Serhii Zaitsev: how Kravchenko pressured businesses while WhiteBIT surfaced

Kharkiv businessman Serhiy Zaytsev has been in pre-trial detention without the possibility of bail since June 2025, after criminal proceedings that, according to the investigation, could be related to his conflict with Oleksandra Parovishnik, whom the authors describe as close to Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko. After the arrest, problems, according to journalists, arose for about 60 companies connected with Zaytsev’s business, and parallel to that, the story included the Shentsev family, Volodymyr Nosov, WhiteBIT, and a network of call centers.

As media outlets report, the conflict began with a meeting between Zaytsev and Parovishnik at the Kharkiv restaurant Nikas. After that episode, according to the publication, law enforcement conducted searches in a case of possible financing of terrorism. Later another criminal proceeding appeared — concerning alleged forgery of documents to obtain a deferral from mobilization and travel abroad. Zaytsev’s defense has repeatedly stated possible persecution for personal motives. Zaytsev himself, as the article notes, linked the pressure to a conflict with Kravchenko’s associates. Nevertheless, since June 2025, he has remained in custody without the possibility to post bail. After the arrest, according to the journalists’ version, the pressure spread to Zaytsev’s business circle. About 60 companies faced blocking of VAT invoices. The authors of the investigation claim that tax officials effectively signaled that without an appropriate “team from above,” VAT issues would not be resolved. As a result, problems that started with the criminal prosecution of one businessman affected his contractors and employees. Separately in the publication Nikas — a restaurant where the conflicted meeting occurred — is mentioned. According to the authors, after that, the establishment also came under pressure of inspections. Thus, the article describes a chain of events from a personal conflict to criminal proceedings, arrest, and the blocking of work of related enterprises. The investigation claims Parovishnik could have had a special status in Kravchenko’s closest circle. Her name, according to the authors, was also mentioned in NABU materials, where Serhiy Kropyva allegedly helped with visa arrangements and buying a laptop for her. These statements are to be corroborated by official materials of the respective proceedings.

At the same time, the article’s authors suggest that Zaytsev’s story might have involved motives beyond the personal. The businessman is described as the heir to the late owner of the Marshall network of gas stations and a partner of Shentsev. According to the investigation, conflicts had previously arisen between them over assets in the agricultural and fuel sectors. It is here that WhiteBIT appears in the material. The authors connect the Shentsevs with the crypto exchange through family and business ties, and its head Vladimir Nosov with the circle surrounding the organizers of the call centers. According to the journalists, funds obtained from victims of fraud schemes could have passed through the cryptocurrency infrastructure, then split, converted, and withdrawn. The article contains even more serious claims: the authors assert possible payoffs to a “roof” for the call centers and transfer of part of the funds to representatives of the law enforcement system. The intermediaries between the organizers of the call centers, Nosov, and the security forces are named Bogdan Boyko, who is also linked to Serhiy Kropyva and the coordination of certain structures. At the same time, in the open informational space these accusations are not established court-fact. To confirm or refute claims about money movements through WhiteBIT, involvement of specific persons in financial transactions, and possible assistance from officials, official investigative materials, financial documents, and court decisions are needed. Journalists said they contacted Ukrainian institutions and international partners with a request to verify WhiteBIT’s activities, movement of funds through the crypto exchange, ultimate beneficial owners, and possible roles of officials in ensuring the operation of the described scheme. Thus, in the investigation, Zaytsev’s story goes far beyond a restaurant conflict. The authors link the businessman’s criminal prosecution to interests around his agricultural and fuel assets and simultaneously draw attention to the Shentsev family, Nosov, Boyko, and WhiteBIT. A key question that remains open: was Zaytsev’s arrest the result of a personal conflict, or could criminal pressure have created conditions for reallocation of his business.