Cryptomus Card

Documented events with consequences still open. Each entry carries a source and a date.

1. Oct 16, 2025 Fine Severe ● open

   FINTRAC: a 176,960,190 Canadian dollar penalty, the largest in its history, for about 2,600 anti-money-laundering violations. The company's appeal filed on 14 November 2025, no decision

   On 16 October 2025 FINTRAC, Canada's financial intelligence unit, imposed on Xeltox Enterprises Ltd. — trading as Cryptomus, formerly Certa Payments Ltd., a money services business incorporated in British Columbia — an administrative penalty of 176,960,190 Canadian dollars, announced on 22 October. It is the largest the authority has ever issued, for about 2,600 violations of Canada's proceeds of crime and terrorist financing act. THE VIOLATIONS, IN THE AUTHORITY'S OWN NUMBERS. Failure to submit suspicious transaction reports on 1,068 occasions (July-August 2024); failure to report 1,518 virtual currency transactions of 10,000 dollars or more; non-compliance with a Ministerial Directive; inadequate compliance policies; insufficient risk assessments; failure to notify changes to its registration information. WHY THE FIGURE IS WHAT IT IS. The record is explained not by the size of the company but by the nature of what went unreported. FINTRAC lists among the unreported transactions those suspected of involving proceeds from trafficking in child sexual abuse material, fraud, ransomware payments and sanctions evasion. Director Sarah Paquet says it plainly: «given violations connected to child sexual abuse material trafficking, fraud, ransomware and sanctions evasion, FINTRAC was compelled to take this unprecedented enforcement action». Part of the missing reports concerned, according to the authority, transactions with known darknet markets and wallets tied to criminal activity; the unreported operations also include 7,557 transactions originating from Iran. THE APPEAL, AND WHY THERE IS NOT A WORD MORE HERE. On 14 November 2025 Xeltox filed an appeal in Federal Court, arguing that the penalties rest on «errors of law» and, on the substance, that FINTRAC was wrong to treat Xeltox and Cryptomus as «functionally the same entity»: the company states it licenses the Cryptomus platform from a Panama-based company, Padel West S.A., and should not answer for transactions conducted by other licensees. That is an argument, not an outcome. As at this verification date no Federal Court decision is on record: the penalty was imposed by an authority and has been neither upheld nor overturned by a court, and this page presents it as neither. A DISTINCTION THAT MATTERS TO THE READER. None of this says user funds were taken: it is not a hack and not a balance-sheet hole. It says the service's anti-money-laundering controls were judged severely inadequate by the authority that supervises them, and that the amount at stake is of an order of magnitude that can put the continuity of an operator this size in question.

   ↗ source
2. May 20, 2025 Regulatory action Moderate ● open

   British Columbia: provisional order from the securities commission against Xeltox/Cryptomus, suspected of operating as an unrecognised exchange without the required registrations

   On 20 May 2025 the British Columbia Securities Commission issued a temporary order (2025 BCSECCOM 209) against Xeltox Enterprises Ltd., trading as Cryptomus, based in Vancouver. In the commission's own words, there is evidence that Cryptomus «may be violating the registration requirements of the Securities Act and operating as an unrecognized exchange». WHAT THE ORDER PROHIBITS. «The temporary order prohibits Cryptomus from trading securities or derivatives and from engaging in promotional activities.» It is a precautionary measure, not a final finding: its purpose is to halt the activity while the matter is decided, and by design it does not establish that a violation occurred. WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH, AND WE SAY SO. The order expired on 4 June 2025, with the executive director able to ask a commission panel to extend it. From the open sources we consulted it does not appear whether it was extended, whether a hearing was held, or whether the proceeding was closed. So we record the certain fact — an order by an authority, dated and published by that same authority — and declare the question of how it ended still open, rather than pretending to know. THE CONTEXT THAT MAKES THIS ENTRY USEFUL. Five months after this order, the same company received from FINTRAC the penalty recorded below. Two different Canadian authorities, in the same year, on the same operator: the single entry matters less than the sequence.

   ↗ source

verified on Sep 27, 2026

Weighted average across 1 public review platform (5,314 reviews in total), weighted by volume. This is not our rating: it is those platforms’ average.