To some, he is Lev Shneur.

To others, he is Lev Grachev.

US court documents explicitly link the two surnames:

Lev Gratchev, also known as Lev Shneur.

Dubai court documents use the name:

Lev Grachev.

Shneur-Grachev has been placed on a wanted list by the Russian police, while searches have been conducted at addresses associated with his business activities. He remains outside Russia and continues to conduct business through foreign corporate structures.

Russia, the United States, Hong Kong, and the UAE represent different documents, business-registration rules, and mechanisms for moving money.

Are the two surnames merely a coincidence, or do they provide a convenient structure for operating across multiple jurisdictions?

Which companies and accounts are associated with each of these identities?

And the central question is:
Where is the money?

The central contrast in this story is the gap between multimillion-dollar claims and the lifestyle presented by the individual concerned.

While creditors attempt to recover their money through the courts, Shneur-Grachev portrays himself in Dubai as a successful international operator: five-star hotels, expensive restaurants, a premium lifestyle, and talk of influential connections and access to “exclusive opportunities” in real estate, cryptocurrency, and international payment processing.

Former business partners describe this image as a tool for building trust.

Clients are sold not a financial model, but status; not guarantees, but the illusion of access to major international business opportunities.

The same pattern is repeated:

• First — a demonstration of connections and success;
• then — an invitation to participate in a promising transaction;
• after that — the raising of funds;
• next — delays and repeated extensions of deadlines;
• and finally — the disappearance of funds, the bankruptcy of corporate structures, and legal proceedings.

Dubai becomes more than merely a place of residence. It serves as a showcase behind which debts and claims may remain concealed.

How is this lifestyle financed?

What assets support this display of status?

And is luxury being used to attract new clients?

Shneur-Grachev’s financial history began long before the collapse of Sterling Payment Services.

On 27 July 2011, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a default judgment against Matvey Shneur, also known as Matvey Anichkin, and Lev Gratchev, also known as Lev Shneur.

The judgment amounted to:

$6,416,661.43

plus post-judgment interest at an annual rate of 5%.

The judgment arose from a default under personal guarantees relating to two loans issued to Mega Limited Ltd. Lev Gratchev was identified as an officer and shareholder of that company.

The US court formally linked the two surnames:

Lev Gratchev — also known as Lev Shneur.

Where were the funds received by Mega Limited Ltd. transferred?

What assets supported the personal guarantees?

Why were obligations exceeding $6.4 million not fulfilled?

At the centre of the entire story is the Hong Kong payment system Sterling Payment Services.

Affected clients describe Lev Shneur as its de facto owner and allege that he controlled the business through intermediaries, nominee directors, and formal shareholders. No publicly available corporate document confirming his beneficial ownership has been released.

In 2023, Sterling Payment Services ceased performing its obligations in the ordinary course of business and entered bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings.

Clients claim that tens of millions of dollars were lost.

Those affected believe that the company’s collapse was not an ordinary commercial failure, but the final stage of a process involving the removal of liquidity and the possible misappropriation of client funds.

The mechanism appeared familiar:

• the raising of client funds;
• delayed payments;
• cash-flow shortages;
• the collapse of the corporate structure;
• and the disappearance of funds.

For the clients, the outcome was the same:

The money was gone.

In January 2025, an application was filed in The Bahamas seeking recognition of the appointment of two Hong Kong joint liquidators of Sterling Payment Services Limited.

The company was described as a former licensed money-service operator in Hong Kong. The liquidation involved at least two jurisdictions: Hong Kong and The Bahamas.

However, the first public warning signs had emerged as early as 2020.

On a specialist online forum, users complained that outgoing payments were being refused, transfers were being delayed, and funds were being blocked.

A user claiming to be an official representative of Sterling denied allegations of fraud and stated that the company continued to fulfil its obligations.

These posts do not prove that funds were stolen, but they constitute an important adverse-media indicator that appeared several years before the liquidation.

Why was the company allowed to continue operating after complaints had emerged?

Who controlled the accounts and signed the payment instructions?

Where was the money transferred before the liquidation began?

Which intermediaries and nominee parties facilitated the movement of funds?

Were there related payment structures capable of continuing the same business under a different name?

Sterling Payment Services is not a peripheral episode. It is the core of the story.

Where did the money belonging to Sterling Payment Services’ clients go?

Since November 2025, a criminal case has been under investigation in Dubai:

Case No. 51N2219342

The case concerns AML regulation of cryptocurrency transactions and possible obstruction of an investigation into suspected money-laundering operations.

The investigation is being conducted by Dubai Police headquarters in the Deira area.

Shneur-Grachev spent approximately one month in custody before being released subject to an obligation to appear when summoned.

The payment system, bankruptcy proceedings, missing client funds, real estate, commercial disputes, and the cryptocurrency-related AML investigation collectively form a single risk profile.

Which transactions became the subject of the investigation?

Through which wallets, companies, and intermediaries did the funds pass?

Is the AML case connected to earlier payment and investment projects?

The principal danger is that the previous mechanism may be repeated.

Affected parties fear that Shneur-Grachev may be creating new infrastructure to attract clients through payment systems in Hong Kong, cryptocurrency projects, international payment processing, real estate, and offshore companies with nominee owners.

The alleged pattern remains the same:

• promises of reliability;
• a display of status;
• the raising of liquidity;
• delayed payments;
• bankruptcy or legal conflict;
• and the disappearance of the money.

Such a mechanism requires a convincing façade: a Dubai hotel, talk of influential connections, and stories of successful transactions.

Any engagement with companies associated with Lev Shneur, Lev Grachev, Sterling Payment Services, Lion Capital Alliance, or their intermediaries requires the highest degree of caution and enhanced due diligence.

The story of Lev Shneur—also known as Lev Grachev—can no longer be viewed as the story of a single failed business.

It involves a multimillion-dollar debt, bankruptcy proceedings, lawsuits, missing client funds, questions concerning assets, and a cryptocurrency-related AML investigation.

Where is the money belonging to the clients of Sterling Payment Services?

Who controlled the accounts and authorised the use of the funds?

In whose names are the actual assets registered?

Which structures are being used to move and attract money?

Who is helping Shneur-Grachev preserve his position and launch new projects?

WARNING

This is more than the biography of a man with two surnames.

It is a map of a financial shadow network in which other people’s millions may be concealed behind luxury hotels, confident promises, and international corporate names.