KYCOIN, Olky & Altacore: How a Luxembourg “Neobank”-Style Setup Allegedly Channels Deposits to Illegal Online Casinos

A UK-based casino customer has exposed what appears to be yet another payment arrangement operating in the grey area between regulated European fintech and offshore gambling. Her correspondence with Olky, Nun-Tech, and KYCOIN describes how a Luxembourg–French “web3 payment” infrastructure allegedly slipped past gambling and crypto blocks to move funds straight into the wallet of Gamblezen, a Curaçao-licensed casino owned by Altacore N.V.

If her account stands up to scrutiny – and the documentation strongly suggests it does – KYCOIN looks far less like a harmless “utility token” and far more like a highly effective payment rail for unlicensed gambling.

1. The Whistleblower and Her Case

The UK player (Scam-Or Project knows her identity) is not a passive observer. Over the course of several weeks, she did the following:

• Collected card statements showing KYCOIN-branded transactions that her bank’s fraud unit later flagged as suspicious.

• Explained that her NatWest account is configured to block gambling and crypto payments, yet KYCOIN charges were still authorised – indicating that non-gambling, non-crypto merchant category codes (MCCs) must have been used.

• Demonstrated that, in reality, these payments represented deposits to Gamblezen, a casino run by Altacore N.V., licensed only in Curaçao but actively addressing EU players (Source: IGamingExpert).

In her emails, the player directly accuses Olky/Nun-Tech of:

• Intentionally misclassifying card payments to avoid gambling and crypto blocks (using neither MCC 7995 for gambling nor 6051 for crypto, as confirmed by her bank).

• Redirecting the money immediately to the casino’s wallet, leaving her with no meaningful KYCOIN account or control over any token balance.

• Ignoring multiple GDPR/Data Subject Access Requests and refund demands, while investing effort into flagging and contesting her negative Trustpilot reviews instead of answering her questions.

The player then escalates the matter to:

• Mastercard fraud and risk teams

• The Luxembourg regulator CSSF

• FATF

• The UK Gambling Commission

• UK Members of Parliament

• Investigative journalists

She copies Scam-Or Project on the full exchange. Her core allegation is straightforward:

Olky and Nun-Tech, via the KYCOIN structure, knowingly or negligently process payments for an illegal online casino while concealing the true nature of those transactions from both banks and customers.

2. The Official Narrative: Olky, Nun-Tech, and KYCOIN

On paper, the group presents itself as a legitimate, sophisticated fintech and web3 stack:

• Olky Payment Service Provider SA (OlkyPay)

• A payment institution authorised in Luxembourg, supervised by the CSSF and passported throughout the EU (Source: Olky.eu).

• Markets itself as a broad “payment service provider” with more than 1 million clients.

• Nun-Tech SA

• An IT and software firm within the Olky Group, registered in Luxembourg, with a French branch in Marseille trading under the KYCOIN brand.

• Shares the same registered office as Olky in Luxembourg.

• KYCOIN (token symbol “KYC”)

• Promoted as a utility token issued by Nun-Tech.

• Supposed to unlock services such as OlkyPass (a KYC “passport” issued by Olky), identity-alias services, and “FIAT or crypto order routing within a network of partners” (Source: nun-tech.fr).

According to Nun-Tech’s terms and conditions, the model operates as follows:

1. Users obtain KYCOIN through kycoin.io, olkypass.com, or partner checkout pages in order to access Nun-Tech services.

2. Payment orders are fulfilled by transferring KYCOIN from the user to a “Beneficiary” who must also hold an OlkyPass.

3. After this routing step, OlkyPay executes the corresponding fiat transaction.

French central-bank material even cites KYCOIN as an example of a utility token whose circulation is restricted to a ring-fenced network of AML-regulated entities (PSPs, PSANs, etc.) (Source: Banque de France).

However, Olky’s own marketing around KYPAY adds a very different flavour. It advertises:

• Use “for all activities, even high-risk”

• The ability for merchants to collect funds via cards and instant transfers without a distance-selling contract (Source: Olky.eu)

Combined with the token-based routing layer, this positioning makes the ecosystem particularly attractive to offshore gambling operators seeking discreet payment rails.

3. How KYCOIN Can Allegedly Be Turned into a Gambling Payment Channel

Drawing on the player’s detailed timeline and Scam-Or Project’s analysis, the alleged end-to-end flow looks roughly like this:

1. Deposit initiation

• The player visits Gamblezen (Altacore N.V., Curaçao).

• On the deposit page, a KYCOIN/Nun-Tech payment option is integrated. It sits behind generic “Card” or “Crypto” buttons rather than appearing as a clearly branded alternative in the cashier.

2. Card entry & merchant descriptor

• The player enters her card data.

• The transaction that later appears on her statement carries a descriptor referencing “KYCOIN / Nun-Tech / Olky” – not “Gamblezen” or “Altacore N.V.”

3. Bypassing gambling and crypto MCC blocks

• The transaction clears because it does not use MCC 7995 (gambling) or MCC 6051 (crypto), both of which the player’s bank had blocked.

4. Internal token routing

• Internally, Nun-Tech records a KYCOIN purchase.

• A payment order is then immediately routed to the casino’s OlkyPass/KYCOIN wallet.

• The player never sees or controls any KYCOIN balance; the token layer is purely internal (Source: nun-tech.fr).

5. Casino credit

• Gamblezen credits the player’s casino account in fiat or chips.

• To the issuing bank, the transaction looks like a purchase of “KYCOIN / IT services” from a Luxembourg/French technology firm – not a bet placed at an offshore casino.

This scenario aligns closely with several patterns:

• Nun-Tech’s own T&Cs emphasise that routed payment orders are irrevocable and that Nun-Tech only uses “best efforts” to assist in fraud cases, while stressing that only the Beneficiary (in this case, the casino) can re-establish a KYCOIN balance.

• Player complaints on CasinoGuru and other review platforms repeatedly link KYCOIN to Curaçao-licensed casinos using “incorrect” MCC codes, with Nun-Tech’s responses often reduced to a stock instruction to “contact the merchant” (Source: casinoguru-it.com).

From a compliance standpoint, this mirrors the standard “crypto purchase disguise” strategy already seen with other payment processors: card payments are presented as token purchases on a “regulated” crypto/fintech platform but are instantly forwarded to unlicensed gambling operations.

4. Behavioural Red Flags: Silence Toward the Victim, Aggression on Trustpilot

One striking pattern runs throughout the entire email correspondence:

• No meaningful answers from Olky/Nun-Tech to the player’s questions about GDPR rights, MCC coding, and KYC procedures.

• Repeated, persistent attempts to get her Trustpilot reviews removed or amended, forcing her to re-post them while she continues copying regulators, Mastercard, MPs, and investigators.

For a group that markets itself as a highly regulated, AML-conscious fintech, this behaviour is difficult to reconcile with best practices. A genuinely compliant payment service provider confronted with allegations of mis-coded gambling and crypto traffic would typically:

• Open a formal complaint file and provide a case reference;

• Offer at least limited transparency about the underlying merchant, MCC classification, and onboarding process;

• Coordinate with acquirers and, where appropriate, support chargebacks or refunds.

Yet in this case, according to the emails, Olky/Nun-Tech appear to treat the matter primarily as a reputation-management problem rather than as a potential compliance and consumer-protection incident.

5. Key Regulatory and Compliance Questions

Scam-Or Project’s review of the material, combined with the whistleblower’s evidence, raises a series of targeted questions for supervisors and card schemes.

5.1 MCC Misclassification and Card-Scheme Compliance

• If the issuing bank is correct that MCC 7995 and 6051 were not used, which MCCs were actually applied to KYCOIN transactions?

• Were these merchant categories deliberately selected to evade responsible-gambling and crypto restrictions, possibly breaching Mastercard rules and domestic consumer-protection laws?

5.2 A “Utility Token” Operating as a Payment Rail

• KYCOIN is officially limited to a network of AML-regulated partners. How did a Curaçao casino such as Altacore N.V. – which has been banned or sanctioned in several jurisdictions for targeting local players – qualify as a suitable “Beneficiary”?

• Is the “utility token” label being used to run a cross-border remittance and payment system that sidesteps stricter gambling-payment oversight?

5.3 AML/CFT and KYC Responsibilities

• The player reports that she never completed a KYCOIN account registration or KYC process but still managed to move substantial sums. If accurate, where exactly was KYC conducted – at the level of Olky/Nun-Tech, at the casino, or not at all?

• How does Nun-Tech reconcile its AML duties with the disclaimer in its T&Cs that it has “no control” over the goods and services provided by Beneficiaries?

5.4 Group Governance and Accountability

• Corporate documents list Olkyrent SA and associated individuals as shareholders of Nun-Tech, confirming it as part of the broader Olky Group (Source: pappers.fr).

• Who within the group (board, risk committee, compliance leadership) approves higher-risk partners such as offshore casinos, and how is this risk accepted, documented, and monitored?

5.5 CSSF and ACPR Supervision

• The CSSF has already issued a warning about fraudulent activities misusing the name of Olky Payment Service Provider SA (Source: cssf.lu).

• What steps are being taken to verify that Olky’s own infrastructure is not facilitating comparable abuses – in this case not by impostors, but allegedly by Olky’s partners and clients?

Scam-Or Project does not suggest that every transaction involving KYCOIN is unlawful. Nonetheless, the intersection of token-based routing, explicit marketing to “high-risk” sectors, poor response to serious complaints, and repeated links to Curaçao casinos collectively forms a textbook red-flag scenario for payment-facilitator abuse.

6. Overview Table – Entities, Roles, and Connections

A. Brands and Entities Involved

7. Call for Further Information

Scam-Or Project will continue to examine the Olky / Nun-Tech / KYCOIN ecosystem and its reported ties to offshore casinos such as Gamblezen (Altacore N.V.).

We invite the following to come forward:

• Current or former employees of Olky, Nun-Tech, or their associated partners;

• Banking and card-scheme insiders with knowledge of KYCOIN-coded transactions;

• Players who see “KYCOIN / Nun-Tech / Olky” on their payment statements after depositing at online casinos.

We welcome you to share documents and information with us – securely and, if preferred, anonymously through our website.

Cases like this illustrate how superficially regulated fintech shells can become an ideal camouflage for illegal gambling flows. It is time for regulators and card schemes to take a very close look at KYCOIN and the Olky Group’s “high-risk” strategy.