Paxum Bank, sold and abandoned by Octav Moise last year - and followingly sold to Postolnikov, might just be in a bit of trouble.
Postolnikov, who also provided loans to Trump's Trump Media (when it was preparing to go public) through his trust banked at Paxum, has had his fair share of news in the past months and years.
The bank, which stopped publicly using its other licenses (like Paxum Inc. in Canada) several years ago, was and is used by adult stars and various "suspicious" individuals, such as the Tate brothers, who received over $2.5M in their Paxum account.
Just a few days ago, there was a drastic change in Paxum's activity. Paxum, as basically not much more than a shell bank in a corrupt banana republic that is well known for theft and a hardly regulated offshore banking sector, often found it difficult to build a correspondent network. Several years ago, the platform relied on Wirecard, issuing dedicated German IBANs and debit cards through the disgraced bank. It also made use of a US partner for local wire transfers. I cannot correctly recall what bank was used after Wirecard's failure, but accounts were held in the entity of Paydek / DEK-CO (UK) Limited.
This entity is, at least for now, an Authorised Payment Institution in the UK (which likes to act a bit like an EMI) that, in my eyes, serves (or, well, served) primarily as a collection entity for Paxum Bank.
Six days ago, the FCA hit this entity with a very strong undertaking.
First of all, the entity was blocked from onboarding any new partners and direct customers. This is relatively normal.
Next, this is where it gets a bit further. The company was disallowed from receiving or initiating payments on behalf of customers. It was also forced to return all customer funds within just two days and refrain from providing any payment solutions on the same date.
Because the company is so important in Paxum's activity (of actually being able to send money), it is quite likely that Paxum will see issues in making or receiving transfers. It also evokes curiosity as to what activity was taking place that made the FCA, which hasn't been super active in comparison with some EU regulators, take such strong action.
What do you think?
P.S. Please correct me if there are any mistakes regarding the correspondent banks. I have not used the platform for a little over 2 years because it was not particularly effective.
Postolnikov, who also provided loans to Trump's Trump Media (when it was preparing to go public) through his trust banked at Paxum, has had his fair share of news in the past months and years.
The bank, which stopped publicly using its other licenses (like Paxum Inc. in Canada) several years ago, was and is used by adult stars and various "suspicious" individuals, such as the Tate brothers, who received over $2.5M in their Paxum account.
Just a few days ago, there was a drastic change in Paxum's activity. Paxum, as basically not much more than a shell bank in a corrupt banana republic that is well known for theft and a hardly regulated offshore banking sector, often found it difficult to build a correspondent network. Several years ago, the platform relied on Wirecard, issuing dedicated German IBANs and debit cards through the disgraced bank. It also made use of a US partner for local wire transfers. I cannot correctly recall what bank was used after Wirecard's failure, but accounts were held in the entity of Paydek / DEK-CO (UK) Limited.
This entity is, at least for now, an Authorised Payment Institution in the UK (which likes to act a bit like an EMI) that, in my eyes, serves (or, well, served) primarily as a collection entity for Paxum Bank.
Six days ago, the FCA hit this entity with a very strong undertaking.
First of all, the entity was blocked from onboarding any new partners and direct customers. This is relatively normal.
Next, this is where it gets a bit further. The company was disallowed from receiving or initiating payments on behalf of customers. It was also forced to return all customer funds within just two days and refrain from providing any payment solutions on the same date.
Because the company is so important in Paxum's activity (of actually being able to send money), it is quite likely that Paxum will see issues in making or receiving transfers. It also evokes curiosity as to what activity was taking place that made the FCA, which hasn't been super active in comparison with some EU regulators, take such strong action.
What do you think?
P.S. Please correct me if there are any mistakes regarding the correspondent banks. I have not used the platform for a little over 2 years because it was not particularly effective.
