Clients left battling for funds from ‘insolvent’ e-money firm

A “technically insolvent” electronic-money company based in Malta has left its clients fighting for their funds and frustrated attempts by administrators to gain access to its records, court documents show.

MTACC had its financial institution licence cancelled by the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) last year and was placed under the administration of PwC, an audit and advisory firm, due to “serious concerns” about the company. 

With an online presence under the trading name ePayService, the company marketed itself as offering “many ways to manage and spend your hard-earned income.” 

Alarm bells were raised by regulators about the St Julian’s payment company in August 2023, when it was noted how three of its directors and other key personnel suddenly all resigned. 

The MFSA was left without a clear view of MTACC’s financial health for two consecutive years prior to the resignations, as the company failed to post its financial statements, in breach of regulations. 

Among the other breaches identified, regulators found the company had failed to properly ring-fence client funds from its own assets, a safeguard that is meant to protect customer money if a firm goes bust. 

The company, owned by a Russian national called Denis Lafer, has since been sued by four foreign-based companies to recover amounts ranging from €10,000 to €300,000. 

Client balance reports submitted as part of court evidence indicates MTACC used its Malta base to service money transfers for a significant number of customers in Eastern Europe. 

According to court records, MTACC operated alongside a sister company Epayservice Global in Czechia, which was declared insolvent by Czech courts.

MTACC itself has faced lawsuits for blocking access to clients’ electronic wallets without any valid reason, with complaints registered from companies in Czechia, the US, Canada and Hong Kong.  

MTACC sued to recover amounts ranging from €10,000 to €300,000

Clients documented their unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue through multiple channels, including Skype chats, e-mails, customer support chats and formal letters to both the MTACC and MFSA. 

MTACC’s licence was initially suspended by the MFSA in September 2023 for breaches including poor governance and failure to safeguard client funds. 

PwC was brought in by the regulator to take charge of the company’s assets and ensure orderly repayments of funds to its clients. 

In court testimony, PwC has detailed how it struggled with its assignment as its efforts to access MTACC’s system were blocked, primarily due to a lack of cooperation by the company’s directors and ex-directors. 

PwC administrator Fabio Axisa confirmed that as of late 2025, PwC still had no access to the company’s wallets or operational system and could only rely on partial records obtained from ex-employees. 

According to PwC, MTACC was “technically insolvent” by the end of 2023, with a financial hole of €740,000. 

PwC says in court submissions that it is “highly unlikely, if not impossible” that the company will honour its financial commitments. 

In line with an MFSA order, PwC last year submitted a court request to formally liquidate the company, which is no longer operational after having its licence pulled.  

When contacted, the MFSA declined to comment on specific details about enforcement action taken against licence holders.  The MFSA said its public notice about the withdrawal of MTACC’s licence serves as the definitive record of its findings and the rationale behind the imposed decision. 

“The primary objective of such publications is not only to ensure transparency but also to signal to the market the standards of conduct and compliance expected of all regulated entities.

“Should there be any relevant updates, particularly with regard to the court winding up application, these will be published accordingly on the MFSA’s website,” a spokesperson for the regulator said. 

PwC also declined to comment on company specifics. 

“In accordance with the requirements of standards regulating our profession and our firm, we are not allowed to divulge information on client and/or engagement specific matters.

“With respect to the matter referred to in your email, all measures deemed necessary and appropriate in the circumstances were taken, through interaction with the MFSA on an ongoing basis,” Axisa said.