Moneff says FCA and Danish FSA oversight can aid fintech expansion

Moneff FCA Danish FSA supervision has become a working model for the London-based fintech, according to Sanjar Mavlyanov, the company’s chief executive and founder. In a Finextra opinion piece, Mavlyanov said oversight by both the UK Financial Conduct Authority and Denmark’s Financial Supervisory Authority, Finanstilsynet, can give fintechs a stronger operating base for serving the UK and European Union.

The comments reflect a post-Brexit regulatory reality for payments and financial technology firms. Mavlyanov said the earlier model of relying on one European licence to serve multiple markets has become more complex for firms that want meaningful access to both the UK and the EU.

Mavlyanov framed dual regulation as a strategic discipline rather than an administrative burden. He argued that firms subject to more than one supervisor should avoid creating separate compliance teams and rulebooks for each jurisdiction, because that can raise costs and leave gaps between internal systems.

What does dual regulation mean for fintechs?

Dual regulation means a firm must meet the requirements of more than one supervisory authority at the same time. For a fintech operating across the UK and EU, that can require one control framework that satisfies both local rules and the broader outcomes regulators expect from licensed financial firms.

According to Mavlyanov, the FCA and Danish FSA share broad policy objectives, including market integrity, financial stability and consumer protection. He said the difference lies in supervisory style: the FCA gives firms room to design controls under a principles-based model, while the Danish FSA places more weight on detailed documentation, governance lines and alignment with European Banking Authority guidance.

Mavlyanov said Moneff’s approach is to set internal standards at the strictest point required across the two regimes. If one supervisor expects a particular reporting structure and the other expects an assessment of customer outcomes, he said the operating framework should include both rather than treat them as separate exercises.

How Moneff applies the model to financial crime controls

Financial crime prevention is the area where Mavlyanov said the combined approach is most visible. He described the UK regime as risk-based, with the FCA expecting firms to adjust transaction monitoring and customer risk profiling as threats change.

He contrasted that with Denmark and the wider EU, where he said anti-money laundering requirements place heavy emphasis on data records, verification of ultimate beneficial owners and audit trails under AML directives.

At Moneff, Mavlyanov said automated transaction monitoring is calibrated to identify behavioural anomalies using UK risk indicators. He said the firm’s onboarding files are also built to meet the documentation expectations of the Danish FSA.

Mavlyanov said this combined scrutiny is intended to protect legitimate users and support confidence among banking partners and liquidity providers. He did not disclose financial performance, customer numbers or partner names in connection with the compliance model.

Product design under UK and EU rules

Mavlyanov also linked dual supervision to product development. He said Moneff’s product teams assess new features against the FCA’s Consumer Duty rules and the Danish implementation of EU payment services regulations before launch.

In his view, embedding compliance into product planning reduces the risk that a new payment feature later proves incompatible with safeguarding or conduct requirements. He said Moneff treats compliance as part of the product roadmap alongside interface design and system architecture.

Mavlyanov said the model depends on company culture as well as formal controls. He argued that employees outside the compliance department, including customer support staff and engineers, need clear routes to raise concerns about regulatory issues such as data processing under EU rules.

The Finextra post was marked as external opinion content and represented Mavlyanov’s views. Its central claim was that dual supervision by the FCA and Danish FSA can act as a stress test for fintech infrastructure, giving clients, investors and partners evidence that a firm can operate under demanding regulatory expectations.

This story draws on original reporting from Finextra Research.