice Department highlighted that Cryptonator lacked meaningful anti-money laundering (AML) processes and did not have an effective AML program. Criminal Operations Pikulev, who also used the surname “Boss” on some official documents, knowingly handled funds derived from crimes or intended to support criminal activities. The platform facilitated cryptocurrency exchanges for hackers and cybercriminals, allowing them to cash out cryptocurrencies into fiat currency. Cryptonator included functions that anonymized the sources of cryptocurrency, further enabling illicit activities. Roman Pikulev operated Cryptonator using dozens of U.S.-based technology providers and advertised on U.S. social media sites to promote the scheme. The Justice Department obtained a search warrant for the email address Pikulev used to register cryptonator.com, revealing extensive criminal activity. Financial Impact Cryptonator facilitated more than 4 million transactions worth a total of $1.4 billion, with Pikulev taking a small cut from each transaction. Blockchain research tools revealed that Bitcoin addresses controlled by Cryptonator directly and indirectly sent or received significant sums from darknet marketplaces, fraud shops, scams, high-risk exchanges, ransomware campaigns, and hacked or stolen funds. Addresses sanctioned by the Treasury Department conducted transactions worth more than $71 million through Cryptonator alongside millions from known cybercriminals. Blockchain researchers at TRM Labs identified numerous transactions and connections to other sanctioned entities and criminal marketplaces, including Blender, Hydra Market, Bitzlato, and Garantex. Report Cybercrime Activities to FinTelegram CategoriesCrypto Schemes Money Laundering ticker United StatesTagsBitzlatoBlenderCryptonatorGarantexHydra MarketRoman Pikulev

Money laundering is a huge global phenomenon. Two Chinese nationals have been sentenced to prison for their involvement in a substantial money laundering operation, processing over $60 million in suspected proceeds of crime. Boliang Liu and Tao Zhou were key figures in a syndicate that used cryptocurrency, foreign bank accounts, and ATMs across Melbourne’s eastern suburbs to launder the funds. Luxurious Lifestyle and Arrest Liu, identified as the syndicate leader, amassed enough wealth to buy luxury items, including a Porsche 911 Carrera and several designer watches, court reporter Kristian Silva reported. Despite declaring no taxable income, Liu’s extravagant purchases, including trading in an SUV and adding $107,000 to buy the Porsche, drew the ire of his father, Fulai Liu, who questioned his son’s low profile. The syndicate’s activities came to light in October 2021, leading to the arrest of Liu, Zhou, and a third co-offender, Wei Wang, in a major operation coordinated by Victoria Police, the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission, and AUSTRAC. During the raid on Liu’s Burwood home, authorities seized cash-filled shopping bags, cash counting machines, numerous credit cards in other people’s names, luxury watches, a Gucci bag, three framed pictures of boxer Mike Tyson, the Porsche, and two four-wheel drives. Court Sentencing On Tuesday, the County Court of Victoria sentenced Liu, 37, to five-and-a-half years in prison, while Zhou, 41, received a three-and-a-half-year sentence after both pleaded guilty to dealing with proceeds of crime. According to court documents, the pair laundered a combined $63 million in 2020 and 2021. “The sums you both dealt with are eye-watering,” Judge Michael Cahill remarked. He criticized their failure to maintain business records and highlighted the gross disproportion between their cash dealings and legitimate income. Syndicate Operations Prosecutors revealed that Liu, Zhou, and Wang took commissions from “customers” by transferring their money into various bank and cryptocurrency accounts controlled by the syndicate. The money was often held in dormant bank accounts acquired from individuals who had left Australia. Judge Cahill noted the men’s indifference to the source of the funds, citing a recorded conversation where Liu stated, “We don’t worry where the shit is coming from. I never asked … I don’t think it’s important.” Future Deportation Zhou was also implicated in making fraudulent transactions on over 250 overseas victims’ credit cards. Judge Cahill identified Liu as the syndicate leader and Zhou as a “money runner” responsible for hundreds of cash deposits at suburban ATMs. The third co-accused, Wang, laundered $33 million and had $16.9 million in a cryptocurrency account at the time of his arrest. He has pleaded guilty and will be sentenced at a later date. Both Liu and Zhou, previously without criminal records, are expected to be deported after serving their sentences. Report Money Laundering Activities to FinTelegram CategoriesMoney LaunderingTagsBoliang LiuMIchael CahillTao ZhouWei Wang

The cryptocurrency market has experienced a significant downturn, with Bitcoin falling below $50,000 and Ethereum dropping to around $2,186, marking their lowest levels since February and January, respectively. This crash has resulted in over $1 billion in liquidations, affecting more than 286,370 traders within a 24-hour period. Several macroeconomic factors have contributed to this market crash: Federal Reserve policies: The tightening of the money supply by the Federal Reserve has played a crucial role in the market downturn. This policy shift has led to increased caution among investors, prompting many to move away from high-risk assets like cryptocurrencies . Global economic concerns: The collapse of Japan’s Nikkei and TOPIX indices, which have fallen over 8% (the worst stock market loss since 1987), has added to fears of a potential global recession. This has further dampened investor sentiment in the crypto market. Political uncertainty: The upcoming U.S. elections have created additional market anxiety. Some investors are withdrawing from the crypto market due to fears of potential government sanctions or flagging of crypto exchanges supporting specific candidates. Institutional movements: Large-scale actions by institutional players have also impacted the market. For instance, Jump Crypto, a major trading firm, moved over $277 million worth of Ethereum to various centralized exchanges, sparking speculation about potential sell-offs. Despite the recent crash, there are signs of resilience in the crypto market: Quick recovery: Both Bitcoin and Ethereum began to regain their lost value shortly after the initial drop, demonstrating the market’s ability to bounce back . Continued bull run indicators: Despite the setback, the market still shows signs of a potential continued bull run. This suggests that prices might rise again in the near future. Upcoming catalysts: The potential approval of Bitcoin ETFs in the U.S. is seen as a significant event that could positively impact the market As for crypto exchanges, they have faced challenges during this period of high volatility: Technical issues: Some exchanges experienced service interruptions during periods of high trading volume, exacerbating liquidity problems and forced liquidations of leveraged positions . Increased regulatory scrutiny: The crash has heightened calls for clearer regulations in the crypto space, which could affect how exchanges operate in the future. Market manipulation concerns: There are ongoing discussions about the role of large holders or “whales” in influencing market trends, which could lead to increased scrutiny of trading activities on exchanges. In conclusion, while the recent crash has been severe, the crypto market has shown signs of recovery and resilience. The future outlook remains cautiously optimistic, with potential catalysts like Bitcoin ETF approvals on the horizon. However, the market continues to be influenced by broader macroeconomic factors and regulatory developments, which will likely play a significant role in shaping its near-term trajectory. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCrypto

The Wirecard trials in Germany continue unperturbed despite the confusion surrounding the espionage affair involving former Management Board member Jan Marsalek. Four years after Wirecard collapsed, former chief financial officer Alexander von Knoop and former chief product officer Susanne Steidl have been charged with breach of trust. The charges are part of the ongoing investigation into one of Europe’s largest accounting scandals. Allegations and Charges Prosecutors accuse von Alexander von Knoop and Susanne Steidl of failing to meet their legal obligations to Wirecard by approving over €100 million in potentially fraudulent loans to sham companies controlled by a business partner of Jan Marsalek, Wirecard’s fugitive chief operating officer. Some of these funds were allegedly funneled to Marsalek, who used them to repay a private loan from former chief executive Markus Braun. The charges against von Knoop and Steidl are less severe than those faced by Braun and two other executives — former head of accounting Stephan von Erffa and Oliver Bellenhaus, the head of Wirecard in Dubai. These three have been charged with fraud, market manipulation, and accounting manipulation. However, if found guilty on all counts, von Knoop and Steidl could still face up to 15 years in prison. Wirecard’s Collapse and Financial Woes Wirecard collapsed in June 2020 after revealing that half its revenue and €1.9 billion in corporate cash did not exist. At its peak, the company had a market capitalization of €24 billion. When it collapsed, Wirecard had over €3 billion in debt. Among the questionable financial activities, Wirecard gave a €100 million loan to a Singapore-based company controlled by Marsalek’s business partner, James Henry O’Sullivan. This loan consumed a significant portion of Wirecard’s remaining liquidity shortly before the company declared insolvency. O’Sullivan has since been charged in Singapore with Wirecard accounting fraud. Prosecutors’ Statements and Legal Proceedings Munich prosecutors have deemed the €100 million loan “unjustifiable” and allege that von Knoop and Steidl “obviously and grossly violated their duties to Wirecard,” resulting in financial damage amounting to “several hundred million euros.” Braun and von Erffa have denied all allegations against them, while Bellenhaus has admitted the charges and become a chief witness for the prosecution. The trial of Braun, von Erffa, and Bellenhaus is expected to continue until at least mid-2025. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesBankruptcies Court CasesTagsAlexander von KnoopJames Henry O'SullivanJan MarsalekMarkus BraunOliver BellenhausStephan von ErffaSusanne SteidlWirecard

Russian financial service providers have not had an easy time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Western sanctions have hit most of them hard. Despite the challenging landscape, CPS Group, with its crypto payment company CryptoPay, has managed to navigate the sanctions effectively. CPS Group‘s good rating, which was awarded by the cyber rating agency PayRate42, is particularly noteworthy. CPS Group Key Data Trading nameCPS TransfersBusiness activitiesPayments Crypto PaymentsCrypto ExchangeDomainshttps://cpstransfers.comhttps://cryptopay.mehttps://stockflare.comLegal entitiesCPS Transfers LimitedCPS Payments UABCPS Solutions OÜStockflare Securities LtdStockflare Analytics LtdJurisdictionsUK, Estonia, LithuaniaRegulationsAuthorized by UK FCA with Ref No 776056Registered crypto businesses inEstonia and LithuaniaKey peopleDmitrii Guniashov (co-founder and CEO)Alexey Siderov (CFO)Pavel Makarenko (CTO)PayRate42 ratingGreen Compliance, Green Risk(PR42 profile for CPS Transfers)(PR42 profile for PayCrypto)Last updateAug 3, 2024 Short CPS Group Narrative CPS Transfers Limited, incorporated in England and Wales, is authorized by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as a Small Payment Institution (SPI) under reference number 776056. Founded in 2016 by Russian nationals, CPS Group also includes the crypto payment processor CryptoPay, which operates through registered entities in Estonia and Lithuania. The central element of the CPS Group is obviously the crypto payment business, which is distributed across the entities in the group: CPS Solutions OÜ: Registered in Estonia with a crypto license issued by the Estonian FIU. UAB CPS Payments: Registered in Lithuania as a Virtual Currency Exchange Operator. CPS Transfers Limited: Authorized in the UK by the FCA as a Small Payment Institution (SPI). In the EU, CryptoPay‘s Visa debit card is issued by DiPocket UAB, an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) authorized by the Bank of Lithuania (BOL) and a Principal Member of Visa. The CPS Group‘s financial standing appears robust, according to the PayRate42 analysis: Share capital: €375,000 in Lithuania and Estonia. Lithuanian entity: Reported a net profit of more than €1.16 million for 2023. Estonian entity: Reported a taxable turnover of just under €2.2 million for 2024. British entity: Reported net assets of around GBP 361,000 at the end of 2022 despite making profits in previous years. As far as we can tell from the publicly available documents in our OSINT analysis, the CPS Group people have not been resident in Russia for some time. Business Model The FCA-authorized CPS Transfers primarily manages debit cards issued via CryptoPay and handles associated transactions. CryptoPay offers a range of services to both private customers and merchants, including online wallets, cryptocurrency purchases, and payment processing. Merchants can accept and make payments in cryptocurrencies. CryptoPay also provides physical and virtual Visa cards, facilitating purchases with crypto balances. The CPS Group‘s offering of Stockflare has been terminated a while ago. High-Risk Segment Activity CryptoPay has been identified as a payment processor in the online casino sector, including for illegally operating casinos like Zet Casino, PlayZilla, Dolly Casino, and Cazimbo. The website traffic analysis indicates that CryptoPay‘s activities are primarily focused on the high-risk segment. However, on the other hand: all fintechs and crypto payment processors are involved in the facilitation game around online casinos. Rating Conclusion The cyber rating agency PayRate42 has awarded CPS Group a very good rating. After a thorough review of annual financial statements and commercial register data, the agency concluded that CPS Group has a solid financial foundation and a profitable business model. Consequently, CPS Transfers and PayCrypto have been placed on the Green Compliance and Green Risk list by PayRate42. 4o CategoriesCrypto Compliance Crypto Payments PayRate42 tickerTagsAlexey SiderovCPS GroupCPS PaymentsCPS SolutionsCPS TransfersDmitrii GuniashovPavel MakarenkoStockflare AnalyticsStockflare Securities

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has urged a federal court to reject Coinbase’s sweeping subpoena request, which seeks to obtain the personal communications of SEC Chair Gary Gensler. Coinbase, led by CEO Brian Armstrong, has been accused by the SEC of overreaching in its strategy to gather evidence for its defense in the ongoing legal battle with the SEC over alleged securities law violations, CoinDesk reports. The SEC’s recent court filing characterizes Coinbase’s subpoena requests as “breathtakingly broad,” aiming to procure virtually any document related to cryptocurrency. This filing is the latest development in the SEC’s case against Coinbase, which involves accusations of the exchange operating as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency, as well as the unregistered sale of securities linked to its staking products. In April, Coinbase initiated its document production request from the SEC. By June, Coinbase expanded its demands to include Gensler’s personal communications concerning cryptocurrency, dating back to four years before his appointment as SEC Chair. Additionally, Coinbase issued a similar subpoena to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Gensler previously taught blockchain technology courses. However, Coinbase has since decided not to pursue records from MIT. The SEC has deemed Coinbase’s request for Gensler’s personal communications as a “blatant impropriety.” In a June 28 letter, the SEC urged District Judge Katherine Polk Failla to dismiss Coinbase’s demands. Judge Failla expressed her surprise and disapproval during a pre-trial conference on July 11, specifically questioning the relevance of Gensler’s pre-appointment communications. Judge Failla instructed Coinbase to refine its approach and submit a motion to compel, aiming to resolve the discovery dispute. Coinbase filed this motion on July 23, slightly narrowing its subpoena scope but maintaining its core requests. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCourt Cases Crypto Compliance SECTagsBrian ArmstrongCoinbaseGary GenslerKatherine Polk FAilla

While the main website of the Betify online casino, Betify.com, states Altacore N.V. has a Curacao license as an operator, various other Betify websites do not provide any information about the operators. Costa Rica is stated as the jurisdiction responsible for the terms and conditions. In our reviews at the beginning of August 2024, we discovered the Cyprus-registered Altaprime Limited as the payment processor for anonymous and illegal casino activities. Short Betify Narrative The Altacore Group, which operates approximately 20 online casinos, manages the Betify brand under a license issued in Curaçao and through its subsidiary, Altaprime Ltd, based in Cyprus. The group employs a common strategy in the online gambling industry by utilizing numerous additional domains and websites, which are operated anonymously alongside the main site, Betify.com. This approach allows casino operators to bypass even the minimal regulatory standards set by Curaçao. The overall management of the Altacore Group is conducted by Altacore Holdings Ltd, located in Cyprus. The offshore license from Curaçao serves primarily as a superficial measure, providing a veneer of legitimacy while the group continues its operations with minimal regulatory oversight. At the Cypriot entities of the Altacore Group with Adrese 5, Floor 4, Flat/Office 401, Atho 6, 1087 Agioi Omologites, Nicosia, Cyprus, the Cypriot Georgios Sofokleous apparently sits as trustee. He is also registered as an officer of other companies at this address. Compliance Check The Betify online casino scheme operates through multiple websites. The primary website, Betify.com, is managed by Altacore N.V., which holds an offshore license in Curaçao. Altaprime Ltd, a subsidiary of Altacore N.V., acts as the payment agent for Betify. These two legal entities oversee the operations of several other online casinos. Similar to many other online gambling schemes, Betify utilizes various additional domains such as Betify.co and Betify1.co, where the operators are not clearly specified, unlike the main domain Betify.com. On these anonymously operated sites, Costa Rica is mentioned as the governing jurisdiction in the terms and conditions. Other online casinos under the Altacore umbrella follow a similar operational model. Betify and the associated Altacore casinos accept players from all jurisdictions, including their funds. Our review indicates that payments are processed by Altaprime, which is based in Cyprus. This suggests that Altaprime is effectively the operator of these schemes. Despite this, Cypriot authorities do not appear to acknowledge this role. From a compliance standpoint, the Curaçao license does not authorize the scheme to offer online casinos in EEA jurisdictions or the UK. Additionally, the anonymously operated websites are functioning illegally. Consequently, Betify and the entire Altacore Group warrant a red compliance flag. Facilitating Payment Processors In our review of Betify casino, we identified several familiar payment processors such as Jeton, MiFinity, and Binance Pay. Additionally, we discovered the use of open banking service providers, including Volt, Noda, PayOp, and the crypto payment facilitator utPay. These payment options and processors are accessible across all variants of the Betify platforms, including anonymously operated sites like Betify.do, Betify1.co, and Betify2.co. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures or potential gross negligence in their implementation. On the payment receipts, however, Altaprime Ltd is also stated as the recipient for the anonymous and completely license-free Betify casinos with the associated domain Betify.com even if the players are registered and play at Betify casinos in other domains. Apart from the fact that the Betify.com casino is also unlikely to acquire customers from the EEA or UK. Players from Germany, Austria, Italy, and other EEA jurisdictions face no significant barriers in making deposits to Betify’s various casinos using their local banks. The extensive use of open banking by the operators facilitates this process. Open banking service providers also promote the benefit of no risk of chargebacks for merchants using their services, which is heavily leveraged by the casino operators. Altacore Key Data Trading namesBetify Related brandsiWildCasino, Flappy, Windetta, Rollino, Gamblezen, CosmicSlots, SpinsBro, SmokeAceBusiness activityOnline casino and gambling operatorsStatusActiveDomainshttps://betify.comhttps://betify.cohttps://betify1.cohttps://betify2.cohttps://betify.partnersLegal entityAltacore Holding LtdAltacore N.V. Altaprime LimitedJurisdictionsCuracao, Costa Rica, CypursAuthorizationNo authorization foundRelated individualsnot disclosedPayment agentsAltaprime LimitedTepemonte Media LimitedAdvabetPayment optionsbank transfer, SEPA Instant, credit/debit card, e-wallets, cryptoPayment GatewaysNoda, Volt, PayOp, PayDo, utPayPayment processorsflexepin, Paysafe CardJeton, Skrill, Neteller, MiFinity,Binance Pay, NeoSurfCompliance ratingRed Share Information We encourage anyone with knowledge about the Altacore, its online casino operations, its facilitators, or any related activities to come forward. Your information could be pivotal in understanding and exposing potentially illegal or unethical practices within this organization. Your contribution is vital in holding the key individuals accountable and safeguarding the integrity of online gaming and financial transactions. Share Information With FinTelegram CategoriesIllegal gambling Illegal Payment ServicesTagsAdvabetAltacoreAltacore GroupAltaprimeBetifyBinance PayFlexepinJetonMiFinityNeosurfNodaPayDoPayOpSkrill NetellerTepemonte MediautPayVolt

In the rapidly evolving landscape of cryptocurrency regulation, the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) emphasizes the need for maximum transparency, particularly for stablecoin issuers. The former Payvision founder and COO, Gijs op de Weegh, founder and CEO of the new stablecoin issuer StablR, recently presented a bold piece of partially accurate biographical information that can mislead potential investors. The Presented Narrative Gijs op de Weegh, a Dutch national, is the CEO and founder of the stablecoin issuer StablR, where he oversees strategy, operations, and investor relations. On August 2, 2024, op de Weegh authored an article on Blockworks, expressing his enthusiasm for the new EU crypto regulation MiCAR, highlighting its potential benefits for stablecoin issuers. While his positive outlook on regulatory developments is commendable, the author’s biography (pictured left) accompanying his article paints a dramatically incomplete picture of his professional history. In this short biography, Payvision, under the leadership of Gijs op de Weeg, is presented as a billion-dollar company. This sounds impressive, but is only half the truth and is therefore likely to give a false impression of the the author and StablR CEO. The Real Payvision Legacy Op de Weegh’s biography states that he co-founded Payvision, a high-risk payment processor, in 2002. He proudly notes that under his leadership, Payvision grew to over 300 employees and achieved a turnover exceeding €4 billion. At first glance, this seems like a testament to his successful leadership and industry acumen. However, this narrative omits significant and critical details about Payvision’s controversial past. Under op de Weegh’s tenure as Chief Operating Officer (COO), Payvision was deeply embroiled in money laundering activities and the facilitation of cybercrime. The Dutch financial market regulator, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), conducted an investigation that resulted in charges against Payvision for violating financial laws and money laundering regulations. Law enforcement agencies imposed substantial penalties on Payvision and its responsible executives. The Omitted Facts & FinTech Cowboys Crucially, Gijs op de Weegh signed the contracts with merchants involved in fraudulent schemes. One notable client was Gal Barak, an Israeli national convicted of money laundering and investment fraud. Barak’s companies, onboarded by Payvision under op de Weegh’s oversight, defrauded tens of thousands of small investors, funneling hundreds of millions of euros through illicit activities. Another cybercrime mastermind who worked closely with Payvision was the German Uwe Lenhoff, who died in prison in 2020. Although his criminal record already included several fraud convictions, Lenhoff became a reseller of Payvision, operated a network of scams, such as Option888, via the Veltyco Group, and defrauded tens of thousands of victims. Despite these severe issues, the founders sold Payvision to ING in 2018 for a valuation of €360 million. However, the legacy of misconduct and regulatory violations forced ING to announce the closure of Payvision in October 2021, a mere three years post-acquisition. With this failed fintech transaction, ING lost hundreds of millions. Payvision and its parent company, ING, are currently being sued by the victims of Barak and Lenhoff. The victims accuse the two of facilitating the fraud schemes and thus contributing to the fraud. The findings of the law enforcement authorities support the victims’ claims. The Dutch investigative platform Follow the Money portrayed the then-CEO Rudolf Booker and Gijs op de Weegh as FinTech cowboys (see picture above) who would know how to do it (read our report here). Read our Payvision reports here. The Need for Comprehensive Transparency The MiCAR framework mandates stringent transparency for stablecoin issuers, aiming to protect investors and maintain market integrity. In this context, the selective disclosure of op de Weegh’s professional history is troubling. Potential investors and stakeholders in StablR deserve a complete and accurate account of his background, including the full scope of his involvement with Payvision. While op de Weegh’s achievements and insights into the benefits of MiCAR are valuable, omitting the controversial aspects of his career could mislead investors. Full transparency is not just a regulatory requirement but a fundamental aspect of building trust in the volatile and nascent crypto market. Conclusion As MiCAR continues to shape the regulatory environment for crypto-assets in the EU, industry leaders like Gijs op de Weegh must provide comprehensive and truthful accounts of their professional histories. The partial biography presented may fulfill the need for a positive public image, but it falls short of the transparency required by both regulators and investors. FinTelegram urges all stakeholders to demand full disclosure to ensure informed decision-making in the crypto ecosystem. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCompliance Crypto Compliance Money Laundering tickerTagsGal BarakGijs Op de WeeghINGOption888PayVisionRudolf BookerStablRUwe LenhoffVeltyco Group