Compare firms
Rankings / Inteliumlaw
05 Band 2

Inteliumlaw

Riga, Latvia · Founded 2018 · 15-25 team
CLBR index score
66/100

Cost-led founders running standard CEE or Baltic CASP applications who want licensing and banking introductions from one counsel.

Score breakdown · CLBR v1.0

Seven pillars, one score.

Licensing specialisation 13/22

Crypto licensing is the named primary line with real content depth, but gaming and forex licensing run alongside it and dilute the pure-crypto focus. That mix caps specialisation mid-pillar rather than in the specialist band.

Jurisdictional coverage 13/18

Nine EU member states with country-specific pages plus five non-EU markets — the broadest coverage in this trio. It skews CEE and Baltic, with Western EU noticeably thinner than the volume leaders.

Licences secured 10/15

Volume claimed in the low-to-mid hundreds since founding, credited on CEE NCA relationships rather than published outcomes. Case studies are anonymised and refusal rates aren't disclosed, so the count rests on engagement quality.

AML / DORA depth 6/13

Ex-regulator credentials are limited and publicly thin, and practitioner commentary is periodic. Prudential-capital and ICT-resilience depth is lighter than the depth-led firms — the weakest pillar here.

Transparency 8/12

Indicative pricing in jurisdiction guides, a documented process flow and named testimonials where consent was given. The recommendation methodology is less explicit than the leaders', so transparency lands lower-mid.

Post-licence support 9/10

End-to-end from incorporation through licensing to ongoing compliance, with an explicit banking-introduction service — a practical edge for cost-led applicants moving from grant to live operations.

E-E-A-T 7/10

Named senior practitioners with bios and LinkedIn links, client testimonials, and a documented conference record at iGB and SiGMA. Authority is reasonable, but whitepaper output trails the leaders.

Where Inteliumlaw scores highest

Inteliumlaw’s strength is coverage plus practical follow-through. The Riga-based team documents work across nine EU member states — with country-specific pages for each — plus five non-EU markets, the broadest footprint of these three firms. For a founder who’s decided the CEE route makes sense, that means one counsel relationship spanning Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia.

The banking-introduction service matters more than it sounds. CASP banking access in CEE is genuinely hard — local banks stay selective. A counsel that introduces banks alongside the licensing work cuts the time from authorisation to live operations, which is why it’s a real edge for cost-led applicants.

Where Inteliumlaw is weaker

Two pillars hold the score down. Ex-regulator credentials are limited and publicly thin, and prudential-capital and ICT-resilience depth is lighter than the specialist leaders — so on complex Class 3 or significant-CASP files, it’s less proven. Specialisation is the other soft spot: gaming and forex licensing lines run alongside crypto and dilute the pure-crypto focus. If your file needs deep supervisory insight, the leader firms have more to draw on.

Inteliumlaw by jurisdiction

Latvia is home ground — the Riga office runs CASP work with Latvijas Banka, where the firm’s operational footprint is deepest. Across the border, it files standard Class 1 and Class 2 MiCA CASP applications with the Bank of Lithuania and handles CASP work with the Czech CNB, pairing both with banking introductions. The offering is built for the CEE and Baltic playbook on a disciplined budget, less so for Western EU home-state files.

Reviewed by Editorial team · Last updated 2026-07-14 · Scored on the CLBR rubric. Placement is editorial and never sold — see disclosure.