In the world of finance and technology, where every step can lead to both new opportunities and significant risks, it is crucial to understand the nuances and aspects of working with various financial institutions and payment services. In this interview with Viktoria Soltesz, we discussed the key problems and challenges faced by modern entrepreneurs and startups in the fintech sector. Issues with licensing, combating fraud, and choosing reliable partners in an increasingly competitive landscape are all at the forefront. It’s essential to know how to minimize risks and what steps to take to avoid unpleasant situations related to the wrong choice of financial partners. In this article, Viktoria shares her knowledge and experience, explaining how to avoid typical mistakes and why reputation and transparency are key elements to success in the financial industry.
Viktoria Soltesz is an experienced consultant and expert in financial technology and e-commerce. She specializes in helping companies obtain licenses, choose financial partners, and implement best practices to ensure business process security and transparency. With her extensive experience working with various jurisdictions and banking institutions, she is confident in advising startups and large companies on financial regulation matters. Viktoria emphasizes the importance of transparency and ethics in business, as well as how to avoid common mistakes that can lead to financial losses. In her work, she actively promotes the creation of safe and honest conditions for all participants in the financial ecosystem.
– Obviously, there are people trying to change the system in the background and others simply promoting their business. But I’m more interested in your expert view. You’re someone who really knows the banking system, not just theoretically. And you also understand progressive systems, taxes, and the legal structure of funds.
Many people believe that if you go against the classical banking stream, you must be doing something suspicious — and by extension, you yourself become questionable. Like with crypto: it’s still extremely underdeveloped. I live in Berlin, a major city, yet there’s not a single functioning Bitcoin exchange ATM. It’s crazy. It feels like a strong message: “This isn’t for us. If you want to use it, go outside of Europe.”
Meanwhile, we have this clunky German “cash zero” card — it feels like a piece of wood or stone. And even regular Visa payments are still a question mark here. We don’t even have electronic payments widely available. It’s ridiculous.
Viktoria Soltesz: Yes, Germany is still very cash-heavy. And the main reason, honestly, is high taxes. Who really wants to pay all those taxes? That’s why everyone prefers cash — it’s a clear case of tax avoidance. It’s insane.
Hungary, for example, even wrote the “right to cash” into its fundamental laws — like a human right. And the banks freaked out. Suddenly, if cash is a fundamental right, it means all our compliance efforts are at risk. If someone walks in with a bag of cash, we have to accept it — it’s their legal right.
Now the government is forcing banks to install ATMs in remote villages with 2,000 residents up in the mountains. The banks are like, “Who’s going to pay for the logistics, maintenance, security, refilling the machines?” But the government says, “That’s not our problem. Cash is a fundamental right. Deal with it.”
So while banks are struggling to meet compliance and trace the source of funds, Hungary is undermining that effort with this policy. What does it mean for foreign relations? For trade? For international banking? No one wants to deal with a Hungarian bank if no one knows where the cash is coming from.
It’s similar in the U.S. — now Trump is reportedly trying to eliminate the UBO register (Ultimate Beneficial Owner). That would mean no one has to declare where company profits are going or who is receiving dividends. It’s insane. How can you track tax obligations like that?
There are also proposals to increase the threshold for declaring cash when traveling — from $1,000 to $75,000 or even $100,000. That would make compliance with the U.S. dollar a nightmare. How will other countries treat the dollar in trade? In foreign exchange? No one knows. It’s fascinating to see such extremes — some countries question every €50, while others allow cash to flow freely with no oversight.
-That’s a very complex situation. But I also get people’s frustration — they feel like, “It’s my money. Why should the bank tell me what to do with it?” There’s a belief in privacy and financial freedom.
Viktoria Soltesz: Yes, I understand that. But in many cases, the bank is actually protecting you — because if you’re not declaring your income, who pays the tax? That’s why Europe has such high taxes. In Spain, it’s 50%. You earn something, and half of it is gone. Germany is the same.
Naturally, people get creative. They use neo-banks because no one is checking who they’re paying or why. And they use cash, because no one’s going to report paying their cleaning lady €50 each week. But that’s tax not being paid — and guess who picks up the bill? You and me, the regular people with full-time jobs and families.
They’ll look at your bank statements and see income that’s not on your tax return. And that’s the issue. People think they can hide income in neo-banks or payment wallets. But that’s foolish — because if there’s an investigation, these institutions do have the records.
– That’s an interesting point. I’ve noticed that when you register with a neo-bank, they require your tax number. That makes it feel like they are connected directly to the tax authorities — like a traditional bank, just easier to use.
Viktoria Soltesz: Yes and no. Some neo-banks may report directly, some may not. But if the police ask for your records, of course they have everything. The question is whether they’re proactively submitting those records to each country’s tax authority.
Take Revolut — it operates under an EMI (Electronic Money Institution) license and a UK banking license. How does that connect to the Polish tax office? Or the German one?
– Right, I thought that because I’m in Germany and I enter my German tax number, that the company is automatically reporting to the German authorities. Otherwise, how would they be allowed to operate?
Viktoria Soltesz: Yes, you have the right to keep your records. But I doubt Revolut is sending full transaction reports to every tax office in every country — Germany, Poland, and so on. Maybe one day, via an API, this could become standardized. But as of now, I don’t think that infrastructure exists.
If the police ask, of course the institution will respond. But it’s unlikely there’s an active communication pipeline where all your transactions go straight from Lithuania (if that’s the license jurisdiction) to the German tax office every month. Technically, it should happen — but whether it does is another matter.
– That’s very interesting.
Viktoria Soltesz: Another point people often misunderstand is how banks and payment institutions operate. A traditional bank takes your deposits, gives you interest, and uses your money to issue loans or mortgages. The risk is that your money isn’t really “there” — it’s been lent out. That’s why banks can collapse during a run.
But electronic money institutions (EMIs) must keep client funds segregated in actual banks, and those banks cannot use that money for lending. So in a way, your money is safer with a licensed EMI — because it’s untouched.
Now, traditional banks are backed by government guarantees — usually up to €100,000 — to protect depositors. That’s because the government knows a bank failure could create public panic. But with EMIs, that guarantee isn’t needed because your money is actually sitting in an account untouched.
The regulator checks these balances monthly. They’ll say, “You have €1.2 million in client deposits? Show me the bank statements.” If the EMI can prove that the funds are fully held in a safeguarding account, then everything is in order. That’s why in many ways, these institutions are very secure — even without a state guarantee.
Did you ever talk about or open up the topic of fund safety—specifically the difference between neobanks and traditional banks?
Viktoria Soltesz: No, I haven’t spoken about it directly, but for people like us who understand regulation, it’s kind of obvious. Still, now that you mention it, it is a good topic. It’s important, especially with all the wallets and payment institutions around now.
It’s a whole different story when it comes to how these institutions can “cook the books.” Traditional banks are still part of the financial system—they’re responsible for maintaining economic stability. They offer mortgages, manage domestic accounts, and carry out social responsibilities because of their banking licenses.
In return, they’re allowed to lend out more money than they actually hold—this is how they make money. It’s essentially a government-approved leverage system. The banks act as a tool for the economy, so if something goes wrong, the government steps in to bail them out. This is like a “get-out-of-jail-free” card because the banks play such a vital role in keeping everything running.
Very interesting. And from the clients’ side, how do people today perceive financial security? What’s the vision from both the client and the service provider sides?
Viktoria Soltesz: That’s where the problem begins. Most people don’t even realize there’s a difference. They think a bank is a bank. They don’t understand the differences between neobanks, traditional banks, EMI (Electronic Money Institutions), or payment wallets.
This ignorance can be dangerous—especially for business owners making international transfers. I had a client who traded only in Europe. I helped him open an account with a money institution in Europe. Everything was fine until he tried to send money to China, which wasn’t possible through that type of account. He panicked and blamed the bank. But he didn’t understand that SEPA accounts are only for European currency and countries, and if you want to send money outside, you need SWIFT access—and that’s a whole different setup.
Clients often don’t understand even basic things like:
- What kind of license the institution has
- Where the funds are actually held
- What jurisdiction applies
- What their rights are in case of capital controls (e.g. Lebanon, where you couldn’t move money abroad during crisis)
Before we even talk about safety, clients need to understand who is holding their money and what regulations apply. Each financial license has different responsibilities and protections.
So ideally, people should diversify. I mean, for me, I use banks for certain purposes—that’s what works for my life. But following economic and political news isn’t something average people do. Maybe there should be some kind of simple financial “menu”?
Viktoria Soltesz: That’s exactly why people need experts like me—or at least someone who can guide them. It’s like going to the doctor. They’ll ask you about your age, gender, lifestyle, then give tailored advice. Same with money.
If you’re just saving for emergencies—say, €20,000—it’s different than saving to buy a house in five years. That calls for a different financial product.
It’s also about lifestyle. For example, my father is a retired pensioner. The bank sold him multi-currency accounts with personal concierge services. He doesn’t need that. But for me, traveling all the time, I do need it. The same product can be right for one person and completely wrong for another.
So no—there’s no universal financial manual. People need personalized guidance.
So at the bottom line, you’re saying it can only be solved individually through private consultation and self-built financial strategies?
Viktoria Soltesz: Exactly. It has to be individual—tailored to both your business and your personal life.
One more topic I’d like to ask about: Some neobanks start with just an EMI license and later become fully licensed banks. Why does that happen?
Viktoria Soltesz: It’s part of the natural growth cycle. You and your friend have an idea, build a fintech app, get early clients, raise funds. At the start, you go for the cheapest license—an EMI or wallet license. That allows you to legally operate while testing your business model.
Early on, most of these institutions take high-risk clients—like casinos or adult entertainment—because it brings in quick money. If the business fails, it’s manageable, and the technology is still yours. But as you grow and want serious investors, you clean up your client base and apply for a full banking license.
Eventually, you become more risk-averse and fully regulated. I’ve seen this lifecycle many times:
Start scrappy → test and survive → go clean and scale.
That’s how most fintechs evolve.
It’s very organic the way you describe it—like nature. But it can get quite shady early on. My final question is: Can regular people really feel their funds are safe when held under just an EMI license?
Viktoria Soltesz: In theory—yes. If everything runs smoothly, your funds are safe. Just like your cash at home is safe… unless someone robs you. That risk is always there.
But it depends on many external factors—like whether the company holding your funds is stable or operating in a risky jurisdiction.
The hard part is due diligence. It’s very difficult for the average person to figure out what’s really going on behind the scenes.
Also, you might be using a platform like Revolut—but where is the actual money kept? They must use correspondent banks to connect to the global system. And they rarely disclose those partners.
So even if you think you’ve diversified—say, by spreading €100,000 across five fintechs—you might find out that all the money is ultimately sitting in the same bank. And that’s a real hidden risk.
Yeah, that’s the same with the forex industry. And the same applies to any kind of trading. People think one broker is not good, so they move to another, and sometimes it’s the same owner. They share the same database. They know everything about you for the past five years. They just pick up the phone, and you think, “Oh, it’s a different company.”
My second question is about licensing. How can companies fake licenses these days? For example, in the forex industry, they have a list of licenses that they just photoshop and put on their websites. Clients don’t know what’s real and what’s fake. They can just write a license number like “we are licensed” and whatever. OK? Clients don’t even check the validity of the license. Is it connected to the company name? How is it with the licenses and neo-banking? How many companies fake licenses? Maybe they don’t even have one?
Viktoria Soltesz: Yes, there’s a specific license called the EMD (Electronic Money Directive). It was created because many people feared that some companies would just act as a front and not need a license because they are just technology providers. They are connecting you, the client, with a licensed institution on their platform. A good example of this is Kola Pay. Initially, they didn’t have a license. But at the bottom of their page, it said that Kola Pay is an official reseller of a licensed provider. Now they have a license, but initially, they didn’t. That’s a classic example of what I tell people. There are a lot of resellers like this, but by law, every reseller has to be declared. You need to see who’s behind it.
For example, one of my clients is Delos Bank. If you go to Delos Bank’s website, you might see it looks great – payment services, digital asset management, everything. But if you scroll down, it says that they are a group operating across multiple jurisdictions, but they’re not really a bank. And there’s no mention of any license at all. When you open an account, they should provide you with two contracts: one with the actual bank holding your funds because someone has to be licensed to handle your money, even just to hold it for a second. The second contract is with the technology provider, which is just the gateway that connects you to the bank. I’m not sure if they do this, but this is how it should be.
So the first thing to do when putting your money anywhere is to check the bottom of the page. If a company has a license, they will list it. And why wouldn’t they? If they have a license, it should be easy to see. Also, every license number should be public so you can double-check it. For example, you can check if a company is licensed with the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK. If you look up a license like “BuilderLink Pay,” you should be able to see its registration details. If they’re licensed, they should provide you with that information. But if you’re a regular person, you might not know this. So, it’s important to always check.
Yeah, that’s a great point. They should already provide the link to verify the license. But I’ve encountered cases where the link itself can be faked.
Viktoria Soltesz: Yes, that’s outright fraud. In that case, it needs to be reported, and the fraudulent information will be taken down.
Exactly. I think there needs to be some sort of cooperation among business people and the professional fintech community, where we can help each other identify fraudsters. For example, in Israel, we used to have a system where people who took the industry in the wrong direction were identified. We knew their names. But it didn’t work well because, as you know, Israeli mentality is very group-oriented. It works really well for business, and I believe that in the financial industry, we need to take care of each other because there’s no other way to check if people are legitimate. You can’t just rely on websites to ask questions – those can be faked too. That’s the issue. Once you go online, it’s easy to get misled.
It’s interesting you mentioned the EMD license. What would you prioritize when looking for a license to avoid future issues with the safety of funds? How would you rank the licenses in terms of priority?
Viktoria Soltesz: It depends on the case. You also need to consider the fees and who’s willing to work with you. It’s no longer just about you choosing who to work with; it’s about who will accept you. If you’re a startup, they might not want to deal with you. You’ll have to choose between bad, worse, or terrible options. That’s why you need someone advising you on what’s available. As time goes on, you might be able to renegotiate your terms with the banks.
There’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Some people will prefer the safe, standard route, and others will take more risks. But you need to weigh the options. Higher risks usually come with higher fees. So, if you take higher risks, you’ll pay for them. If you choose something secure, the fees might be higher because the bank has to deal with you. But if you choose a bank in some small jurisdiction, with a questionable license – like one from a country that doesn’t even exist anymore – you have to understand the risks involved. It’s a trade-off.
Yeah, or you can go for the classic way, or something more exotic.
Viktoria Soltesz: It also depends on who you are. If you’re doing big business, people won’t just welcome you with open arms. The Swiss private banking experience is a good example. You walk into a bank, and they bring champagne and coffee, but they might not want to work with you unless you meet certain criteria. So, maybe your only option is a bank from some obscure place, and that’s not always the worst choice. But it’s important to be aware of the trade-offs involved.
And you’d probably have to fly there every month, be physically present.
Viktoria Soltesz: Exactly. There are so many factors to consider. There are also straight-up scams, so always, before you put any money anywhere, check the company’s reputation in forums, on TrustPilot, or other review sites. If someone calls it a scam, that’s a red flag. But what I advocate for is that it’s easier to fix your operations first, make them more transparent and ethical, and then approach reliable financial institutions. Once you have that, they’ll want to work with you, and it’s easier to fix yourself first than to find someone willing to work with you when you’re still a risky option.
I totally agree. It’s so easy to be clean and perfect when you’re small. You can present yourself as perfect, and they might say, “OK, we can work with you in a bit.” It’s a slow, organic way, and it might seem boring to many, but it works. You keep improving until you get their approval.
Viktoria Soltesz: If you don’t want to do it, it doesn’t mean it’s the wrong approach. You’ll lose money one way or another. You need someone to advise you because your accountant won’t help with this. There’s no education about this. So, you hire someone like me. People need to start seeing things from a different perspective, especially when it comes to payment processing, banking, and the regulatory options available. It’s not just about getting an account, it’s about building an operation around all of this.
I think the reputation of any financial institution or business that can hire you is the most important thing. At the end of the day, everyone can have the money and the business, but you can really impress someone with your good reputation because it’s rare.
Viktoria Soltesz: That’s exactly right. Reputation is everything. And in the financial field, it’s crucial. There are many companies that lack this, so you need to make sure you have the right reputation. It’s important to stay clean, especially when you don’t know everything. It’s much cheaper to do things right from the beginning than to try to fix mistakes later. It’s not even comparable.
True. Thank you very much. I think we covered everything I wanted, and even more. I’m really looking forward to our webinar. I hope you also have more ideas after this discussion that you can share with a wider audience.
Viktoria Soltesz: I think that’s a great idea. I want to bring this knowledge out and make sure people understand what to avoid and what to do. I’ll consider doing a webinar on the safety of funds and explain things like what an EMD license is, how banks use your money, how they segregate it, and much more.
Jutta Pinko