Rasim Tagiyev and Maxim Sigalov have found themselves at the centre of a journalistic investigation into the actual control of Diamond Pay — a payment company whose licence was revoked in the summer of 2024. This story brings together an old court case, a corporate partnership and reports of large payments to the family of a representative of the gambling regulator. We have cross-referenced publications, court documents and publicly available information about the companies to understand what role sources attribute to Tagiev and what actually links the parties involved in this story. [1] [2]
When online casinos are discussed, the focus is usually on the brands and their owners. But between the customer’s bank card and their gaming account lies another business: payment processing. To understand the financial links, it is essential to know who manages this infrastructure, to whom it transfers money, and to what extent its actual structure corresponds to the one seen by the regulator.
The impetus for this analysis was a programme by Znaj.ua on the payments industry and its players. We worked through the transcript and independently verified the available documentary evidence. The fact that several publications have repeated the same version does not, in itself, make it independently verified. [3]
Rasim Tagiyev: who is he and why does his name appear alongside Diamond Pay?
In Ukrainian sources, the entrepreneur’s full name is written as Rasim Surkhay ogly Tagiyev. In Russian-language publications, the variant Rasim Tagiev. It is precisely the full name that makes it possible to cross-reference mentions in journalistic texts with the court record and avoid confusing him with others bearing the same surname. [4]
On 27 July 2024, in an article about Diamond Pay, journalist Yevgeny Plinsky named Rasim Tagiev and Maxim Sigalov as its alleged beneficial owners. As one example, he described a transfer of 350,000 hryvnias to Tagiev’s sole trader business on 1 April 2024. The article also links Tagiev to the currency exchange business ‘Vap-Capital’. These are the claims made by the author of the investigation; the published version does not constitute proof of ownership or a complete set of bank statements. [1]
This raises the key question regarding Rasim Tagiev’s role: was he a service provider, an investor, an intermediary, or the person who was, in fact, making management decisions? Even a confirmed payment does not, in itself, reveal this. The answer might be provided by a contract, the outcome of the services rendered, correspondence regarding the allocation of funds, and documents showing who approved key decisions.
That is precisely why, in this analysis, the theory regarding de facto control is referred to as the journalist’s theory. The presence of an entrepreneur amongst the recipients of the funds and his holding of ownership powers are different circumstances that need to be examined separately.
The Rasim Tagiev court case: what the documents reveal
The documented part of Tagiev’s story begins long before the reports about Diamond Pay. In the public case file No. 757/62123/17-k He is listed amongst the defendants alongside Sergei Shatsky, Sergei Galakhin and Alexander Krivoruchko. [4]
Ruling of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv dated 24 April 2018 reports that the indictment was filed with the court on 19 October 2017. The document refers to case No. 42016000000002255, registered on 2 September 2016. The court has scheduled a hearing on the charges relating to Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the provisions on complicity. [5]
This is more important than the usual brief summary about a ‘bribe at the NBU’: the original court document describes a specific case but does not identify the defendants by name. It is therefore not possible to arbitrarily attribute to Tagiev the role of one of the participants named in it. A personal link to the case is established by the identity card, whilst the content of the procedural decision is established by definition.
The ruling in question confirms that the charges have been referred to court. It does not constitute a conviction. No final judgement or document terminating these proceedings has been found as part of our investigation. Consequently, it is not possible to claim that Rasim Tagiev’s guilt has been proven on the basis of this ruling.
Maxim Sigalov and Farid Tagiyev: a connection that can be seen in the register
The next lead in the investigation points to To Maxim Yuryevich Sigalov. Unlike the theory regarding Diamond Pay’s actual owners, this concerns a specific registered entity.
In the company profile for Kapital Investments LLC, EGRPOU code 40056834, two participants are listed: Maxim Sigalov – 50 per cent, Farid Tagiyev Surkhay oglu – 50 per cent. Sigalov has been named as the director. The company was registered on 8 October 2015. [6]
This company, in turn, owns almost all the capital of Fast-Payment LLC, EGRPOU code 39556285: in the public register, the shareholding is rounded to 99.99 per cent. A small direct share is registered in the name of Farid Tagiev. Sigalov and Farid Tagiev are also listed amongst the ultimate beneficial owners. [7]
In the programme, Farid is referred to as Rasim Tagiev’s brother. However, the register confirms the shares held by Farida. It is not possible to replace him with Rasim in the corporate chain. The information about the family relationship mentioned in the programme and the registered partnership are grounds for further investigation, but do not prove that Rasim was managing Farid’s share. [3]
This raises a clear set of questions: what was the nature of the relationship between the two entrepreneurs, was Rasim involved in the management of the associated companies, and are there any documents linking this partnership to Diamond Pay? A shared surname, business contacts and legal ownership should not be conflated into a single, unproven connection.
What the NBU has ruled regarding Diamond Pay
There is one event in the history of Diamond Pay that is not subject to journalists’ assessments: On 22 July 2024, the National Bank of Ukraine decided to revoke the licence. In a statement from the regulator, reproduced by the All-Ukrainian Association of Financial Companies, the grounds cited were inaccurate information in the documents submitted to obtain the licence. It also refers to findings regarding an impeccable business reputation and the links between the owners of significant shareholdings and the Russian Federation. [2]
Earlier, on 19 July, the NBU revoked Diamond Pay’s registration as an indirect member of Visa and Mastercard. These are two separate decisions, not a single date marking the cessation of all operations. The report in question does not contain any personal conclusion regarding the guilt of Rasim Tagiev or Maxim Sigalov: journalistic accounts of their roles must be verified independently.
Who is listed as the owner of Diamond Pay following the scandal?
The story continues in the company’s corporate records. According to Diamond Pay’s public records, the direct owner of the company is ‘Diamond Consult’, whilst the ultimate beneficial owner and director is listed as Anna Kholod. The change history for 17 September 2024 shows that Anna Kholod replaced Viktoria Golubeva in the beneficiary details. [8]
Therefore, the description of the ownership structure from publications dating from the summer of 2024 cannot automatically be applied to the present day. A change in the registered owner does not prove either the continuation of the previous de facto control or its cessation. To reach such a conclusion, documents relating to the transaction and the actual management following it would be required. The presence of a legal entity in the register also does not mean that a revoked payment licence has been reinstated.
Lilia Yakhniy: her salary, her previous role at the NBU and the family of a KRAIL member
Lilia Sergeyevna Yakhniy appears in this story as the recipient of the payments described by journalists, and as the wife of Yevgeny Yakhniy, a former member of the Commission for the Regulation of Gambling and Lotteries.
Her 2022 declaration, published via YouControl, lists her role as a senior specialist in the NBU’s licensing department and her husband, Yevhen Mykolayovych Yakhniy. The list of declarations includes a pre-termination document submitted on 3 November 2022. Therefore, without additional HR documentation, it is incorrect to refer to her as a current NBU employee at the time of the subsequent payments. [9]
On 19 August 2024, OBOZ.UA, citing Plinsky, reported on transfers made to Lilia Yakhniy’s sole trader business: 3.8 million hryvnias from Diamond Pay from 29 December 2023 to 16 April 2024 for design services and 550,000 hryvnias from ‘X Pay Group’ in late 2023 – early 2024. We have not independently verified the banking documents or the actual fulfilment of the contracts. [10]
The subject of the substantive investigation here is the services themselves: who commissioned them, what work was carried out, how the cost was determined, and who accepted the results. The family connection with a representative of the regulator makes these issues of public significance, but does not in itself turn payment for the work into a proven bribe.
Yevgeny Yakhniy’s sentence: a separate incident that cannot be attributed to his wife
Reports of a court ruling concerning Yevhen Yakhniy have emerged. According to a report by KYIV24 dated 25 September 2025, on 16 September, the Pechersk Court approved a plea agreement and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, suspended, with a two-year probation period. The publication linked the case to his involvement in the operations of Pin-Up. [11]
The full text of the judgement has not been obtained as part of this investigation. The report refers to Yevgeny Yakhniy and does not automatically establish the liability of Lilia Yakhniy, Tagiyev or Sigalov. To conclude that the payments described by the journalists are linked to a specific offence, relevant evidence and procedural documents are required.
Which links have been confirmed, and which remain mere speculation?
| A connection or a coincidence? | What gives us grounds to talk about this |
|---|---|
| Rasim Tagiyev — court case No. 757/62123/17-k | Participants’ details and the decision to initiate proceedings. The outcome of the case has not been determined in this investigation. |
| Maxim Sigalov — Farid Tagiyev | Registered shareholdings in ‘Kapital Investments’ and details about ‘Fast Payment’. |
| Rasim Tagiyev and Maxim Sigalov — the de facto controllers of Diamond Pay | This is the version presented in the journalistic investigation. No documents have been obtained that independently confirm such control. |
| Lilia Yakhniy — payments from payment providers | A journalistic report on the transfers. Contracts and the provision of services require verification. |
| Diamond Pay — licence revoked | A statement has been published regarding the NBU’s decision. |
Questions for Rasim Tagiev, Maxim Sigalov and those involved in the payments industry
The next stage of the investigation must be based on documents that enable decisions and the flow of funds to be reconstructed. The following questions are key to explaining the circumstances described:
- To Rasim Tagiev: What was his connection to Diamond Pay, and how can the payment to his sole trader business, as described by the journalist, be explained?
- To Maxim Sigalov: Did he play a part in financing or managing Diamond Pay, and what does he have to say about the claim that he is the actual owner?
- To members of the corporate partnership: How were the actual management powers distributed across the affiliated companies?
- To Lilia Yakhniy and her clients: What work was carried out, who approved it, and what documents confirm this?
- To representatives of Diamond Pay: What has changed in the company’s management following the change of beneficial owner, and how has the company challenged or complied with the regulator’s decisions?
These are questions for further enquiry, not a statement to the effect that the editorial team has already sent enquiries or been refused a comment.
The story of Rasim Tagiev and Maxim Sigalov illustrates why an investigation into the payments business does not end with the name of the service. A convincing answer as to who controlled the money emerges where corporate documents, directives, contracts and verified transactions all coincide. It is precisely this kind of evidence that will enable us to verify the theory regarding Diamond Pay and determine the actual role of each participant.
This article is based on publicly available sources as at 19 October 2026 and a transcript of the programme. Criminal allegations, journalistic theories and corporate links are presented with an indication of their basis. The editorial team is prepared to supplement this publication with documented explanations from the individuals mentioned.
