Parimatch Created Fake Paper Trail in Black-Market Turkey

• Parimatch employed Curacao-based Abudantia to oversee Turkish operations
• Abudantia later sued Parimatch over the deal
• Case revealed fake paper trail designed to protect Parimatch from “regulatory risks”

Online sportsbook Parimatch created a false paper trail to guard it against potential prosecution over its black-market Turkish operations, the High Court in London has heard. The story was first reported by the UK’s Law Society Gazette.

High Court Judge Julia Dias said it was “surprising and disheartening” that a lawyer who had qualified in England, Zuleyha Tohtayeva, was involved in the deception, which Dias regarded as a “serious breach of professional ethics.”

Tohtayeva was Parimatch’s legal counsel from 2020 to late 2021. The paper trail came to light during a civil case between the sportsbook and Abudantia, a gambling company that oversaw the Turkish operations under the Parimatch brand name.

Regulatory Risks

Formed in Kyiv, Ukraine in 1994, Parimatch is now based in Cyprus. In 2020, eager to enter the lucrative but illegal Turkish market, it formed into a strategic partnership with Abudantia, an entity licensed in Curacao that already operated a successful Turkish-facing online sportsbook and casino.

By the end of 2021, Parimatch was dissatisfied with the performance of the joint venture and tried to terminate it. Abudantia sued in London, seeking a declaration from the High Court that the agreement remained valid so it could continue to use the Parimatch trademark.

On Tuesday, Dias ruled in favor of Parimatch, finding the company had not breached its contract with Abudantia.

‘Brand Protection Strategy’

However, the judge reserved scathing words for the Parimatch’s “brand protection strategy” in Turkey.

This involved a fake paper trail “to be deployed in the event that awkward questions were asked about its involvement in the Turkish market, so that it could plausibly claim, falsely, that any dubious activity was entirely without its authority or knowledge,” Dias wrote.

It is surprising and disheartening (to say the least) that an English solicitor should have been a willing party to such a strategy, and it is perhaps fortunate that in the event it never became necessary to deploy this ‘evidence’ vis-à-vis third-party banks or regulators,” continued the judge.

“Had that happened, the inescapable conclusion is that Parimatch would have been dishonestly attempting to mislead those third parties with commensurately serious consequences,” she added.

Dias emphasized that Tohtayeva was not on trial but noted the lawyer took a “proactive role” in devising the strategy, adding that the court took a dim view of this conduct.