A Consultant in Name, a Boss in Practice

Mansion’s behind-the-scenes executives wield power without titles

In the intricate world of iGaming compliance, optics matter almost as much as operations. Companies go to great lengths to separate advisory roles from decision-making authority: on paper. But what happens when those “consultants” are present at board meetings, authorise wire transfers and sign off on staff appointments?

The illusion of separation quickly fades.

Today’s article examines how key individuals behind entities like Apollo Global Tech Ltd, Hermes Tech Solutions Ltd and Violet Star Holdings Ltd exert functional control over Mansion-linked companies, without ever appearing as formal owners or executives.

Advisory on Paper. Authority in Practice.

Consultancy structures can serve legitimate purposes. They allow firms to outsource expertise or engage specialists without bloating their payrolls or legal exposure. But when those consultants approve transactions, hold banking authority, or manage staff logistics, the distinction between adviser and controller collapses.

Our investigation reveals how individuals like Guy Gussarsky, Andrew Tait and Adi Roglit (none of whom are listed as UBOs or official directors of Mansion Group) nonetheless maintained direct operational authority across jurisdictions.

• According to leaked board minutes and internal emails, these figures were regularly involved in strategic planning, staffing decisions and banking mandates.
• Despite not being declared owners, they were repeatedly listed as authorised signatories for bank accounts linked to companies in Malta, Gibraltar, Israel and the British Virgin Islands.
• Their names appear in correspondence with regulatory bodies, approval notices for inter-company service agreements and the management of license applications.

The “Firewall” Illusion

Much of the corporate separation rests on a document referred to internally as the “Separation Concept.” This memo asserts that Apollo, Hermes and Violet Star are legally and operationally distinct from Mansion Group. It lists different email domains, company numbers, bank accounts and business cards.

But our analysis shows these arguments do not hold under scrutiny:

• Same individuals appear across all entities as directors, consultants or bank signatories.
• Same digital infrastructure (IP addresses, logins, internal dashboards) was accessible to teams across the supposed firewalls.
• Shared service providers, including nominee directors and company secretaries from Alliance Corporate Services Ltd, appear across both the “consultancy” and “operational” structures.

This suggests that while legal entities may differ, the control layer remained unchanged.

Violet Star Holdings Ltd: A Case Study

One of the more striking examples is Violet Star Holdings Ltd, a BVI-based entity. Officially described as a consulting and holding firm, Violet Star shows up:

• As a signatory party to service agreements involving Mansion’s iGaming operations.
• In licensing and restructuring correspondence across multiple jurisdictions.
• As part of the ultimate beneficial ownership structure (at least internally) for platform services and infrastructure support.

In other words, far from being a distant service provider, Violet Star appears to function as a command hub.

Bank Mandates Tell the Real Story

Perhaps the clearest indicator of operational control comes from banking documents. Across Apollo, Hermes and Violet Star, as well as Mansion-affiliated companies like Mansion Europe Holdings Ltd, Mansion Gibraltar Ltd and Convertanet Ltd, a small group of individuals hold repeated signatory rights.

The same names appear across:

• Gibraltar (Apollo Online Consultancy Ltd)
• Israel (Hermes Online Consulting Ltd, Triton Online Services Ltd)
• Malta (Sliema Services Ltd, Gijjan Holding Ltd)
• British Virgin Islands (Violet Star Group Ltd)

These include: Guy Gussarsky, Adi Roglit, Simon Evans, Lior Haner, Sagi Lahav, Or Kaynar and Keren Voler.

This level of overlap between signatories, across entities that are ostensibly unrelated, raises serious questions. It suggests that operational control was centralised, even where ownership was not.

The Role of Private Foundations

Consultancy and holding layers eventually converge in a place few regulators can easily audit: Malta-based private foundations.

• Midas Touch PF and La Valette PF are both listed as UBOs for different segments of the Mansion/Midas infrastructure.
• They receive dividends and service fees routed through complex networks of subsidiaries, including Apollo and Triton.
• These foundations are structured to avoid disclosure, limit accountability and separate financial benefit from operational activity.

The combination of offshore companies, nominee directors and foundations creates an environment in which no single party appears liable, yet money continues to flow in familiar directions.

Why This Matters

From a regulatory standpoint, this isn’t just a question of governance formality. It touches on:

• Anti-Money Laundering (AML) oversight: When control and ownership diverge, AML checks based on shareholding data alone are insufficient.
• Tax and compliance risk: Foundations receiving revenue from licensed operations without transparency present red flags for tax evasion and base erosion.
• Regulatory enforcement: Companies that obscure control layers are harder to regulate, especially in cross-border gaming operations.

Regulators across Europe have warned that “consultant structures” are increasingly used to bypass disclosure laws. If someone acts like a CEO, signs like a CEO and earns like a CEO, do titles really matter?

Closing Remarks

At Malta-Media, we do not allege unlawful conduct by Mr Gussarsky, Mr Tait or Mr Roglit. Nor do we assert criminal wrongdoing by Apollo, Hermes, Violet Star, or their affiliated structures. Our goal is to highlight patterns of operational control that appear to diverge from public declarations and may mislead regulators, auditors or compliance officers.

As always, all named individuals and entities are invited to respond or clarify their roles. Submissions can be made via our encrypted reporting platform on Malta Media website.

FAQs

What is the main focus of the article?
The article investigates how certain individuals exert control over iGaming companies linked to Mansion without being listed as official executives or owners.

Who are some of the key individuals mentioned?
Guy Gussarsky, Andrew Tait, and Adi Roglit are among those cited as having operational authority despite lacking formal titles.

What companies are associated with this structure?
Entities like Apollo Global Tech Ltd, Hermes Tech Solutions Ltd, and Violet Star Holdings Ltd are central to this complex web.

What is the “Separation Concept”?
It’s an internal document claiming operational and legal separation between various companies, though evidence suggests functional overlap.

How do these consultants exert control?
They sign off on financial transactions, attend board meetings, manage staffing, and hold banking signatory rights.

Why is Violet Star Holdings Ltd important?
Though labeled a consulting firm, Violet Star appears to act as a strategic hub for Mansion-related operations.

What role do private foundations play?
Malta-based foundations like Midas Touch PF and La Valette PF help obscure financial flows and limit transparency.

Why is this structure a concern for regulators?
It may violate AML protocols, tax laws, and regulatory disclosures by disguising real operational control.

Is any illegal activity alleged in the article?
No. The article clarifies that it makes no allegations of illegal conduct, focusing instead on governance inconsistencies.

What are the implications for iGaming compliance?
Such structures can undermine regulatory oversight and raise compliance risks for companies operating across jurisdictions.