--- title: "Deel Wallet and DPayments: providers, investment and licensing disclosures" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/deel/us-payments/ as_of: 2026-10-13 keywords: ["Deel","Rippling","Atlantic Money","payments","ownership","employment","litigation"] --- # Deel Wallet and DPayments: providers, investment and licensing disclosures **Question.** Which payment roles are held by Deel, its affiliates and external providers? **Answer.** The retained guidance distinguishes Deel from the bank and the Wallet service provider. Company licence disclosures and state corporate registers add context, but do not establish a complete independently verified licensing map. ## A product brand does not identify the bank - Analysis: Deel’s guidance explicitly says it is not a bank. For the described US Wallet product, it identifies Mezu (NA), trading as Alviere, as the financial-services provider and Community Federal Savings Bank as the bank associated with the stated pass-through deposit insurance. The guidance’s eligibility and product conditions matter: this is not a promise that every Deel balance worldwide is protected against every type of loss. [s-d101] - Attributed: Deel’s Wallet guidance says Deel is not a bank. It identifies Mezu (NA), Inc., trading as Alviere, as the licensed money-transmission and service provider, and Community Federal Savings Bank as the bank associated with the described pass-through deposit insurance. [s-d101] - Qualification: The guidance concerns eligible US users and its stated product conditions. The insurance description is not a guarantee against every loss or protection of every Deel balance worldwide. - Analysis: There is also a direct regulator record for Mezu: California’s DFPI lists money-transmitter licence 2674 and an officer, without specifying that person’s corporate capacity. Its statement that no enforcement action has been posted is specific to that record. It does not clear all activity everywhere. Deel separately announced a strategic investment in the Alviere business and further licence applications. The announcement gives no investment price, stake or exact legal recipient, so it does not establish an equity investment in the named service operator or the success of every application. [s-d185] [s-d178] - Documented: California’s DFPI record lists Mezu (NA), Inc. as a money transmitter under licence 2674 and identifies Jorgen Michael Osio Norgaard as its officer. The retained page says DFPI has not posted enforcement actions against that entity. [s-d185] - Qualification: The absence of posted actions is scoped to that regulator and snapshot. It is not a global compliance clearance for Mezu or Deel. - Attributed: Deel’s company announcement describes a strategic investment in the Alviere business and integration of its payment products into Deel Wallet, alongside applications for US money-transmitter licences. [s-d178] - Qualification: The retained passage gives no ownership percentage, investment price or exact legal recipient. Mezu (NA), Inc. is identified separately as a service operator; the announcement does not establish that it received the equity investment. Applications are not proof that every licence had been granted. ## DPayments’ corporate record leaves an upstream ownership gap - Analysis: Florida’s corporate registry records the Delaware-organised DPayments LLC as an active foreign LLC registered in January 2024 and names DFinancial Holdings LLC as member. It does not identify that member’s upstream owner. The company disclosures and litigation identify DPayments’ affiliation with Deel, but the graph preserves that narrower description instead of inventing a complete registered ownership chain. [s-d224] - Documented: Florida’s company register records DPayments LLC as a Delaware foreign LLC registered in Florida on 19 January 2024, document M24000000668. DFinancial Holdings LLC is the listed member. [s-d224] - Qualification: The registry entry does not show DFinancial Holdings’ upstream owner. DPayments’ Deel affiliation is described in the company’s disclosure and litigation, but is not a complete registry-derived ownership chain. - Analysis: An archived December 2025 company page lists DPayments state licences and Canadian registrations, including a Florida identifier and FINTRAC and Quebec identifiers for DPayments Canada. Those are useful disclosures to distinguish from earlier statements that applications were being made. The packet does not independently retain every underlying regulator confirmation. A state incorporation record proves a different thing from a money-transmission licence. [s-d239] - Attributed: Deel’s archived licence page describes DPayments LLC as a licensed subsidiary and lists state licence identifiers, including Florida FT230000505 and Delaware 41572. It also identifies DPayments Canada Inc., CRA 719412751, and states FINTRAC registration C100000177 and Quebec licence 19365. [s-d239] - Qualification: These are company disclosures in the December 2025 archive copy. The individual US, FINTRAC and Quebec licences were not independently verified against each regulator’s record in this packet. A corporate registration is distinct from a financial-services licence. ## An old licensing lawsuit has a known outcome - Analysis: The Florida receiver’s complaint against Deel, DPayments and Jeremy Berger was dismissed in August 2025 for standing and RICO pleading defects. That outcome must accompany discussion of the allegations. At the same time, the court’s reason for dismissal did not amount to a universal determination of compliance with all licensing rules. The records support both statements without treating either as a substitute for the other. [s-d183] - Documented: Judge Jose Martinez dismissed the Damian complaint on 18 August 2025 and closed the case. The order found no adequately alleged concrete injury for Article III or RICO standing and no distinct RICO enterprise beyond the alleged unified corporate structure. [s-d183] - Qualification: The dismissal is a material outcome in Deel’s favour. The court did not need to decide every defence, and the standing ruling does not independently establish compliance with every payment-licensing rule. ## Ordinary payment channels also have to be distinguished - Analysis: Revolut’s own case study describes bulk contractor payments through its business API, with a testimonial from Deel COO Dan Westgarth. Deel’s Wallet guidance also lists Wise Wallet among withdrawal options. These descriptions explain how the service moves funds in ordinary operation; they do not establish wrongdoing by either provider. The Revolut brand is kept separate from the named US legal company that supplied records in the litigation. [s-d101] [s-d108] - Attributed: Revolut’s business case study describes Deel using its API for bulk contractor payments and includes a testimonial from COO Daniel Westgarth. Deel’s own Wallet guidance separately lists Wise Wallet among available withdrawal methods. [s-d101] [s-d108] - Qualification: These are providers’ descriptions of ordinary product relationships. The Revolut brand is not automatically the same legal entity as the US company that produced court records, and use of a payment channel is not an allegation against the provider. ## Sources - [s-d101] Company statement source · s-d101 - [s-d185] Regulatory record concerning Deel or an identified participant, California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation - [s-d178] Company statement source · s-d178 - [s-d224] Corporate registry concerning Deel or an identified participant, Florida Division of Corporations - [s-d239] Company statement source · s-d239 - [s-d183] Court record source · s-d183 - [s-d108] Company statement source · s-d108