Trust pilot is worth nothing. It can be facked and everyone can leave a no sense negative review there. No one actually cares to check what is posted there and if it is the truth.
I'm afraid it isn't that simple.
Our valued sponsor
New Epayments Blog Article :
27 FEBRUARY 2020
Update on improvement process
We have been working hard on making improvements to our platform. We’ve made further progress, however, there is still work to be done.
As a result, we’re still unable to give a clear timeframe as to when services will be restored. We understand this will come as frustrating news, however we don’t want to speculate and risk disappointing customers further.
We want to reassure customers that funds are being safeguarded as normal and can be retrieved once the improvement process has been completed.
We want to thank all our customers for their incredible patience during this challenging period.
We’ll keep everyone informed of our progress through our website, customer emails and social channels.
Thank you
The ePayments team
27 FEBRUARY 2020
Update on improvement process
We have been working hard on making improvements to our platform. We’ve made further progress, however, there is still work to be done.
As a result, we’re still unable to give a clear timeframe as to when services will be restored. We understand this will come as frustrating news, however we don’t want to speculate and risk disappointing customers further.
We want to reassure customers that funds are being safeguarded as normal and can be retrieved once the improvement process has been completed.
We want to thank all our customers for their incredible patience during this challenging period.
We’ll keep everyone informed of our progress through our website, customer emails and social channels.
Thank you
The ePayments team
You can find an official article here https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/02...going-on-at-e-money-firm-ePayments-Systems--/
It looks liek the one where the above is copy/pasted from has been removed, at least, I have no access to it.
It looks liek the one where the above is copy/pasted from has been removed, at least, I have no access to it.
Looks ridiculously expensive. The OP that mentioned Verifo also has a banner for an offshore banking site that is absolute garbage IMHO. Take the advice with a grain of salt. Back to ePayments, one problem at a time.
Any way you can copy the basics of that article to here? It requires a login to be able to read from the link.
Copy of this article :
What’s going on at e-money firm ePayments Systems?
FEBRUARY 26 2020
By: Jemima Kelly
You’ve probably never heard of ePayments Systems Limited, an e-money firm based in London that counts the adult entertainment, affiliate marketing and crypto industries among its most important clients.
It’s actually one of the biggest digital payments companies in the UK. The FCA-regulated company has over a million individual accounts and over 1,000 business accounts, and has issued more than 75,000 prepaid cards as a principal issuer of Mastercard. According to Companies House filings, it booked profits of more than £18m on revenues of almost £28m in the year up to the end of April 2019, with a tasty 66 per cent gross profit margin.
On February 11, though, the company suspended all activity, having been ordered to do so for “an indefinite period” by the FCA after the regulator found “a number of weaknesses” in its anti-money-laundering (AML) controls. That has left ePayments’ customers unable to withdraw, transfer or deposit funds, or to use their prepaid cards for more than two weeks now.
ePayments posted the following statement on its website following the suspension:
On the February 11, 2020 ePayments Systems Limited (‘ePayments’) agreed with the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) to suspend all activity on its customer accounts. This decision was taken following a review, by the FCA, of ePayments anti-money laundering systems and controls, which identified weakness that required remediation.
We know this will be a very frustrating time for our customers. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and are working tirelessly to ensure improvements are made and accounts can be reactivated as soon as possible. During this improvement process, we want to assure customers that their funds are being safeguarded as normal.
Then last Monday, February 17, Robert Courtneidge, a non-executive director – one of three directors listed on Companies House – resigned from ePayments with no explanation. We contacted Courtneidge to ask why he had quit, but were told that he was not legally able to comment on the company. Courtneidge is an interesting character; more on him in a bit.
It’s unclear how much is stuck in customers’ accounts at ePayments, though as of April 2019, the company was holding £127.5m of clients’ money.
But we spoke to several upset customers, including one man in Turkey working in IT who said he had $54,000 stuck in his account which he said he needed to pay for his son’s crucial medical treatment; and one adult entertainer in Brazil who had just over $400 in her account which she said she needed to pay for tuition fees. (She posted erotic content on a site called “Only Fans”, which used ePayments to handle its payments and so many other users of the site, as well as other online adult entertainers, have been affected by the suspension.)
Several Telegram groups have been set up by customers who are unable to access their accounts as well as a Twitter account.
Most of the people we spoke to seemed unaware that their money would not be protected by any kind of deposit guarantee scheme should the company at any point become insolvent. “I thought it’s an FCA-regulated company – the money must be secured,” one UK-based ePayments user told us, who had saved up over £10,000 in his account for a deposit on a house.
The fiasco draws to light not just the obscurity of much of Britain’s digital payments industry, but also the lack of awareness among consumers of their rights when using these services. In the UK, deposits of up to £85,000 at banks, building societies and credit unions are covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), but deposits at e-money firms are not. (This means for example that although Revolut wants to be “the Amazon of banking”, and has a banking license in Lithuania, it is not in fact a bank in the UK, and deposits are not covered by any such scheme.)
Because deposits aren’t guaranteed by the FSCS, e-money institutions such as ePayments are required by the FCA to adhere to a safeguarding regime, so that customers’ funds are protected should the company become insolvent.
And it appears to have been concerns over the rigour of ePayments’ safeguarding that actually first drew the FCA’s attention to the company, according to a source who has spoken directly to the regulator about this. This is part of a wider crackdown on e-money firms that last year saw an e-money firm called Ipagoo collapse into administration after an FCA suspension.
Crypto-connections
ePayments Systems was founded in 2010 by CEO Mikhail “Mike” Rymanov. In 2014, Rymanov went on to found a crypto exchange called Digital Securities Exchange (DSX), which acts as an appointed representative of ePayments and uses it to on-board its clients. We wrote about DSX back in 2018 after it reported a “security incident” and temporarily suspended all its activity. DSX says that crypto payments account for 20 per cent of all transactions at ePayments. (AML concerns at a company involved in crypto? We know. Crazy.)
ePayments’ crypto-connections go further though. Robert Courtneidge, the director who resigned following the suspension who is also the CEO of another London-based e-money firm called Moorwand, was also previously global head of cards and payments at law firm Locke Lord, where he was considered the expert on crypto.
As first reported by trade publication PaymentsCompliance, Locke Lord is the law firm that was used by Dr Ruja Ignatova, who ran the massive OneCoin scam (and who is the subject of the excellent BBC podcast The Missing Crypto Queen – do give it a listen if you haven’t already). Mark Scott, a former partner in the firm’s US office, was in November found guilty of laundering $400m for OneCoin (making $50m for himself in the process) and now faces up to 50 years in jail.
The US government, which brought the case against Scott, has not accused either Locke Lorde or Courtneidge of any wrongdoing. But assistant US attorney Christopher DiMase told the court that prosecutors had reviewed certain emails between Dr Ruja and Courtneidge and that – although the prosecution did not allege Courtneidge was involved in the alleged conspiracy – the emails suggested that he “understood that OneCoin, effectively, was a fraud scheme”.
When asked about this, a spokeswoman for Courtneidge told us: “Mr Scott was relying on a generally available paper Mr Courtneidge had written on crypto currency regulation around the world that was available on the Locke Lord Website and not on any conversations had via email with Mr Courtneidge.”
A local court reporter tweeted the following image from the court case, which shows Dr Ruja emailing Scott and Courtneidge about depositing £220,000 in cash, back in 2016 (Dr Ruja went missing in 2017, shortly after law enforcement started getting involved):
We asked Courtneidge about his involvement in OneCoin but he said he was unable to comment. He suggested we contact David Grant, the managing partner of Locke Lord’s London office, who did not reply to our request for comment.
ePayments also did not respond to our request for comment.
What’s going on at e-money firm ePayments Systems?
FEBRUARY 26 2020
By: Jemima Kelly
You’ve probably never heard of ePayments Systems Limited, an e-money firm based in London that counts the adult entertainment, affiliate marketing and crypto industries among its most important clients.
It’s actually one of the biggest digital payments companies in the UK. The FCA-regulated company has over a million individual accounts and over 1,000 business accounts, and has issued more than 75,000 prepaid cards as a principal issuer of Mastercard. According to Companies House filings, it booked profits of more than £18m on revenues of almost £28m in the year up to the end of April 2019, with a tasty 66 per cent gross profit margin.
On February 11, though, the company suspended all activity, having been ordered to do so for “an indefinite period” by the FCA after the regulator found “a number of weaknesses” in its anti-money-laundering (AML) controls. That has left ePayments’ customers unable to withdraw, transfer or deposit funds, or to use their prepaid cards for more than two weeks now.
ePayments posted the following statement on its website following the suspension:
On the February 11, 2020 ePayments Systems Limited (‘ePayments’) agreed with the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) to suspend all activity on its customer accounts. This decision was taken following a review, by the FCA, of ePayments anti-money laundering systems and controls, which identified weakness that required remediation.
We know this will be a very frustrating time for our customers. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and are working tirelessly to ensure improvements are made and accounts can be reactivated as soon as possible. During this improvement process, we want to assure customers that their funds are being safeguarded as normal.
Then last Monday, February 17, Robert Courtneidge, a non-executive director – one of three directors listed on Companies House – resigned from ePayments with no explanation. We contacted Courtneidge to ask why he had quit, but were told that he was not legally able to comment on the company. Courtneidge is an interesting character; more on him in a bit.
It’s unclear how much is stuck in customers’ accounts at ePayments, though as of April 2019, the company was holding £127.5m of clients’ money.
But we spoke to several upset customers, including one man in Turkey working in IT who said he had $54,000 stuck in his account which he said he needed to pay for his son’s crucial medical treatment; and one adult entertainer in Brazil who had just over $400 in her account which she said she needed to pay for tuition fees. (She posted erotic content on a site called “Only Fans”, which used ePayments to handle its payments and so many other users of the site, as well as other online adult entertainers, have been affected by the suspension.)
Several Telegram groups have been set up by customers who are unable to access their accounts as well as a Twitter account.
Most of the people we spoke to seemed unaware that their money would not be protected by any kind of deposit guarantee scheme should the company at any point become insolvent. “I thought it’s an FCA-regulated company – the money must be secured,” one UK-based ePayments user told us, who had saved up over £10,000 in his account for a deposit on a house.
The fiasco draws to light not just the obscurity of much of Britain’s digital payments industry, but also the lack of awareness among consumers of their rights when using these services. In the UK, deposits of up to £85,000 at banks, building societies and credit unions are covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), but deposits at e-money firms are not. (This means for example that although Revolut wants to be “the Amazon of banking”, and has a banking license in Lithuania, it is not in fact a bank in the UK, and deposits are not covered by any such scheme.)
Because deposits aren’t guaranteed by the FSCS, e-money institutions such as ePayments are required by the FCA to adhere to a safeguarding regime, so that customers’ funds are protected should the company become insolvent.
And it appears to have been concerns over the rigour of ePayments’ safeguarding that actually first drew the FCA’s attention to the company, according to a source who has spoken directly to the regulator about this. This is part of a wider crackdown on e-money firms that last year saw an e-money firm called Ipagoo collapse into administration after an FCA suspension.
Crypto-connections
ePayments Systems was founded in 2010 by CEO Mikhail “Mike” Rymanov. In 2014, Rymanov went on to found a crypto exchange called Digital Securities Exchange (DSX), which acts as an appointed representative of ePayments and uses it to on-board its clients. We wrote about DSX back in 2018 after it reported a “security incident” and temporarily suspended all its activity. DSX says that crypto payments account for 20 per cent of all transactions at ePayments. (AML concerns at a company involved in crypto? We know. Crazy.)
ePayments’ crypto-connections go further though. Robert Courtneidge, the director who resigned following the suspension who is also the CEO of another London-based e-money firm called Moorwand, was also previously global head of cards and payments at law firm Locke Lord, where he was considered the expert on crypto.
As first reported by trade publication PaymentsCompliance, Locke Lord is the law firm that was used by Dr Ruja Ignatova, who ran the massive OneCoin scam (and who is the subject of the excellent BBC podcast The Missing Crypto Queen – do give it a listen if you haven’t already). Mark Scott, a former partner in the firm’s US office, was in November found guilty of laundering $400m for OneCoin (making $50m for himself in the process) and now faces up to 50 years in jail.
The US government, which brought the case against Scott, has not accused either Locke Lorde or Courtneidge of any wrongdoing. But assistant US attorney Christopher DiMase told the court that prosecutors had reviewed certain emails between Dr Ruja and Courtneidge and that – although the prosecution did not allege Courtneidge was involved in the alleged conspiracy – the emails suggested that he “understood that OneCoin, effectively, was a fraud scheme”.
When asked about this, a spokeswoman for Courtneidge told us: “Mr Scott was relying on a generally available paper Mr Courtneidge had written on crypto currency regulation around the world that was available on the Locke Lord Website and not on any conversations had via email with Mr Courtneidge.”
A local court reporter tweeted the following image from the court case, which shows Dr Ruja emailing Scott and Courtneidge about depositing £220,000 in cash, back in 2016 (Dr Ruja went missing in 2017, shortly after law enforcement started getting involved):
We asked Courtneidge about his involvement in OneCoin but he said he was unable to comment. He suggested we contact David Grant, the managing partner of Locke Lord’s London office, who did not reply to our request for comment.
ePayments also did not respond to our request for comment.
Another interesting article :
news.bitcoin.com
UK's FCA Suspends Epayments Service - Over £100M Frozen and Alleged Onecoin Connection – Bitcoin News
Epayments' non-executive director resigned and he once worked for the company Locke Lord, a law firm that represented Onecoin’s ‘Cryptoqueen’ Ruja Ignatova.
The amount of accounts makes me think that they are not gonna open the doors anynear soon again. Thats with the assumation that they need to review every single account.
That's a very high level of profitability for an EMI
. However if the OneCoin allegation is proven and if US is involved in investigation then epayments is toast.
Last edited:
Client Accounts on Hold as FCA Locks Down ePayments
There are few feelings worse than having one’s control stripped away, only to be at the mercy of another. This is, unfortunately, the case for a plethora of clients which utilize digital payments processor, ‘ePayments Systems Limited’.
Mid-February saw an enforced lockdown of ePayments’ client accounts, which persists as we enter March. This lockdown was a result of orders by the Financial Conduct Authority, as the regulatory body probes operations for short-comings surrounding Anti-Money Laundering practices.
While exact figures are unknown, it is surmised that this lockdown has affected over $150 million USD worth of client funds. These funds are touted as coming from over 1 million client accounts.
When the FCA stepped in, arranging the persisting lockdown of their systems, ePayments provided their clientele with the following notice.
“On the February 11, 2020 ePayments Systems Limited (‘ePayments’) agreed with the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) to suspend all activity on its customer accounts. This decision was taken following a review, by the FCA, of ePayments anti-money laundering systems and controls, which identified weakness that required remediation.
We know this will be a very frustrating time for our customers. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and are working tirelessly to ensure improvements are made and accounts can be reactivated as soon as possible. During this improvement process, we want to assure customers that their funds are being safeguarded as normal.”
Looking for Answers
The situation is obviously a negative one, continuing to linger as the company looks for a resolution. What isn’t so obvious is the reasoning behind the lockdown.
There are a few theories that have emerged as potential culprits for the development.
New AMLD5 laws have caught ePayments off-guard, necessitating platform upgrades
ePayments was used as a gateway for laundering funds associated with proven scam, OneCoin
Partners of ePayments are cracking down on payments associated with ‘high-risk’ industries
Today, we’ll take a brief look at the merit behind each of these theories. The reality, however, is that maybe none of these are correct. Maybe we simply need to wait for a resolution before becoming privy to answers.
Anti-Money Laundering
Before diving into the aforementioned theories, we can establish one fact – with the statements provided by ePayments, we at least know that this situation revolves around their AML procedures.
In order to remain authorized by the FCA, a company must adhere to strict compliance measures surrounding AML laws.
While digital payment solutions offer a bevy of benefits –such as speed and cost – they come with certain caveats. One of these is the potential for misuse through nefarious activity. One of the most commonly known means of illicit activity is money laundering – a practice which enables ‘dirty’ money, associated with illegal activities, to be passed off as ‘clean’ or legitimate.
Naturally, this is a practice which is discouraged, and has resulted in strict measures being taken to ensure it does not occur. These practices are known as ‘Anti-Money Laundering’ laws, or ‘AML’.
What is AML?
In the case of ePayments, it is these AML measures, or rather a lack of, which prompted the FCA enforced platform lockdown.
Scenario 1 – AMLD5
Theory number #1 is a very plausible scenario. The acronym ‘AMLD5’ refers to Europe’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive.
AMLD5 which came into law in 2018, and came into effect in 2020, comes with various stipulations – with one pair possibly being the reason for the shutdown.
Virtual Asset Service Providers are now viewed on level ground with other entities, despite perceived risk levels.
Virtual Asset Service Providers must now conform to more stringent AML and KYC rules.
While ePayments may have once conformed to regulations, their systems may simply need upgraded to reflect their new obligations under AMLD5.
While potentially costly for ePayments, this possible scenario is overall positive (aside from the obvious inconvenience of those affected by the lockdown). At the end of the day, this scenario will result in a more secure ePayments platform moving forward.
Beyond this particular scenario, AMLD5 has already had widespread effects across Europe. This was recently made obvious when Germany redefined Bitcoin as a financial instrument.
Scenario 2 – ePayments + OneCoin
This scenario is much more of a worry than new found issues with AMLD5. While the situation as described, is disheartening, thus far, in and of itself, there may be something larger at play. There may be links between ePayments and one of the largest scams of all time – OneCoin.
Many speculate that the potentially porous AML practices of ePayments allowed for some of the roughly $4 billion in OneCoin funds to be funnelled through the platform.
This speculation is lent some level of credence through the recent resignation of Robert Courtneidge, from ePayments. This resignation, which occurred mere days after the platform lockdown, capped off a short stint at the company for Courtneidge. His prior employer? The law firm Locke Lord – the same firm which saw a partner, Mark Scott, convicted of laundering roughly $400 million worth of funds on behalf of OneCoin founder, Dr. Ruja Ignatova.
This development begs the questions – was ePayments used to launder funds associated with OneCoin? And if so, are some of the funds, currently under lockdown, a portion of those from OneCoin?
To date, much if this is simply conjecture, as the FCA has not yet released commentary on the finer details surrounding the ePayments lockdown. However, if it quacks like a duck…
A Potential Timeline
OneCoin defrauds investors of $4 billion worldwide
Mike Scott, Partner at law firm Locke Lord, compensated with $50 million for laundering $400 million for OneCoin founder, Dr. Ruja Ignatova
2017, Ignatova, vanishes with vast amounts of wealth
Multiple convicted with various charges surrounding the OneCoin scam
Robert Courtneidge, formerly of Locke Lord, is hired by ePayments
FCA lockdown of ePayments occurs
Robert Courtneidge resigns from ePayments
Future Intrigue
Where this entire saga becomes intriguing, is the potential for tracking down the elusive Dr. Ruja Ignatova.
IF there is a link established between OneCoin and ePayments, MAYBE there remain funds associated with Ignatova in those that are now under lockdown. Providing this were to be the case, a new avenue for potentially tracking down the whereabouts of Ignatova becomes a possibility.
While these are massive ifs and maybes, the scope of the situation is large enough to warrant genuine intrigue moving forward.
Scenario 3 – High Risk Relations
The final leading theory behind the ePayments lockdown is one that has proven to be the downfall of many similar platforms in the past – high risk relations.
Companies like ePayments are not able to operate alone. They require relations with banks, insurance providers, and more. Unfortunately, this means that they, and similar companies, are often at the mercy of these service providers. Often times, we will see a service provider deem that clientele are high risk, and cease offering their services.
With regards to ePayments, it is believed that, roughly, at least 20% of all transactions processed through their platforms can be attributed to the following industries.
Pornographic Content
Foreign Exchange (FOREX)
Cryptocurrencies
Service providers are typically justified in ceasing relations surrounding these industries because, sadly, they are rife with scams and frauds – see the previous theory on OneCoin.
Digital Securities Exchange (DSX)
Connection to the aforementioned high risk industries may be strongest with that of Cryptocurrency. This is through cryptocurrency exchange, DSX; An exchange which shares the same founder as ePayments – Mikhail Rymanov.
Ties between platforms go beyond founders, however. For example, the pair utilize each other’s services for the onboarding of clients, as well as facilitating value transfers between accounts.
Thankfully, nations around the world are beginning to step up, ensuring level playing grounds for all businesses. A recent example of this is the Supreme Court of India’s recent decision to overturn their central banks decision to impose a blanket ban on crypto-related businesses.
Due to the growth surrounding acceptance being seen globally, it is unlikely that the ePayments lockdown is due to high-risk relations.
Progress Updates and a Crystal Ball
Regardless of which scenario you believe to be true, the public has not been given much information to work with, at this time. On a promising note, ePayments has, indeed, released multiple updates and ‘FAQ’ dossiers, indicating that they are at least working on the situation. These can be found through the following links.
Temporary Account Suspension FAQ for Customers
Accounts Update and New FAQs
Update on Improvement Process
At the end of the day, no one but the FCA and ePayments knows the full situation. Perhaps the reasoning behind the lockdown is a simple one, and the lack of details is to prevent exploitation of a vulnerability.
The various scenarios discussed today are just a few possibilities, with one possessing no more merit than the last. For the time being, we will just need to continue consulting our crystal balls, as we try to make sense of the situation – and hope that ePayments seeks truth when stating,
“We want to reassure customers that funds are being safeguarded as normal and can be retrieved once the improvement process has been completed.”
There are few feelings worse than having one’s control stripped away, only to be at the mercy of another. This is, unfortunately, the case for a plethora of clients which utilize digital payments processor, ‘ePayments Systems Limited’.
Mid-February saw an enforced lockdown of ePayments’ client accounts, which persists as we enter March. This lockdown was a result of orders by the Financial Conduct Authority, as the regulatory body probes operations for short-comings surrounding Anti-Money Laundering practices.
While exact figures are unknown, it is surmised that this lockdown has affected over $150 million USD worth of client funds. These funds are touted as coming from over 1 million client accounts.
When the FCA stepped in, arranging the persisting lockdown of their systems, ePayments provided their clientele with the following notice.
“On the February 11, 2020 ePayments Systems Limited (‘ePayments’) agreed with the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) to suspend all activity on its customer accounts. This decision was taken following a review, by the FCA, of ePayments anti-money laundering systems and controls, which identified weakness that required remediation.
We know this will be a very frustrating time for our customers. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and are working tirelessly to ensure improvements are made and accounts can be reactivated as soon as possible. During this improvement process, we want to assure customers that their funds are being safeguarded as normal.”
Looking for Answers
The situation is obviously a negative one, continuing to linger as the company looks for a resolution. What isn’t so obvious is the reasoning behind the lockdown.
There are a few theories that have emerged as potential culprits for the development.
New AMLD5 laws have caught ePayments off-guard, necessitating platform upgrades
ePayments was used as a gateway for laundering funds associated with proven scam, OneCoin
Partners of ePayments are cracking down on payments associated with ‘high-risk’ industries
Today, we’ll take a brief look at the merit behind each of these theories. The reality, however, is that maybe none of these are correct. Maybe we simply need to wait for a resolution before becoming privy to answers.
Anti-Money Laundering
Before diving into the aforementioned theories, we can establish one fact – with the statements provided by ePayments, we at least know that this situation revolves around their AML procedures.
In order to remain authorized by the FCA, a company must adhere to strict compliance measures surrounding AML laws.
While digital payment solutions offer a bevy of benefits –such as speed and cost – they come with certain caveats. One of these is the potential for misuse through nefarious activity. One of the most commonly known means of illicit activity is money laundering – a practice which enables ‘dirty’ money, associated with illegal activities, to be passed off as ‘clean’ or legitimate.
Naturally, this is a practice which is discouraged, and has resulted in strict measures being taken to ensure it does not occur. These practices are known as ‘Anti-Money Laundering’ laws, or ‘AML’.
What is AML?
In the case of ePayments, it is these AML measures, or rather a lack of, which prompted the FCA enforced platform lockdown.
Scenario 1 – AMLD5
Theory number #1 is a very plausible scenario. The acronym ‘AMLD5’ refers to Europe’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive.
AMLD5 which came into law in 2018, and came into effect in 2020, comes with various stipulations – with one pair possibly being the reason for the shutdown.
Virtual Asset Service Providers are now viewed on level ground with other entities, despite perceived risk levels.
Virtual Asset Service Providers must now conform to more stringent AML and KYC rules.
While ePayments may have once conformed to regulations, their systems may simply need upgraded to reflect their new obligations under AMLD5.
While potentially costly for ePayments, this possible scenario is overall positive (aside from the obvious inconvenience of those affected by the lockdown). At the end of the day, this scenario will result in a more secure ePayments platform moving forward.
Beyond this particular scenario, AMLD5 has already had widespread effects across Europe. This was recently made obvious when Germany redefined Bitcoin as a financial instrument.
Scenario 2 – ePayments + OneCoin
This scenario is much more of a worry than new found issues with AMLD5. While the situation as described, is disheartening, thus far, in and of itself, there may be something larger at play. There may be links between ePayments and one of the largest scams of all time – OneCoin.
Many speculate that the potentially porous AML practices of ePayments allowed for some of the roughly $4 billion in OneCoin funds to be funnelled through the platform.
This speculation is lent some level of credence through the recent resignation of Robert Courtneidge, from ePayments. This resignation, which occurred mere days after the platform lockdown, capped off a short stint at the company for Courtneidge. His prior employer? The law firm Locke Lord – the same firm which saw a partner, Mark Scott, convicted of laundering roughly $400 million worth of funds on behalf of OneCoin founder, Dr. Ruja Ignatova.
This development begs the questions – was ePayments used to launder funds associated with OneCoin? And if so, are some of the funds, currently under lockdown, a portion of those from OneCoin?
To date, much if this is simply conjecture, as the FCA has not yet released commentary on the finer details surrounding the ePayments lockdown. However, if it quacks like a duck…
A Potential Timeline
OneCoin defrauds investors of $4 billion worldwide
Mike Scott, Partner at law firm Locke Lord, compensated with $50 million for laundering $400 million for OneCoin founder, Dr. Ruja Ignatova
2017, Ignatova, vanishes with vast amounts of wealth
Multiple convicted with various charges surrounding the OneCoin scam
Robert Courtneidge, formerly of Locke Lord, is hired by ePayments
FCA lockdown of ePayments occurs
Robert Courtneidge resigns from ePayments
Future Intrigue
Where this entire saga becomes intriguing, is the potential for tracking down the elusive Dr. Ruja Ignatova.
IF there is a link established between OneCoin and ePayments, MAYBE there remain funds associated with Ignatova in those that are now under lockdown. Providing this were to be the case, a new avenue for potentially tracking down the whereabouts of Ignatova becomes a possibility.
While these are massive ifs and maybes, the scope of the situation is large enough to warrant genuine intrigue moving forward.
Scenario 3 – High Risk Relations
The final leading theory behind the ePayments lockdown is one that has proven to be the downfall of many similar platforms in the past – high risk relations.
Companies like ePayments are not able to operate alone. They require relations with banks, insurance providers, and more. Unfortunately, this means that they, and similar companies, are often at the mercy of these service providers. Often times, we will see a service provider deem that clientele are high risk, and cease offering their services.
With regards to ePayments, it is believed that, roughly, at least 20% of all transactions processed through their platforms can be attributed to the following industries.
Pornographic Content
Foreign Exchange (FOREX)
Cryptocurrencies
Service providers are typically justified in ceasing relations surrounding these industries because, sadly, they are rife with scams and frauds – see the previous theory on OneCoin.
Digital Securities Exchange (DSX)
Connection to the aforementioned high risk industries may be strongest with that of Cryptocurrency. This is through cryptocurrency exchange, DSX; An exchange which shares the same founder as ePayments – Mikhail Rymanov.
Ties between platforms go beyond founders, however. For example, the pair utilize each other’s services for the onboarding of clients, as well as facilitating value transfers between accounts.
Thankfully, nations around the world are beginning to step up, ensuring level playing grounds for all businesses. A recent example of this is the Supreme Court of India’s recent decision to overturn their central banks decision to impose a blanket ban on crypto-related businesses.
Due to the growth surrounding acceptance being seen globally, it is unlikely that the ePayments lockdown is due to high-risk relations.
Progress Updates and a Crystal Ball
Regardless of which scenario you believe to be true, the public has not been given much information to work with, at this time. On a promising note, ePayments has, indeed, released multiple updates and ‘FAQ’ dossiers, indicating that they are at least working on the situation. These can be found through the following links.
Temporary Account Suspension FAQ for Customers
Accounts Update and New FAQs
Update on Improvement Process
At the end of the day, no one but the FCA and ePayments knows the full situation. Perhaps the reasoning behind the lockdown is a simple one, and the lack of details is to prevent exploitation of a vulnerability.
The various scenarios discussed today are just a few possibilities, with one possessing no more merit than the last. For the time being, we will just need to continue consulting our crystal balls, as we try to make sense of the situation – and hope that ePayments seeks truth when stating,
“We want to reassure customers that funds are being safeguarded as normal and can be retrieved once the improvement process has been completed.”
they will not make it past this investigation because i even know North Korean Prostitutes who were using ePayments
Yes. ePayments was the only way for North Korean prostitutes to get paid by western visitors. usually places like manyvids/clips4sale...Personal experience?
So Kim Jong-un financing his missile program via prostitutes now...lol? So is that how he gets access to foreign exchange
.individuals. not thr governmentSo Kim Jong-un financing his missile program via prostitutes now...lol? So is that how he gets access to foreign exchange
One of my business partners sent 40k eur to my epayments company account today(because of mistake). Fortunately, epayments access to SEPA network is blocked and payment returned.
you can catch him at "a10" offices in bucharest next monday... be careful the security guards have silenced semi-automatics in the ceo's locker
Latest Threads
-
-
Thailand - what can you use as proof of address for EMI/incorporation service
- Started by Roo
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Is there any offshore company or trust protecting assets?
- Started by lory
- Replies: 1
-
-
Court investigates business corruption accusation against wife of Spanish PM- Started by Martin Everson
- Replies: 1
-
Samourai Wallet has been seized and the devs arrested- Started by Overhung7319
- Replies: 9
-
