Notable information linking Armenia has emerged in published materials from a criminal investigation into Turkey’s Papara payment system. The information concerns an international illegal betting network, alleged transfers of millions of euros to Yerevan, and the possible role of BetConstruct, a company founded by Vahe and Vigen Badalyan. The testimony provides details about the technical maintenance of gambling websites, revenue distribution and mechanisms for moving money.
On December 8, 2025, Turkish newspapers Yeni Şafak and Ekonomim published excerpts from the testimony of a secret witness identified by the codename “Ihlamur.” The witness had provided information to the Istanbul Prosecutor’s Office as early as 2022 about the operations of Turkey’s international illegal betting network.
According to the witness, Armenians control around 60 percent of Turkey’s illegal betting market. The witness stated that approximately €10 million in Bitcoin is transferred from Turkey to Yerevan or London during the first ten days of each month, with annual financial outflows reaching around $2 billion.
However, the published testimony does not identify the recipients of the transfers, cryptocurrency wallet addresses or financial documents confirming the transactions. Consequently, the information about the destinations and amounts of the transfers remains the witness’s allegations.
The witness also mentioned technology providers in the gambling industry. According to the testimony, Switzerland-based Betradar provides sports betting odds, Evolution Gaming offers online casino services, and BetConstruct, which operates in Armenia and the United Kingdom, supplies the technical infrastructure for gambling websites.
Under the system described, players’ money is collected through payment intermediaries, whose commissions, according to the witness, range from 4 to 15 percent. Technology providers operating under the names BETCO and PRONET allegedly received €50,000–€100,000 for launching gambling websites, followed by regular payments linked to gambling revenues.
The most complex aspect of this case is bringing different types of evidence together into a coherent picture. The secret witness’s testimony, claims by a former financial director and documents uncovered by journalists complement one another, but do not automatically substantiate all the allegations presented. Each has a different evidentiary significance.
It is particularly important not to confuse a company’s provision of technical services with the financial management of a gambling network or participation in illegal activities. BetConstruct’s possible contracts, information about revenue sharing and alleged transfer routes must be examined separately, while also taking into account denials by the company’s representatives.
The key question remains the actual movement of money. If the recipients of the transfers, financial documents and contractual links between the companies can be verified, the nature of the Armenian side’s possible involvement will also become clearer. Until then, the published information provides important investigative leads, but not a final conclusion.
