Consultant or Owner? Apollo, Hermes and Violet Star Unveiled

How industry consultants appear to hold extraordinary operational power in Mansion-related entities

Over the past several years, a number of international companies connected to online gaming operations have frequently described themselves as independent consultancies. However, newly surfaced documentation, organisational charts and banking records raise important questions about the extent of these consultants’ influence and whether the line between adviser and effective controller has been blurred.

In this article, Malta-Media examines three such entities: Apollo Global Tech Ltd, Hermes Tech Solutions Ltd and Violet Star Holdings Ltd, each of which has appeared in association with business activity, licensing support or operational infrastructure used by Mansion-related companies and platforms.

The Consultants: Who Are They?

According to various business registry entries and legal documents, the following individuals are named as officers, directors or representatives in companies labelled as consultancy providers:

• Guy Gussarsky, often listed as a director or authorised representative across Apollo and Hermes-linked firms
• Andrew Tait, a signatory or listed consultant in relation to multiple commercial gaming initiatives
• Adi Roglit, associated with several service mandates, including finance-related communications

These individuals are neither named as Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBOs) of Mansion Group nor accused of holding direct ownership in the companies examined in this report.

However, available documents suggest recurring signatory authority, shared banking permissions and regular approval of corporate matters typically associated with company management, not merely external advisory.

Consultant vs Controller: Where the Distinction Fades

In reviewing emails, internal flowcharts and corporate minutes (all part of a series of leaked files obtained by investigative teams) a repeated pattern emerges:

• Documents show that so-called “consultants” were routinely involved in board-level matters.
• At least one of the parties was listed as an authorised bank signatory for companies in both Malta and abroad.
• Foundation structures appear to receive direct instructions from names commonly associated with these consultancies.

While these facts alone do not confirm illegal activity, they raise important questions regarding transparency, regulatory disclosure and the actual degree of separation between control and advice.

Violet Star Holdings Ltd – A Case Study

Registered in the British Virgin Islands, Violet Star Holdings Ltd is formally described as a holding and consulting structure. However, documents seen by Malta-Media show that it served as a central node in both ownership chains and licensing correspondence.

Violet Star appears as a contractual party in agreements that govern technology provision, invoicing and even gaming infrastructure operations. Individuals connected to this entity were also named in materials pertaining to corporate restructuring of Mansion-aligned brands.

Again, no claim is made that Violet Star Holdings Ltd is engaged in unlawful activity, but its proximity to decision-making merits further regulatory interest.

Regulatory Implications

If consultants act in a manner that is functionally indistinguishable from directors or beneficial owners (especially when involved in multi-jurisdictional gaming operations) regulators may need to assess whether current disclosure requirements are fit for purpose.

From a governance perspective, companies are encouraged to be fully transparent in their dealings with supervisory bodies, particularly where advisory roles extend into management responsibilities. In some jurisdictions, failure to disclose such overlaps can have implications under anti-money laundering frameworks and beneficial ownership legislation.

It remains to be seen whether any national or European regulators will move to clarify the boundaries between consultancy and control in complex offshore structures.

Closing Remarks

Malta-Media makes no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of Mr Gussarsky, Mr Tait or Mr Roglit. Nor does this article infer illegality in the operations of Apollo Global Tech Ltd, Hermes Tech Solutions Ltd or Violet Star Holdings Ltd.

The purpose of this report is to shed light on the increasingly opaque space between external consultancy and internal authority, especially within high-risk industries such as online gambling.

As always, all named individuals and entities are invited to provide comments or clarifications, which Malta-Media is prepared to publish in full.

FAQs

What is the main focus of the article?
The article investigates the blurred lines between consultancy and control within Mansion-related companies and their associates.

Who are the main consultants discussed?
Guy Gussarsky, Andrew Tait, and Adi Roglit are the key individuals frequently appearing in roles tied to Apollo, Hermes, and Violet Star.

What companies are examined in the article?
Apollo Global Tech Ltd, Hermes Tech Solutions Ltd, and Violet Star Holdings Ltd are analyzed for their roles in gaming operations.

What is the concern about these consultants?
The concern is whether these consultants are acting beyond advisory roles and effectively managing or controlling operations.

Is there evidence of illegality?
No illegal activities are alleged, but the documentation raises questions about regulatory transparency and control.

What does Violet Star Holdings Ltd do?
It’s registered as a holding and consulting entity but appears to be deeply involved in operational and strategic decisions.

Why is this issue important for regulators?
If consultants function like directors or owners, it challenges the adequacy of current disclosure and regulatory frameworks.

Where are these companies registered?
The companies are linked to multiple jurisdictions, including Malta and the British Virgin Islands.

What kind of documents were reviewed?
Emails, corporate charts, and internal meeting notes suggest a recurring pattern of consultant involvement in management decisions.

What is the article’s conclusion?
While making no claims of wrongdoing, the article calls for greater scrutiny and transparency in roles within offshore gaming entities.