Affiliate disclosure. When you sign up via our links we may earn a commission. Rankings stay independent. Read full disclosure →
Up to 25% APR
EN
D

Debitum review.

Use with caution Riga, Latvia SME notes, forest land, agricultural land, invoice finance, gaming royalties
By Daniel Brenner, Senior Editor · Updated 2026-05-01
CrowdIndex score
3.5 / 10
★½☆☆☆
Significant Risk Signals
Avg. Return
~11.4%
Min. Investment
€10
Auto-invest
Yes
Regulator
MiFID II · LV
Since
2017
Founded2017
HQRiga, Latvia
RegulatorMiFID II · LV
AUM€167.9M+
Investors29K+
Avg yield~11.4%
Min€10
Bonus—
Languages6
Secondary mktPlanned 2026
AutoInvestYes
Default rate0%

Debitum Investments Review — Latvian P2B Platform Under Active Investigation

★★☆☆☆ Significant Risk Signals | CrowdIndex Score: 4.0 / 10

Latvian peer-to-business platform holding a full MiFID II Investment Brokerage Firm licence from Latvijas Banka. Despite the licence and investor compensation framework, independent investigative reporting in March 2026 by journalist Karsten Aichholz documented structural conflicts of interest, an extracted insider margin on the platform’s largest loan programme, and operational instability that together place Debitum in our most cautious category.

What is Debitum in 60 seconds

Debitum is a Latvian P2B platform that lets retail investors buy notes (debt instruments) backed by loans extended to small and medium-sized businesses. You deposit funds, choose specific note offerings or use AutoInvest, and receive interest payments as the underlying borrowers repay. Debitum is regulated by Latvijas Banka (the Latvian central bank) as an Investment Brokerage Firm under MiFID II — the EU’s main investment-firm regulatory framework — and qualifying investors are covered up to €20,000 through Latvia’s national investor compensation scheme. The headline structure is strong on paper. However, independent investigative reporting in March 2026 documented serious concerns about who actually receives the loan proceeds, the relationships between Debitum and its note issuers, and how the platform represents these arrangements to investors and regulators.

Strengths

  • Holds a full MiFID II Investment Brokerage Firm licence from Latvijas Banka. Licence №06.06.08.728/537 was issued in September 2021 and extended in December 2024. The platform is also passported into seven additional EU countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain) as of July 2025. Under this framework, eligible investors are covered up to €20,000 via the Latvian national investor compensation scheme in the event of platform insolvency or fraud. This is structurally one of the strongest regulatory positions in the EU P2P segment on paper, and is the main reason Debitum is not rated even lower despite the findings in Things to Watch.

  • Multilingual platform interface with low entry threshold. The site is localised into six languages (English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Latvian) and the minimum investment per note is €10, which makes the platform technically accessible to a broad European retail audience. Note: accessibility is a UX feature, not a safety feature — see Things to Watch for the substantive concerns.

Things to Watch

  • Independent investigation documented an extracted insider margin on the platform’s largest loan programme. In March 2026, independent investigative journalist Karsten Aichholz (karsten.me) published an analysis of the Latvian Forest Development Fund (LFDF), Debitum’s largest note issuer — accounting for approximately 86% of the platform’s outstanding portfolio. Working from 484 matched-pair land-registry transactions, the investigation documented an average of roughly 34¢ of insider margin per €1 extended through LFDF — meaning that for every euro investors lent to forest projects, approximately 34 cents was routed to parties connected to the issuer rather than to the underlying productive use. In several specific cases, individual properties were purchased for around €10,000 and sold into LFDF at approximately €130,000, with holding periods as short as 113 days. Karsten Aichholz further documented an inventory gap of approximately €24.6M between LFDF’s declared balance-sheet value of forest holdings (€36.8M) and the corresponding land-registry transaction values (€12.2M). Debitum published a 13-page response, which the journalist’s follow-up piece described as not addressing the central question of where the difference went.

  • Approximately 87% of the portfolio is routed to a single related-party network. Per the Karsten investigation, 7 of Debitum’s 9 active note issuers — including LFDF, AS JUNO, Juno Finance, Bono House, Foresto, Ozolu meži, and Sandbox Funding — are connected either through a single Latvian family network (Galvanovskis / Upenieks / Andžejevskis) or are owned directly by Debitum’s own shareholders. The platform’s public positioning describes itself as a “marketplace of independent issuers”, which is materially inconsistent with this concentration. Sandbox Funding alone — the second-largest issuer with around €9.5M outstanding — is 100% owned by Debitum’s two main shareholders (Ingus Salmiņš and, until October 2025, Eriks Rengitis).

  • Five different CEOs in three years. The platform has cycled through five chief executives since mid-2023: Mārtiņš Liberts (founder, exited July 2023), Henrijs Jansons (July 2023 – June 2024), Eriks Rengitis (June 2024 – October 2025), Anatolijs Putna (October 2025 – April 2026), and current CEO Ingus Salmiņš (April 2026 to present). Salmiņš is also the sole 100% shareholder via SIA ZIdea and a beneficial owner of Sandbox Funding — meaning ownership, management, and the second-largest related issuer all concentrate in a single individual. This level of executive turnover and concentration is unusual for a MiFID II–licensed financial institution.

  • A high-profile affiliate review scored Debitum 93/100 during the same period as the investigation. Northern Finance, a German P2P review site that operates as a paid affiliate partner, published a review scoring Debitum 93/100 and naming it a top platform of the year — during the same window as the Karsten Aichholz investigation. This is a strong indicator of paid-bias affiliate reviewing rather than independent assessment. Investors evaluating Debitum based on aggregated affiliate scores should be aware that several high-rating sources operate on commission and may not reflect the substance of the documented concerns. In April 2026, a different affiliate partner — BeyondP2P — publicly ended its partnership with Debitum, citing “self-dealing, markup schemes, hidden pledges, false filings” as the reason.

  • Public disclosures and audit transparency do not align with the documented findings. As of mid-May 2026, the regulator-approved prospectus for LFDF does not identify the beneficial owner Janis Upenieks as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP), although he is the current Parliamentary Secretary at Latvia’s Ministry of Finance — a PEP-qualifying position under EU anti-money-laundering rules. The platform’s published 13-page response to the Karsten investigation did not explain the €24.6M inventory gap. Latvijas Banka has not issued public comment on the investigation as of mid-May 2026.

  • Headline 0% default rate relies on structural choices that warrant scrutiny. Debitum advertises a 0% default rate since launch. However, the platform’s Ukrainian loan portfolio (originated via Chain Finance) was transferred in August 2022 into a wholly-owned subsidiary (SIA DN Funding Alpha) rather than being recognised as a default — a structural choice that preserves the headline figure. In 2024, approximately 10.52% of the portfolio required buyback action. Investors should not treat the 0% figure as equivalent to a track record of zero credit losses.

How It Works

  1. Register. Create an account with your email address. Available to EU/EEA residents aged 18+.
  2. Verify your identity (KYC — Know Your Customer, the standard identity-verification process). Upload an ID document and proof of address. Verification is completed via Latvijas Banka-overseen onboarding.
  3. Deposit funds. Transfer EUR via SEPA bank transfer. The minimum investment per note is €10, but meaningful diversification requires a larger total deposit (see Who Debitum Is For).
  4. Choose investments. Browse the available note offerings — each lists the issuer (e.g., LFDF, Sandbox Funding, Triple Dragon), interest rate, term, and collateral type. Alternatively, configure AutoInvest with your criteria (interest rate range, loan term, geography, originator, asset class). Note that approximately 86% of currently available volume is concentrated in LFDF — see Things to Watch.
  5. Receive interest. Interest payments arrive in your Debitum account as the underlying notes service. Withdrawals are processed at the end of each note’s term, since there is no operational secondary market at the time of writing.

Who Debitum Is For

Given the documented findings, Debitum is not currently recommended for retail investors building a core P2P allocation, for newcomers to alternative investing, or for any investor relying on the headline regulatory framing without reading the substantive concerns in Things to Watch. The MiFID II licence and €20,000 investor compensation scheme provide formal protection against platform insolvency and fraud at the platform level, but they do not protect against credit losses on the underlying loans, nor against the specific concentration and conflict-of-interest patterns that have been documented.

Investors who already hold positions on Debitum may wish to monitor the Latvijas Banka response to the Karsten Aichholz investigation, the platform’s quarterly disclosures regarding LFDF, and any further investigative coverage before adding new capital. New investors are better served by platforms in our higher tiers — see the Compared to Alternatives section below for specific peer suggestions.

Compared to Alternatives

Debitum vs. Maclear. Maclear (CrowdIndex #1, score 9.2) holds a Swiss SRO membership through PolyReg, which covers anti-money-laundering compliance rather than investor compensation — formally a weaker regulatory framework than Debitum’s MiFID II licence on paper. However, Maclear’s loan book originates directly from independent borrower entities rather than concentrating in a single related-party network, and its single recorded default to date (Vibroedil, July 2025, €150,000) was personally absorbed by the CEO. Debitum has the stronger regulatory framing; Maclear has the cleaner structural setup and personal accountability. For investors choosing between the two, the documented concentration and conflict-of-interest concerns at Debitum currently outweigh its regulatory edge.

Debitum vs. Mintos. Mintos is the largest P2P platform in Europe by lifetime volume and operates under a full MiFID II Investment Firm licence — structurally one tier higher than Debitum’s Investment Brokerage Firm licence. Mintos has cumulative volume of approximately €12.4B (compared to Debitum’s €167.9M), spreads loans across dozens of independent loan originators, and has resolved historical originator failures (Finko, Eurocent) through public recovery processes rather than through internal subsidiary transfers. Mintos’s average yields (8–11%) are lower than Debitum’s headline 11.4%, but the headline number at Debitum reflects loans heavily concentrated in a single related-party network. For investors who want a MiFID II–regulated P2P exposure, Mintos is currently a materially safer choice on every dimension that has been challenged at Debitum (concentration, conflict of interest, transparency, governance).

Debitum vs. PeerBerry. PeerBerry is one of the closest functional peers for SME-style P2P exposure. PeerBerry also has a structural single-originator concentration (approximately 83% of its book originates from the Aventus Group), and like Debitum it lacks ECSP regulation, operating under different legal arrangements. However, PeerBerry’s track record on capital protection is materially cleaner: zero capital losses across multiple years, paid through war-affected periods, and the originator-relationship is openly disclosed in marketing materials rather than positioned as a “marketplace of independent issuers”. For investors specifically choosing between concentration-risk platforms, PeerBerry’s honesty about its single-originator structure is currently a better fit than Debitum’s contested independence claims.

Bottom line on competitors. Debitum sits in an unusual position among EU P2P platforms — high regulatory ranking on paper, low transparency and high concentration in substance. Among similarly priced yield platforms in our index, Maclear, Mintos, and PeerBerry each offer a cleaner risk profile on the specific dimensions that have been raised regarding Debitum.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Debitum regulated? Yes. Debitum’s operating entity SIA DN Operator holds a MiFID II Investment Brokerage Firm licence from Latvijas Banka (licence №06.06.08.728/537), and qualifying investors are covered up to €20,000 through Latvia’s national investor compensation scheme. This regulatory framework protects against platform-level insolvency and fraud, but it does not protect against credit losses on the underlying loans, nor does it address the specific concentration and conflict-of-interest concerns documented by independent investigative reporting in March 2026.

What is the Karsten Aichholz investigation? Karsten Aichholz is an independent investigative journalist who publishes financial analysis at karsten.me. In March 2026, he published a multi-part investigation into Debitum’s largest note issuer, the Latvian Forest Development Fund (LFDF). Working from 484 matched-pair land-registry transactions, the investigation documented an extracted insider margin of approximately 34¢ per €1 lent, a €24.6M inventory gap between LFDF’s declared holdings and land-registry values, and that 7 of 9 active issuers are connected through a single family network or owned by Debitum shareholders. Debitum published a 13-page response, which the investigation follow-up described as not addressing the central financial question.

Why does Debitum advertise 0% defaults? The 0% headline reflects the platform’s choice not to categorise certain loan-portfolio events as defaults. Specifically, the Ukrainian loan portfolio originated via Chain Finance was transferred into a wholly-owned subsidiary (SIA DN Funding Alpha) in August 2022 rather than being recognised as a default. Approximately 10.52% of the portfolio required buyback action in 2024. The 0% figure is technically accurate within the platform’s classification methodology, but it should not be read as equivalent to a track record of zero credit losses.

Should I trust the high scores some review sites give Debitum? Several P2P review sites operate on a paid-affiliate model — they earn commission when readers sign up to platforms through their links. Northern Finance, for example, scored Debitum 93/100 during the same period as the Karsten Aichholz investigation. This is a documented pattern of paid-bias affiliate scoring rather than independent assessment. Readers should weight independent investigative sources (such as karsten.me) and on-the-ground transparency above aggregated affiliate scores. CrowdIndex does also earn commissions on affiliate sign-ups (see disclosure below); our editorial assessment is published despite this and reflects the documented findings rather than the commission incentives.

Are my funds at Debitum still safe to access? As of mid-May 2026, Debitum continues to operate, withdrawals continue to process, and Latvijas Banka has not issued any public statement regarding the investigation. We cannot predict regulatory action. Investors with existing positions should monitor official Latvijas Banka communications, Debitum’s quarterly LFDF disclosures, and further investigative coverage. New deposits are not currently recommended.

Bottom Line

Debitum holds genuinely strong regulatory credentials on paper — a full MiFID II Investment Brokerage Firm licence and €20,000 investor compensation cover. However, independent investigative reporting in March 2026 documented serious concerns about concentration (87% of the portfolio routed to a single related-party network), structural conflicts of interest (the second-largest issuer is wholly owned by Debitum’s shareholders), an extracted insider margin (approximately 34¢ per €1 on the largest loan programme), and a €24.6M inventory gap that remains unexplained in the platform’s published response. Combined with five CEO changes in three years and an affiliate partnership ending publicly over alleged “self-dealing, markup schemes, hidden pledges, false filings”, the current evidence suggests significant risk. Our recommendation is cautious-to-avoid: do not initiate new positions until these issues have been addressed publicly by the platform and the regulator.

Affiliate disclosure. CrowdIndex earns a commission when readers sign up to platforms through links on this page. This does not affect our editorial assessment. Debitum’s ranking on CrowdIndex reflects the editorial criteria documented on our Methodology page and gives substantial weight to independent investigative reporting that contradicts paid-affiliate scoring. We last reviewed this article on May 18, 2026.