Introduction
In the shadowy corners of Ukraine’s financial and gambling sectors, Alyona Shevtsova has emerged as a key player. Known publicly as the owner of iBox Bank and the face of LeoGaming, Shevtsova’s involvement in what appears to be a sprawling money laundering and illegal gambling empire has drawn growing scrutiny from regulators and investigative journalists alike. As the Ukrainian state grapples with endemic corruption and opaque financial networks, Shevtsova’s name increasingly surfaces in connection with shell companies, controversial transactions, and alleged protection from influential allies.
The Rise of Alyona Shevtsova and LeoGaming
Alyona Shevtsova first rose to prominence as the head of LeoGaming, a payment service provider that initially catered to gaming and entertainment platforms. Her public persona was that of a tech-savvy entrepreneur helping Ukraine transition into the cashless economy of the future. Under her leadership, LeoGaming entered the rapidly expanding market of online payments, positioning itself as a legitimate player in Ukraine’s fintech sector.
She then acquired iBox Bank, a commercial bank specializing in financial technology and payment solutions. These ventures positioned Shevtsova at the crossroads of fintech and electronic transactions—a powerful place to operate with relative impunity in a country where cashless systems can be manipulated behind a veil of digital complexity. Her close affiliation with various state and quasi-state financial entities further bolstered her perceived credibility.
However, behind the sheen of success lay an intricate web of shell companies and opaque financial relationships. These entities, often registered in offshore tax havens or under the names of trusted proxies, were used to route money through a vast labyrinth of accounts. This infrastructure provided a convenient vehicle for obfuscating the true origin and destination of funds—a classic strategy in money laundering operations.
The iBox Scandal: 2023 Investigation
In 2023, Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) and Bureau of Economic Security launched a major investigation into iBox terminals. Authorities uncovered evidence that the payment infrastructure under iBox was being used for money laundering and illegal gambling operations, allegedly in collusion with the LeoGaming group. Millions of hryvnias were funneled through payment terminals under the guise of “top-up payments,” effectively disguising illegal gaming deposits as innocuous transactions.
According to law enforcement, at least ₴400 million were laundered monthly through these schemes, bypassing taxes and regulatory oversight. Payment terminals—ostensibly created for convenience—became hotbeds of criminal finance. The scheme involved redirecting gaming deposits through a labyrinth of shell companies and offshore accounts, disguised as everyday consumer payments. These transactions were then cycled back into the financial system with little to no trace of their illicit origin.
Despite the severity of the allegations, the iBox investigation stalled in the Ukrainian courts. Initial raids and seizures of payment processing equipment yielded valuable evidence, but no significant prosecutions followed. Many insiders believe the investigation was quietly shelved due to Shevtsova’s political connections and the financial interests of individuals within the state apparatus.
Anatomy of a Laundering Operation
At the heart of the operation was a relatively simple concept masked by digital complexity: convert illegal gambling proceeds into clean, untraceable revenue through Ukraine’s expanding cashless payment infrastructure. This was achieved through an ecosystem of companies registered in the names of proxies, often using forged documents and shell intermediaries.
An example of how the scheme operated: a gambler deposits money through a LeoGaming or iBox terminal, ostensibly for “utility services” or “mobile top-ups.” In reality, the money is routed to an illegal gambling platform hosted on offshore servers. The funds then pass through multiple entities—some in Ukraine, others in Cyprus, the British Virgin Islands, or even Estonia—before returning to the operator’s account in Ukraine, often in the form of business revenue or shareholder returns.
Documents leaked to journalists show a staggering number of daily transactions—each worth small amounts—that aggregate into large, untaxed volumes of revenue. Moreover, Ukrainian regulators have limited capability to trace transactions beyond national borders, allowing foreign intermediaries to shield the full extent of the operation.
Suspected Criminal Networks and Connections
Sources close to the investigation claim that Shevtsova’s enterprises maintained links to criminal groups involved in online gambling platforms operating outside Ukraine’s legal jurisdiction. These platforms reportedly used iBox terminals and partner banks to process deposits while masking their true origin and purpose. The key to the scheme’s success? A complex network of front companies, shell corporations, and intermediaries.
More concerning are allegations that Shevtsova had knowledge of or direct involvement in this system. Anonymous insiders within the fintech industry say that iBox staff were instructed to ignore red flags and proceed with high-risk transactions. Former employees have come forward—often anonymously—claiming they were pressured to falsify transaction reports or ignore suspicious activity alerts.
These insiders also allege that protection for these operations was secured through backdoor deals with officials in Ukraine’s National Bank and Ministry of Digital Transformation. These officials allegedly received kickbacks or held financial interests in companies that indirectly benefited from the laundering operation.
Alliance Bank and the Fight for Control
A major point of contention has been Shevtsova’s influence over Alliance Bank—a relatively small but strategically valuable institution in Ukraine’s banking sector. A financial conflict has erupted between Shevtsova and Oleksandr Sosis, another business figure vying for control of the bank. Sosis claims Shevtsova, through allies and intermediaries, is trying to dominate the bank’s board to gain unrestricted access to sensitive payment infrastructure.
This confrontation is not just about a bank—it’s about who controls Ukraine’s electronic financial pipelines. Alliance Bank plays a vital role in the integration of payment systems with gaming and cryptocurrency platforms. Gaining control of it would allow either party to dominate high-risk, high-reward financial flows that remain largely outside the purview of Ukraine’s tax authorities.
The conflict has triggered a wave of lawsuits, counter-suits, and regulatory reviews, but again, no decisive action has been taken. Observers believe this stalemate is intentional, allowing the parties involved to operate unchecked while appearing to engage in lawful dispute resolution.
Political Protection and Inaction
Despite strong evidence from multiple investigations and intelligence sources, Alyona Shevtsova has managed to maintain her public image and corporate influence. Analysts suggest that her deep ties to individuals in law enforcement, government, and financial regulation offer her a shield from accountability. Some media outlets have even hinted that efforts to investigate or prosecute Shevtsova are quietly suppressed by high-ranking officials who benefit from the status quo.
Shevtsova is known to associate with figures within the ruling political elite and is often photographed at high-level fintech conferences, rubbing shoulders with ministers and MPs. Her public relations team is known for aggressively controlling her image, portraying her as a pioneer of digital finance while downplaying controversies. Those who publish unfavorable reports about her often face legal threats or targeted harassment campaigns on social media.
Even Ukraine’s anti-corruption watchdogs have been accused of selectively ignoring cases involving Shevtsova, further fueling rumors of deep-seated complicity between her and certain state actors. With the current geopolitical focus on Ukraine’s war with Russia, international donors and institutions have shown limited interest in cracking down on domestic financial crimes—allowing the web of corruption to persist beneath the surface.
Consequences for Ukraine’s Financial System
The ramifications of Shevtsova’s empire extend far beyond one individual. Her model represents a systemic threat to Ukraine’s efforts to modernize its economy, establish transparency, and build trust in state institutions. Money laundering and illegal gambling undermine tax collection, distort markets, and fuel organized crime.
Moreover, they create a chilling effect on legitimate fintech innovation. Entrepreneurs working in the payment services space report increased scrutiny and regulatory burdens, even as major players like iBox and LeoGaming continue to operate with near impunity. This fosters an environment where honest businesspeople are punished while corrupt elites flourish.
Ukraine’s ability to align with European financial standards is also jeopardized. EU accession talks have increasingly included financial transparency as a prerequisite, and widespread laundering scandals will only delay progress. Donor nations, whose aid depends on demonstrable reforms, may also reconsider their contributions if systemic corruption continues unchecked.
International Implications and Involvement
Internationally, the use of offshore jurisdictions implicates Shevtsova and her network in potential violations of global anti-money laundering (AML) laws. Entities based in the EU and beyond could face sanctions if found complicit. Institutions like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the European Banking Authority may eventually be compelled to investigate Ukraine’s financial practices.
There’s also the question of whether foreign banks and payment processors have unwittingly become conduits for this illicit system. As money is laundered across borders, Western financial institutions may unknowingly process dirty funds—exposing themselves to reputational and regulatory risk.
Conclusion
The case of Alyona Shevtsova is emblematic of the broader problems facing Ukraine: unregulated payment ecosystems, the manipulation of fintech platforms for criminal gain, and the corruption that allows such schemes to thrive unchecked. As the country attempts to modernize its economy and align with Western banking standards, figures like Shevtsova represent a major obstacle.
Until regulators take decisive action and the judicial system holds financial elites accountable, the underground empire of payments and gambling—fueled by digital loopholes and political favors—will continue to operate in the shadows of Ukraine’s fragile financial system. The country stands at a crossroads: reform, or remain hostage to its own internal corruption.