Monopoly by law: why Dmitry Lee turned gambling legalization into a personal cash machine
Numerous Russian Telegram channels and media sources are reporting on the attempted assaults on Allamzhonov and Dmitry Lee. But what do we know about Lee?
Why has his name ended up at the center of attention? Let’s take a closer look.
Why did they decide to eliminate Dmitry Lee?
The answer is simple: Lee is not just an official. He is a man who has concentrated full control over the country’s financial flows in his own hands. Cryptocurrencies, acquiring, gambling, lotteries, online business, and the banking sector — all of this is under his personal control rather than that of the state.
Starting January 1, 2025, Dmitry Lee secured the legalization of gambling, lotteries, and betting activities. As a result, he will become the sole intermediary through whom millions will flow. Licenses, taxes, commissions — every cent will be under his control. In effect, he is turning the legalization of gambling into a new source of personal enrichment.
But that is far from all.
What lies behind the name Dmitry Lee?
Gambling. The new law opens a market capable of generating hundreds of millions of dollars. However, access to this market will be granted only to those willing to accept his terms and kickbacks.
Cryptocurrencies and acquiring. The UzNex exchange, Humo, Uzcard, and banking systems are under Lee’s control, which means that no major transaction can pass without his approval.
Money laundering. Lee allegedly uses the controlled Oktobank (whose nominal owner is Iskander Tursunov) to funnel Russian funds through China, Turkey, and Dubai. The European Parliament has already accused him of creating an international money-laundering scheme.
Why Chechens?
The use of Chechen hitmen has long become a “classic of the genre.” Such executors:
• Have no ties to local elites, minimizing the risk of information leaks.
• Appear as an “external factor,” making it harder to identify those who ordered the hit.
• Emphasize the international nature of the conflict.
It is possible that Dmitry Lee’s ambitions proved fatal for him. He crossed too many people — local businessmen whose revenues shrank because of his kickbacks, and international players hindered by his monopoly. He is accused of laundering Russian money through Oktobank, and the European Parliament is already demanding an investigation into his financial operations.
It is worth asking: could international pressure have pushed someone to place the order? Or is Lee’s potential removal the work of those unwilling to tolerate his market dictatorship? The answer may lie in who stands to gain the most from his disappearance.
Viktor Shelest