The Lithuanian financial watchdog has once again placed the spotlight on one of the country’s most controversial cryptocurrency ventures. On August 29, the Bank of Lithuania announced a €130,000 ($151,525) fine against Pervesk UAB, a payments company deeply linked to the failed Bankera cryptocurrency project, for “significant shortcomings” in its anti–money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) controls.

The fine marks another chapter in a years-long saga surrounding Bankera, a crypto initiative that raised over €100 million from investors in 2017–2018 through an initial coin offering (ICO), only to collapse under allegations of mismanagement and misuse of investor funds. Regulators now say Pervesk, one of the central companies involved in handling those investor funds, failed to meet the most basic requirements of financial compliance, raising new concerns about whether lessons from the ICO scandal have truly been learned.

According to the Bank of Lithuania, the fine against Pervesk follows a comprehensive inspection that uncovered systemic gaps in the company’s AML and CTF processes. Regulators found that Pervesk:

• Failed to properly assess risks when onboarding high-risk clients and foreign financial institutions.
• Neglected to adapt transaction monitoring scenarios to actual money-laundering typologies.
• Left gaps in retrospective transaction checks and internal investigations.
• Employed staff insufficiently trained in AML duties, policies, and procedures.

In addition to the financial penalty, the regulator issued a formal warning, underlining that such failures put Lithuania’s financial system at risk of abuse. The Bank of Lithuania emphasized that while Pervesk has begun implementing corrective measures, its deficiencies were severe enough to warrant heightened supervision going forward.

The regulator’s statement pointedly noted that Pervesk’s risk management framework lacked sufficient adaptability and rigor-an especially troubling finding given the company’s historic role in processing hundreds of millions in cryptocurrency-related transactions.

Pervesk CEO Darius Kulikauskas responded cautiously when asked for comment by Lithuanian media outlet 15min. He stressed that details of the inspection were classified as the Bank of Lithuania’s secret, limiting what he could disclose.

“Even if I wanted to, I cannot comment on very specific details,” Kulikauskas said. “What I can say in general is that the Bank of Lithuania does not determine whether a certain risk actually materialized … it assesses whether the risk could have been managed better. Due to shortcomings, our procedures could have been better. We acknowledge this, and that is why we are improving them. We have already carried out audits and practically resolved everything.”

His statement reflects a common defense in compliance cases: that lapses were procedural rather than evidence of actual financial crime. Yet given Pervesk’s central role in one of Europe’s most notorious ICO controversies, regulators and investors alike remain wary of such reassurances.

The Bankera project initially positioned itself as a pioneering digital banking alternative, promising to build a blockchain-based financial ecosystem. Its ICO between late 2017 and early 2018 attracted more than 100,000 investors worldwide, raising over €100 million. Investors were told that the funds would finance the development of a next-generation crypto bank.

However, investigations later revealed that much of the money was funneled through Pervesk accounts and transferred to Pacific Private Bank in Vanuatu, a little-known lender secretly acquired by Bankera’s three founders. Instead of advancing the promised fintech innovations, investor funds were reportedly used to finance luxury real estate acquisitions: villas on the French Riviera, prime property in Lithuania, and assets in Vanuatu.

The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and 15min documented how this shadowy financial web undermined the trust of tens of thousands of investors, many of whom have little hope of recovering their funds. Lithuanian prosecutors launched a pretrial investigation into the ICO, but years later, accountability remains limited.

The latest sanction against Pervesk underscores how Lithuanian regulators are trying to tighten oversight after years of criticism that the country’s fintech boom has attracted questionable actors. Lithuania has marketed itself as a regional hub for financial technology, issuing a large number of e-money and payment licenses compared to its size. But this rapid growth has left regulators struggling to keep pace with oversight, creating opportunities for misuse.

The Bank of Lithuania has faced international pressure, particularly from European partners, to ensure its fintech industry does not become a gateway for money laundering or regulatory arbitrage. In recent years, several licensed firms have been fined or lost their licenses altogether due to compliance breaches. The Pervesk case, however, is especially symbolic because of its ties to Bankera’s ICO scandal-a painful reminder of the risks associated with inadequate scrutiny of crypto ventures.

Although Pervesk has reportedly hired external auditors and taken corrective measures since the inspection, its sanction sends a broader signal to Lithuania’s fintech ecosystem. The regulator made clear that simply patching gaps after an inspection is insufficient; firms must demonstrate a proactive culture of compliance, especially when handling complex, cross-border financial flows.

Critics argue that Pervesk’s failures are symptomatic of a wider issue in the crypto and fintech sector: a tendency to prioritize rapid growth and innovation over the tedious but essential work of compliance. As one AML expert commented in Lithuanian media, “When companies view compliance as a box-ticking exercise rather than a core responsibility, they expose themselves and the entire system to risk.”

For Bankera’s many disillusioned investors, the fine is unlikely to bring much solace. The €130,000 penalty pales in comparison to the €100 million raised in the ICO and subsequently diverted. Yet the decision shows regulators are willing to hold surviving Bankera-linked entities accountable-even if years late.

Despite the scandals, Bankera and its affiliated companies remain active in Lithuania’s fintech landscape, continuing to market themselves as digital banking innovators. Their persistence illustrates both the resilience of crypto entrepreneurs and the difficulty regulators face in fully addressing past misconduct.

As Lithuania continues to cultivate its reputation as a fintech hub, cases like Pervesk’s will test the credibility of its oversight framework. If the country wants to maintain investor trust and avoid becoming a cautionary tale in Europe’s financial sector, regulators will need to demonstrate not just reactive enforcement, but consistent, forward-looking supervision.

For now, the fine against Pervesk stands as both a warning shot and a reminder: in the world of fintech and crypto, compliance failures can have consequences far beyond a balance sheet.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Lithuania fines Bankera-affiliated firm over compliance failures appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings