FinTelegram has received a whistleblower report and a Visa complaint indicating that deposits to the high‑risk online casino Legionbet were routed through Estonian company NovaArcade OÜ under a non‑gambling merchant category code (MCC). We are calling on players, industry insiders, and payment professionals to provide additional documentation and intelligence to determine NovaArcade’s actual role as payment agent or registered merchant in this potentially illegal transaction‑laundering setup.
The Ukrainian fintech group Fondy raises a difficult compliance question. In the UK, Fondy Ltd is an FCA-authorised EMI with minimal reported turnover and repeated losses. In Austria, its ultimate parent V & A Holding GmbH entered insolvency in Feb 2026. Valeriia Vahorovska and Ronny Pecik are its shareholders. In Ukraine, the NBU cancelled the participation of LLC FC “Alliance”, operating under the Fondy brand, in Visa and Mastercard payment systems after receiving documented information indicating national-security risks.
While European gambling regulators intensify their crackdown on illegal offshore casinos, a more uncomfortable question is emerging for the banking sector: are major retail banks, through rigid chargeback practices and weak scrutiny of miscoded card transactions, helping illegal gambling networks stay operational?
A review of the FGS Software Solutions casino cluster shows a repeatable deposit architecture: (1) “instant bank transfer” flows that appear to convert deposits into USDC via a crypto rail, (2) an open-banking stack where PayOp routes players into Visa-owned Tink and onward to Revolut’s open-banking interface, and (3) an alternative “instant banking” path using Contiant and a misspelled gateway domain, plus MiFinity deposits settling to FairGame G.P. as payment recipient.
Stablecoins now clear almost a trillion dollars every 30 days—within 15 % of Visa’s monthly payment flow and already bigger than Mastercard’s. We show why “crypto cash legs” are capturing settlement share and map three scenarios for whether blockchains, not new currencies, upend legacy rails.
PayPal will let every U.S. merchant accept more than 100 cryptocurrencies and settle in dollars at just 0.99%—a 90% haircut to today’s card fees. But new stablecoin rules and PayPal’s own margin math could flip the script if regulators—or Visa and Mastercard—strike back.
Visa, Mastercard, Circle, and JPMorgan have ignited a high-stakes sprint to convert dollar-backed tokens into mainstream payment rails. Stablecoins already settle about 7 % more value on-chain than the two card networks combined, and blue-chip giants are now laying the pipes. The prize is near-frictionless money; the risks are regulatory salvos and a squeeze on interchange margins.
Mastercard is positioning itself as a leader in bridging traditional finance with digital assets through a comprehensive stablecoin strategy. By developing end-to-end infrastructure and forging key partnerships, the company aims to make stablecoins as usable as fiat currency for consumers and merchants – a move with significant implications for global payments.
EFRI, now an officially recognized Qualified Entity under Directive (EU) 2020/1828, has launched its first direct strike in a new phase of its campaign against financial crime enablers. On April 4, 2025, EFRI submitted identical letters to both VISA and MasterCard, accusing them of enabling mass fraud through negligence, systemic failures, and blind tolerance toward high-risk acquirers like Payvision B.V.
The UK’s Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) is intensifying its oversight of Visa and Mastercard, aiming to reduce their overwhelming market dominance and address the issue of soaring merchant fees. With both companies controlling 95% of card transactions in the UK, their recent 30% fee hike, unaccompanied by any service improvements, has prompted a regulatory crackdown aimed at restoring transparency and fairness in the market.
Payment processor BlueSnap, its former CEO Ralph Dangelmaier, and SVP Terry Monteith agreed to a $10 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for its role in processing payments for companies engaged in deceptive and fraudulent practices. The settlement mandates significant financial restitution aimed at compensating consumers and a strict prohibition against processing payments for certain high-risk clients.