Bank of Lithuania Temporarily Restricts Lux International Payment System During AML/CFT Inspection
The Bank of Lithuania has temporarily prohibited electronic money institution UAB Lux International Payment System from providing financial services to both new and existing customers while an ongoing supervisory inspection is completed.
The central bank announced the measure on 4 August 2026. It said it had grounds to suspect that the institution may have breached requirements governing the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as other legal requirements, and that serious deficiencies had been identified in its operations.
The restriction is an interim supervisory measure rather than a final finding of misconduct. The Bank of Lithuania said the prohibition will remain in place until the inspection is completed and the regulator adopts a decision. It obtained permission from the Regional Administrative Court before imposing the measure.
The regulator also noted that Lux International Payment System had already stopped providing services before the formal decision. Customers with questions were advised to contact the institution directly.
Licensed electronic money institution
Lux International Payment System holds a Lithuanian electronic money institution licence that has been valid since February 2021. Its authorised activities include issuing and redeeming electronic money, operating payment accounts, executing payment transactions and credit transfers, issuing payment instruments and providing currency exchange services. The institution is also authorised to provide services across other EU member states without establishing a branch.
The Bank of Lithuania currently lists the firm’s activity as restricted. No monetary penalty, licence withdrawal or final AML/CFT violation was announced as part of the August 2026 measure.
The intervention highlights the ability of supervisors to restrict ongoing financial services while examining suspected AML/CFT control deficiencies. For payment and electronic-money institutions, the case also illustrates that regulatory action can extend beyond new-customer onboarding to an existing customer base when a supervisor considers interim risk containment necessary.
