UZO Pay (UZOPay) – A Deep-Dive Risk Assessment for Merchants

A TheFinRate Investigative Report

TheFinRate continues to monitor emerging payment providers, especially those positioning themselves as high-risk merchant processors. In this review, we turn our attention to UZO Pay (uzopay.com) — a company that markets itself as a fast, flexible payment gateway with solutions spanning card processing, UPI payments, and global settlement.

While the platform presents itself as a modern PSP, our investigation uncovered multiple structural inconsistencies, gaps in regulatory transparency, and signals that warrant heightened merchant caution. This article outlines our findings, explains the associated risks, and advises merchants on the documentary proof they should insist on before onboarding.

What UZOPay Claims to Be

UZOPay publicly markets capabilities such as:

  • High-risk payment gateway solutions
  • Credit card processing with global reach
  • UPI and INR settlement
  • Multi-currency and crypto settlement options
  • API-based integrations and hosted checkout

On the surface, these claims position UZOPay as a fintech gateway targeting complex verticals. However, the credibility of these claims depends entirely on the company’s legal standing, regulatory status, and operational transparency — which is where our review identified notable weaknesses.

What Our Investigation Found

Our due diligence combined open-source intelligence (OSINT), registry checks, team verification, LinkedIn footprint analysis, and domain-level assessments. Below is a consolidated summary of verifiable facts.

2.1 Corporate Entity Mismatch

The legal entity associated with UZOPay appears to be FURIOUSVALLEY TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, incorporated on 30 March 2022.
Notably, the company is registered under Manufacturing and Publishing categories, not financial services or payments. This is a significant credibility gap because PSPs typically classify under tech, financial services, or business services.

2.2 Registered Address Discrepancies

Public registry records link the entity to an address in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, while the brand markets itself as a global, tech-driven PSP. This discrepancy is not inherently fraudulent but must be explained with proper documentation.

2.3 Leadership Transparency Gap

The directors listed in public records do not have clear, verifiable digital footprints as fintech founders or payment industry leaders.
Meanwhile, the LinkedIn “Team” associated with UZOPay reveals:

  • Mostly India-based junior profiles
  • Very limited work history
  • Several profiles without corporate email verification
  • A pattern commonly observed in synthetic or placeholder teams

Such gaps do not automatically indicate wrongdoing but do undermine merchant confidence.

2.4 No Visible Licensing or Regulatory Registration

UZOPay does not publicly display:

  • Any payment service provider license
  • Money Service Business (MSB) registration
  • RBI-authorised partnerships for UPI or INR settlement
  • FCA/FINTRAC/ESSA/EU-level permissions for cross-border settlement

For a company claiming to operate as a PSP, this is a major red flag.

2.5 PCI-DSS Transparency Missing

There is no downloadable or visible PCI-DSS Attestation of Compliance (AOC) on the website.

Card data handling without a verified PCI AOC exposes merchants to elevated fraud, leakage, and compliance violations.

2.6 No Named Acquiring Bank or Settlement Partner

All serious payment providers publicly identify:

  • Their acquiring banks
  • Their settlement partners
  • Their processing networks

UZOPay provides none of these.

Red Flags Identified

For clarity, TheFinRate categorizes the UZOPay concerns as follows:

  1. Trading name not aligned with registered business activity
  2. No published regulatory licensing or MSB registration
  3. No PCI-DSS documentation
  4. Unverified acquiring or settlement partnerships
  5. Weak LinkedIn/team authenticity signals
  6. Domain privacy and limited corporate infrastructure
  7. No visible merchant protection framework
  8. Unclear ownership & lack of leadership transparency

Any one of these would justify cautious onboarding; collectively, they form a substantial risk profile.

What These Issues Mean for Merchants

Merchants should understand the operational risk implications of these inconsistencies:

4.1 Settlement Risk

Unlicensed and undisclosed setups increase the risk of:

  • Delayed payouts
  • Frozen funds
  • Difficulties initiating legal recourse

4.2 Regulatory Exposure

Working with an unregistered PSP can pull a merchant into AML or compliance investigations unintentionally.

4.3 Data Security Risk

Absence of PCI proof raises concerns around card security, fraud vulnerability, and data retention.

4.4 Chargeback & Scheme Risk

If the gateway uses unknown or gray-route acquiring, merchants may face elevated chargebacks or sudden MID closures.

4.5 Reputational Damage

Associating with opaque processors can create reputational drag for merchants, especially in high-risk verticals.

What Merchants Should Demand Before Proceeding

Before integrating with UZOPay — or any similar PSP — merchants must request and verify the following documents:

Corporate Proof

  • Certificate of Incorporation
  • Latest registry extract
  • Confirmation linking UZOPay (trading) to the legal entity

Regulatory Credentials

  • Payment license
  • MSB registration
  • UPI/RBI partnership evidence

Compliance Documentation

  • PCI-DSS AOC verified through the issuing QSA
  • AML/KYC policy
  • Data protection policy

Banking & Settlement Evidence

  • Acquiring bank partner letter
  • Sample merchant MID
  • Settlement bank details (jurisdiction, entity name)

Operational Validation

  • Names and verifiable profiles of senior leadership
  • Merchant agreement detailing reserves, liability, and termination clauses
  • Two independently reachable merchant references

If a PSP cannot supply these, do not go live.

TheFinRate Advisory Statement

Merchant Advisory – UZO Pay (UZOPay)

UZOPay presents itself as a global payment gateway, but public records reveal significant inconsistencies between the brand’s claims and the legal entity behind it. The company does not display any payment-service licensing, PCI-DSS certificates, or acquiring bank disclosures. Team representation and corporate classification also raise credibility concerns.

TheFinRate advises merchants to refrain from launching live processing until UZOPay provides verifiable regulatory, compliance, and banking documentation. Merchants may submit shared documents to TheFinRate for independent verification.

Why This Matters for the Industry

When companies that move merchant funds choose opacity — unclear licensing, mismatched identities, unverifiable teams — they don’t just create risk for themselves.
They damage trust for the entire payments ecosystem.

Fintech operates on transparency.
If that breaks, everything else follows.

Final Verdict

UZO Pay currently carries a High-Risk Transparency Rating on TheFinRate.
The company may clarify or rectify these issues, but until they do, merchants should proceed with caution and demand documentary proof before any form of integration.