source: FinTelegram
Explosive testimony from SoftSwiss founder Ivan Montik in the Munich Wirecard trial reveals the direct lineage between MGA-regulated entities and offshore shadow operations. Despite claims of being a mere B2B provider, the court’s rejection of Montik’s “not a PSP” defense highlights a massive, unlicensed financial scheme involving hundreds of millions of euros.
Key Facts
- A court witness identified Direx N.V. as the former “Softswiss N.V.” and said it is now named “Dama N.V.”, all domiciled in Curaçao.
- Montik described Direx as a B2B provider that “forwarded income” received via Wirecard to casino “clients,” while denying PSP status.
- The presiding judge rejected the denial, lecturing that he “knows by now what a PSP is and what not.”
- Defense confronted the witness with a payments list totaling €422m into Direx and rounded outbound transfers; the witness claimed no knowledge and referenced a finance director “Ivan Schubowski (or similar).”
- FinTelegram previously linked SoftSwiss ↔ Direx/Dama ↔ Wirecard processing volumes and described the broader casino network structure.
- SoftSwiss is presented as operated via Stable Aggregator Limited under Malta Gaming Authority licence MGA/B2B/942/2022.
The Court Testimony
The testimony of Ivan Montik in September 2025 marks a watershed moment for regulatory transparency in the iGaming sector. For years, FinTelegram has exposed the intricate web connecting SoftSwiss, Direx N.V., and Dama N.V. In court, Montik finally confirmed under oath what investigators have long maintained: the seamless evolution and shared identity of these entities.
This September 2025 courtroom episode matters because it moves the SoftSwiss/Dama/Wirecard discussion from “investigative reconstruction” to a business-model explanation given in a criminal trial setting. If an entity (Direx/Dama) receives aggregated player funds through a regulated processor (Wirecard) and then redistributes those funds to multiple third-party “casino clients,” that is functionally payment intermediation — whatever label is used on slides or contracts.
The PSP Shell Game
The most damning moment of the proceedings occurred when Montik attempted to distance his operations from financial intermediation. While Montik characterized his business as purely B2B software services, the presiding judge took the extraordinary step of lecturing the witness, stating he “knows by now what a PSP [Payment Service Provider] is.”
This judicial intervention effectively classifies the SoftSwiss/Direx/Dama apparatus as an unlicensed PSP. By “forwarding income” from online gaming through Wirecard to offshore clients, the group operated as a shadow bank. This aligns with FinTelegram’s previous reports suggesting that SoftSwiss provides more than just code; it provides a non-transparent financial pipeline for high-risk gambling operations.
Our investigations indicate that Dream Finance Group—operating the brands CoinsPaid and CryptoProcessing—is part of the wider business ecosystem associated with Ivan Montik, who has publicly presented himself as a co-founder. We further understand that the network around SoftSwiss and Dream Finance has expanded to include Russian investors.
In parallel, whistleblowers and a growing number of online media reports have raised recurring allegations of money-laundering exposure linked to SoftSwiss-connected structures. Against that backdrop, Montik’s sworn testimony in the Wirecard criminal trial aligns with the pattern FinTelegram has been documenting: a tightly integrated “casino + white-label + payments” ecosystem. As previously reported, we consider Dream Finance to be a relevant component of this payment hub, particularly for crypto-payment routing.
Most recently, Dream Finance was forced to suspend its crypto-asset related services in Lithuania, at least temporarily.
The €422 Million Disconnect
Evidence presented by Dr. Braun’s defense revealed a staggering €422 million flowing into Direx accounts. These funds were redistributed via “repeating regular rounded payments”—a classic red flag for money laundering or automated shadow accounting. Montik’s defense—claiming ignorance of these flows despite being the CEO and pointing toward a Finance Director—appears increasingly untenable given the scale of the transactions.
Regulatory Contradictions: MGA vs. Curaçao
The testimony creates a terminal conflict for the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA). SoftSwiss currently operates via the MGA-regulated Stable Aggregator Limited. However, Montik’s admission that this ecosystem is inextricably linked to Dama N.V. (a Curaçao-based entity frequently flagged for operating in “grey” markets) places the MGA in a precarious position. The court’s findings suggest that a regulated European entity is being used as a “clean” front for a massive offshore scheme.
Conclusion
Montik’s testimony validates FinTelegram’s long-standing warnings. The “White Label” model used by SoftSwiss is not merely a technical solution but a regulatory shield for unlicensed payment processing. As the Wirecard trial continues to peel back the layers of European fintech corruption, the focus must now shift to the regulators who allowed the SoftSwiss/Dama nexus to operate with impunity.