CAPITOLIO INC. Emerges as Payee in 1Go Casino’s Revolut/Yapily Open-Banking Deposit Chain

Executive Summary

Scam-Or Project’s latest Rail Atlas review of 1Go Casino uncovered CAPITOLIO INC. as the visible beneficiary in a tested Revolut/Yapily open-banking deposit route linked to the offshore casino environment. Capitolio presents itself as a Canadian MSB focused on open banking, digital-asset infrastructure, fiat-to-crypto services, payouts, and payment solutions for the “Gaming & Digital Economy” sector.

The key compliance issue is straightforward: why does a player deposit initiated inside an offshore casino cashier ultimately appear as a payment to a Canadian crypto and payment infrastructure company?

The tested payment route reconstructed by Scam-Or Project moved through several intermediary layers before reaching the regulated open-banking authorization stage:

1Go Casino cashier
→ pay.billblend.com/checkout
→ tx.segopay.com/payment
→ tryzto.com/ct/check
→ checkout.instantbankpayment.com
→ Yapily Connect UAB
→ Revolut OBA
→ Beneficiary: CAPITOLIO INC.

The final Revolut/Yapily review screen did not identify 1Go Casino, Galaktika N.V., or any visible gambling operator. Instead, the beneficiary displayed was CAPITOLIO INC.

This makes Capitolio a critical element of the payment chain rather than a background technical service provider.

Key Findings

CAPITOLIO INC. Appeared as the Visible Beneficiary

In the tested 1Go Casino payment route, the Revolut/Yapily authorization screen displayed CAPITOLIO INC. as the receiving entity.

The deposit originated inside the 1Go Casino cashier but passed through multiple payment layers before reaching the final open-banking stage.

Capitolio Positions Itself as a Canadian MSB

According to information published on its own website, CAPITOLIO INC. is:

Capitolio states that it offers infrastructure for:

• Open banking
• Account-to-account payments
• Fiat-to-crypto conversion
• Crypto-to-fiat services
• OTC liquidity
• Payout infrastructure
• Embedded payment widgets
• Card acquiring

The company also explicitly references services for Gaming & Digital Economy businesses.

The Compliance Concern

Casino Deposit, Non-Casino Beneficiary

The central issue identified in the Rail Atlas review is the separation between:

• the consumer-facing gambling platform, and
• the bank-facing payment beneficiary.

The player clearly interacts with a casino cashier interface. However, once the transaction reaches the regulated banking layer, the visible recipient becomes a Canadian MSB infrastructure provider rather than the casino operator itself.

This creates a significant compliance and transparency concern for:

• banks,
• open-banking providers,
• AML teams,
• payment institutions,
• and regulators.

Source Assessment

Capitolio’s Infrastructure Model

Infrastructure Rather Than Consumer Brand

Capitolio (website) does not present itself as a retail-facing payment brand. Instead, its public positioning focuses on backend infrastructure for fintechs, exchanges, marketplaces, and gaming ecosystems.

The operational structure appears to combine several elevated-risk sectors simultaneously.

Scam-Or Project’s assessment is that Capitolio appears to operate as infrastructure capable of sitting behind consumer-facing platforms while remaining largely invisible to end users.

In the 1Go Casino case, that structure becomes highly relevant because the visible beneficiary was not the gambling operator itself.

The 1Go Casino Payment Route

Reconstruction of the Tested Flow

The tested payment route identified during the Rail Atlas review was reconstructed as follows:

The final payment-review screen displayed CAPITOLIO INC. as the beneficiary.

Neither 1Go Casino nor Galaktika N.V. appeared at the authorization layer.

Major Red Flags

FINTRAC Registration and Regulatory Position

Capitolio states that it is registered with FINTRAC as a Money Services Business under registration number M24928320.

However, FINTRAC registration does not represent:

• a banking license,
• prudential supervision,
• investment authorization,
• or regulatory endorsement.

Capitolio also states on its own website that it:

• is not a bank,
• is not a payment institution,
• does not provide investment services,
• does not accept deposits,
• and that transferred funds are not protected by CDIC insurance.

This distinction becomes important because Capitolio simultaneously markets services that strongly resemble payment-infrastructure activities.

AML/CFT Framework Claims

Capitolio’s AML documentation states that the company operates under Canada’s Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act framework.

Its compliance controls reportedly include:

• KYC/KYB verification,
• enhanced due diligence,
• sanctions screening,
• transaction monitoring,
• blockchain analytics,
• suspicious transaction reporting,
• biometric verification through SumSub,
• PEP screening.

In the context of the tested 1Go Casino transaction, the key question becomes whether the AML systems identified:

1. the upstream gambling environment,
2. the layered payment structure,
3. and the casino-related transaction purpose.

If those indicators were not detected, it raises operational concerns. If they were detected but allowed to proceed regardless, the compliance implications become more serious.

The CSSF / RCS Identifier Issue

One additional issue identified during the review concerns Capitolio’s website footer data.

Several Capitolio pages display:

• CSSF registration number: B00000408
• RCS number: B222310

The same identifiers also appear on Banking Circle’s official Luxembourg regulatory-information pages.

Scam-Or Project does not conclude from this alone that Capitolio is connected to Banking Circle. However, the overlap creates a regulatory-representation and website-integrity concern that requires clarification.

For payment and crypto infrastructure providers, inaccurate or copied regulatory identifiers can create confusion for counterparties, merchants, and users.

Beneficial Ownership Concerns

Publicly accessible Capitolio materials disclose:

• legal entity information,
• address,
• MSB registration,
• compliance statements,
• service descriptions.

However, the reviewed public sources did not clearly identify:

• ultimate beneficial owners,
• controlling shareholders,
• directors,
• or senior executive management.

This remains a material transparency gap for an entity appearing in offshore casino-related payment flows.

The only publicly visible management-related reference identified during review was:

• Alex Melov, Compliance Officer (LinkedIn)

Compliance Assessment

1. Apparent Collection Role

CAPITOLIO INC. appeared directly as the beneficiary in the tested payment route. This indicates an apparent collection or settlement role within the casino-origin transaction chain.

2. Beneficiary Mismatch

The customer interacts with a gambling environment while the regulated banking layer sees a Canadian MSB infrastructure provider.

This creates a risk that the true economic purpose of the transaction becomes diluted or obscured.

3. Open-Banking Risk Exposure

The involvement of Yapily Connect UAB and Revolut OBA demonstrates how open-banking infrastructure can become a funding route for offshore gambling ecosystems.

4. Crypto Infrastructure Risk

Capitolio’s fiat-to-crypto and crypto-to-fiat services create elevated AML exposure when combined with online gambling flows.

5. Gaming-Sector Targeting

Capitolio openly markets services for Gaming & Digital Economy businesses, directly overlapping with the transaction environment identified in the 1Go Casino review.

6. Regulatory Representation Concerns

The unexplained CSSF/RCS references create avoidable credibility and compliance concerns.

Questions for Capitolio

Scam-Or Project invites Capitolio to clarify the following:

1. Did Capitolio onboard 1Go Casino, Galaktika N.V., or related intermediaries?
2. Why did CAPITOLIO INC. appear as beneficiary in the tested Revolut/Yapily flow?
3. Was Capitolio acting as:
• merchant of record,
• collection agent,
• payment processor,
• settlement intermediary,
• or crypto on/off-ramp provider?
4. Did Capitolio know the payment originated from a casino cashier?
5. What merchant due diligence was performed?
6. Was the transaction categorized as gambling-related?
7. What relationships exist with:
• BillBlend,
• SegoPay,
• Tryzto,
• InstantBankPayment,
• Yapily,
• Revolut?
8. Who are Capitolio’s ultimate beneficial owners?
9. Why do Capitolio pages display CSSF/RCS identifiers matching Banking Circle references?

Conclusion

CAPITOLIO INC. represents the exact type of infrastructure entity that Scam-Or Project’s Rail Atlas initiative was designed to examine.

The company sits at the intersection of:

• open banking,
• payment processing,
• crypto conversion,
• payouts,
• gaming infrastructure,
• and regulated banking rails.

In the tested 1Go Casino payment route, CAPITOLIO INC. was not hidden in the background. It appeared directly as the visible beneficiary during the Revolut/Yapily authorization process.

That detail is central to the compliance analysis.

The player initiated a deposit within an offshore casino environment. Yet the final bank-facing layer displayed a Canadian MSB and payment-infrastructure company rather than the gambling operator itself.

This reflects a recurring concern across offshore gambling payment structures: the visible merchant at the regulated banking layer may differ entirely from the underlying economic activity.

If regulated institutions cannot fully identify the upstream gambling context behind such structures, open banking risks becoming a high-risk funding mechanism for offshore casino ecosystems.

Scam-Or Project will continue monitoring the rail.

Whistleblower Call

Scam-Or Project invites insiders, former employees, compliance officers, PSP partners, merchant-onboarding specialists, payment-processing staff, casino operators, and open-banking experts to provide information regarding CAPITOLIO INC. and related entities.

Particular interest includes:

• beneficial ownership information,
• merchant onboarding documentation,
• gaming-related merchants,
• payment descriptors,
• settlement structures,
• bank-account details,
• crypto on/off-ramp flows,
• relationships with BillBlend, SegoPay, Tryzto, InstantBankPayment, Yapily, and Revolut,
• internal AML/CFT concerns.

Information may be submitted confidentially through the Scam-Or Project Complaints.