In March 2026, Latvian company SIA MONELIQ EUROPE obtained a license to issue electronic money and provide payment services. The licensing decision is of significant public interest because it involves authorizing a financial institution to operate in Latvia and across the European Economic Area (EEA).
As an investigation by Bonum Publicum Media found, the Bank of Latvia issued the license despite having information about an administrative fine previously imposed in Poland on BTCBIT Sp. z o.o. The company was owned and managed by Yevhen Podbrezskyi (Jevgēnijs Podbrezskis), who later became the majority owner of Latvia-based MONELIQ EUROPE.
The Polish company was fined for violating anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regulations.
Licensing and ownership structure
On March 3, 2026, the Supervisory Board of the Bank of Latvia adopted a decision to issue SIA MONELIQ EUROPE an electronic money institution license No. 27-55/2026/1.
The license authorizes the company to issue electronic money, execute payments, provide acquiring services, initiate payments, and access account information.
Obtaining a Latvian license has enabled the company to provide authorized services in other EEA countries on a cross-border basis, subject to the procedures established by law. This makes scrutiny of the business reputations of those controlling the financial institution particularly important.
According to Crediweb.lv:
-
Yevhen Podbrezskyi owns 90% of MONELIQ EUROPE. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is listed as his country of residence in the beneficial ownership records.
-
The remaining 10% belongs to Deniss Popkovs.
The Polish precedent: Why BTCBIT was fined
On January 26, 2023, Poland’s Ministry of Finance published information about an administrative penalty imposed on BTCBIT Sp. z o.o. (KRS No. 0000725294).
The company was fined PLN 45,000 for violating Poland’s Act of March 1, 2018, on counteracting money laundering and terrorist financing.
The Polish Ministry of Finance identified two violations:
-
Violation of Article 74. The company failed to fulfill its obligation to notify Poland’s General Inspector of Financial Information (GIIF) of circumstances that could indicate suspected money laundering or terrorist financing.
-
Violation of Article 52. The company failed to ensure that employees responsible for AML/CFT compliance participated in the relevant training programs.
According to Poland’s Ministry of Finance, the administrative decision was not appealed and therefore became legally binding.
The Bank of Latvia’s position: It knew about the fine but did not disclose the assessment results
Bonum Publicum Media submitted an information request to the Bank of Latvia seeking clarification on how the Polish administrative fine was taken into account when assessing the business reputations of individuals associated with MONELIQ EUROPE. The publication also asked whether the regulator had requested additional materials from Polish government agencies.
In its response, the Bank of Latvia confirmed:
“The Bank of Latvia had information about the fine referred to in your request, and this information was taken into account during the licensing process when assessing the reputation and previous business activities of the relevant person.”
At the same time, the regulator refused to provide detailed information about the assessment and its findings or disclose whether it had contacted foreign government authorities.
The Bank of Latvia cited Article 52 of the Law on Payment Services and Electronic Money, which restricts the disclosure of confidential supervisory information.
Consequently, the response does not establish what specific verification measures the regulator carried out, whether it requested additional information from Polish authorities, including the GIIF, or how much weight it gave to the violations identified in Poland when deciding to issue the license.
Can a company’s fine affect its owner’s business reputation?
In its response, the Bank of Latvia provided a detailed explanation of the regulatory principles governing assessments of the business reputations of individuals acquiring significant shareholdings in financial institutions.
Under the Bank of Latvia’s Regulation No. 241, “Regulations on the Acquisition or Increase of a Qualifying Holding in a Financial Institution,” the relevant individual must provide information about companies they have managed or controlled over the past ten years. This information includes administrative sanctions and administrative proceedings, including those involving foreign companies.
The regulator emphasized that an administrative fine imposed on a legal entity cannot automatically be treated as a personal penalty against its owner, ultimate beneficial owner, or executive.
The assessment takes into account the nature and severity of the violation, the individual’s actual responsibilities and influence within the company, the amount of the penalty, the stage of the proceedings or any appeal, the time elapsed since the violation, and subsequent measures taken to address the identified shortcomings.
The Bank of Latvia also specifically noted that the absence of criminal prosecution or a conviction is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to consider an individual’s business reputation impeccable. If there is substantiated information suggesting potentially criminal conduct, it must also be taken into account when assessing that reputation.
