Dutch-based Payvision and Israeli-Lithuanian firm Bruc Bond (formerly Moneta International) share more than a FinTech background — both served as payment processors for the fraudulent binary options and online broker industry. To be clear, neither of these companies have been labeled as scams themselves. However, by facilitating transactions for fraudulent entities, they helped enable widespread investor losses — and did so for financial gain.
Recent developments suggest their controversial pasts may be catching up with them. Bruc Bond has had its license revoked by the Bank of Lithuania, while Payvision saw the resignation of its three founders and board members. These events mark a significant turning point not only for these companies but potentially for others operating in similar grey zones.
Strategic Moves and Diverging Fates
Founded in Amsterdam in 2002 by Rudolf Booker, Cheng Lim Li, and Gijs Op de Weegh, Payvision carved out a name for itself in the payments industry. In 2018, they sold 75% of their company to ING Bank at a valuation of €360 million — a highly lucrative exit. Much of that valuation was built on revenue from risky and, in many cases, fraudulent clients.
Meanwhile, Bruc Bond — established in 2016 in Lithuania by Eyal Nachum and Tamir Zoltovski — followed a different path. These Israeli entrepreneurs previously ran the unlicensed payment processor Payotech Ltd (operating as Payobin), which was also active in the binary options ecosystem. Instead of exiting, Nachum and Zoltovski doubled down, expanding operations into Asia. They opened a Singapore office in late 2019 — a move that may now be complicated by the revocation of their Lithuanian license.
The Binary Options Cash Machine
Documents reviewed by FinTelegram show that in just 2017 and 2018, Payvision processed around €130 million in transactions for illegal brokers linked to operators such as Gal Barak and Uwe Lenhoff. These were far from isolated cases — many similar clients likely used Payvision’s services during that period, helping to drive the company’s financial metrics ahead of the ING sale.
In hindsight, Payvision’s exit was perfectly timed. The binary options boom and FinTech buzz combined to create a high-growth narrative that increased the company’s valuation — despite underlying risks that would only become clear later.
The Compliance Blind Spot
The growth of FinTechs has disrupted the legacy banking sector, bringing innovation and improved user experiences. Companies like TransferWise, Revolut, Monzo, and N26 changed the landscape. However, this disruption came with a major trade-off: regulatory frameworks and compliance enforcement struggled to keep up.
Payvision and Bruc Bond are examples of how challenger financial institutions often operated with loose interpretations — or outright neglect — of Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations. According to documents obtained by FinTelegram, both firms appear to have stretched these rules to accommodate questionable clients. Lithuanian authorities confirmed these concerns when they cited serious and repeated compliance failures in revoking Bruc Bond’s license.
FinTech Cowboys and the Systemic Risk
While FinTech companies have played a key role in modernizing finance, their disregard for essential safeguards has raised serious concerns. Financial service providers aren’t just transaction enablers — they are gatekeepers against fraud, terrorism, and financial crime.
By prioritizing growth over compliance, firms like Payvision and Bruc Bond helped facilitate cybercrime, scams, and widespread investor harm. This isn’t just about poor corporate governance — it’s a risk to the broader economy. In trying to outpace the slow-moving traditional system, these “FinTech cowboys” may have opened the door to threats that affect everyone.