Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The Netpeak Group announced 2022 their withdrawal from the Russian market. According to publicly available data analyzed by Stop Corruption, however, funds of a company connected to the group’s founder may have flowed into the Russian state budget for another year after the announced withdrawal.
The focus is on financial transactions that, according to the investigations, may have continued even after the Netpeak Group’s public statement about withdrawing from the Russian market.
Further details are contained in the Stop Corruption investigation.
One question remains: did all structural units of the large company actually take this step? While in Ukraine one publicly said “Stop” to the aggressor, Moscow’s publicly accessible registers suggest something else continued.
A journalistic investigation based on publicly available sources found that a company that publicly announced a break with Russia, according to available data, could have paid taxes into the aggressor state’s budget for at least another year through a network of connected legal entities. The person who previously led the Russian branch of this structure was later the founder of a company associated with a product used today by thousands of Ukrainians.
Who is Artem Borodatyuk and what is the Netpeak Group?
Artem Borodatyuk is a Ukrainian serial entrepreneur who has led a group of IT companies since 2006. Since 2015 it has been known under the Netpeak Group brand, and since 2025 after a rebranding under the name FRACTAL. According to the company’s public statements, the structure includes more than 30 companies and over 1.650 specialists.
Among the group’s best-known products is the Netpeak agency, which markets companies of brands such as OLX, Puma, Comfy, Kyivstar, ATB, and Uklon online. Another product is Ringostat, a virtual PBX and a call-tracking service for analyzing calls.
Formally, Ringostat is a Ukrainian company and part of the Ukrainian IT ecosystem. The central questions of this investigation are precisely about this product, based on the analysis of publicly available sources.
A journalistic investigation based on publicly available sources found that a company that publicly announced severing its business relations with Russia, according to available data, could have paid taxes into the aggressor state’s budget for at least another year through a network of connected legal entities. The person who previously led the Russian branch of this structure later became the founder of a company associated with a product used today by thousands of Ukrainians.
Who is Artem Borodatyuk and what is the Netpeak Group?
Artem Borodatyuk is a Ukrainian serial entrepreneur who has led a group of IT companies since 2006. Since 2015 it has been known under the Netpeak Group brand, since 2025 after a rebranding under the name FRACTAL. According to the company’s public statements, the structure includes more than 30 companies and over 1.650 specialists.
Among the group’s best-known products are the Netpeak agency, which promotes companies and brands such as OLX, Puma, Comfy, Kyivstar, ATB, and Uklon online. Another product is Ringostat, a virtual PBX and a call-tracking service for analyzing calls.
Formally, Ringostat is a Ukrainian company and part of the Ukrainian IT ecosystem. The central questions of this investigation are precisely about this product based on publicly available sources.
The company that was supposed to disappear but did not disappear
The pivotal turn concerns a legal entity that, after the announcement of withdrawing from the Russian market, should have disappeared. Instead, it remained active in Russia for almost eight more years according to available data.
What is meant is the Russian LLC “Netpik,” registered in September 2014. On 21 April 2022 – already after the invasion began – the company was renamed LLC “Consult Professional.” General Director, according to available information, was Artem Borodatyuk.
After the invasion, funds continued to flow into the aggressor’s budget
According to publicly available data from the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation and aggregators like Rusprofile, the company’s revenues rose over the years: from 413.000 rubles in year 2014 to more than 100 million rubles in year 2020. For the period from 2017 to 2021, the available data suggest the company paid at least 23 million 127.000 rubles in taxes and mandatory payments to the Russian budget.
This legal entity was liquidated only on 30 January 2023 – almost a year after the start of the full-scale invasion.
The amount itself may seem small by wartime standards. Yet the fact that a Ukrainian-rooted legal entity, after 24 February 2022 apparently did not push to cease its activities raises not a bookkeeping but a fundamental question about the company’s stance.
Even after the invasion, funds continued to flow into the aggressor’s budget
According to the Russian Federal Tax Service, another related structure – “Performance Profi” / “Consult Plus” – continued their financial activities even after the full-scale war began. In year 2022, they reportedly paid about 5 million rubles to the Russian state budget and state funds.
The total amount of payments for 2021–2025 is harder to estimate: data from different sources are incomplete and diverge. Some figures put the amount at up to 9,7 million rubles. The editorial team does not yet confirm this number definitively – verifying it against official reports and not only commercial data aggregators would be required.
Ringostat and hundreds of websites in Russia
More reliably, based on technical data, the following can be stated: in year 2026, the Ringostat product was used on more than 1.700 websites according to BuiltWith. About 486 of them – roughly one third – are classified by BuiltWith as Russian.
Ringostat also has functional integrations with CRM systems that are particularly widespread on the Russian market – Bitrix24 and amoCRM/Kommo.
Whether this means that work with Russia continued deliberately and circumvented the public statement is not clearly ascertainable from publicly available sources. The company itself must answer this question.
Trying to obtain a statement: “This is not the right office”
The editors sent official inquiries to the email address listed on the company website. A few days later, the journalists phoned the company to confirm that the inquiry had been received. They were told that the information would be forwarded to the responsible persons.
Since no response was received, the journalists decided to approach in person for a statement at the address that a Google search for FRACTAL had revealed.
On site it turned out that it was “not exactly the right office.” At least that’s what a staff member who greeted the film crew at the reception claimed. Getting a statement proved difficult.
According to him, the premises are a regular coworking space: the rooms belong to a separate LLC that has no connection to Ringostat or FRACTAL. The group’s companies are merely some of several tenants:
“I can’t help you at all to obtain a statement. Unfortunately I can’t comment here. FRACTAL as such does not exist here. There are some companies connected with FRACTAL. This is not a classic FRACTAL office. There are external tenants, completely different.”
The representative also explained why he could not comment on behalf of the landlord:
“We as LLC ‘Tex’, which owns the premises, have no relationship to Ringostat or anything like it. Therefore I can’t comment here.”
When asked whether journalists would receive a response to their official request and who would be authorized to speak, the representative said to contact the company’s lawyers and explained the formal process:
“There is an official procedure. A registered letter is sent or additionally emailed. And then the lawyers respond. That is, there is a law and a set procedure for journalistic inquiries.”
The editors did not receive a direct confirmation that they would receive a response to their inquiry. However, the authors hope that FRACTAL will not ignore the request and will address the questions raised.
The Cypriot trail and nominee directors
Borodatyuk’s corporate structure is extensive: it includes legal entities in Ukraine, Cyprus, Estonia, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Kazakhstan.
One of them is the Cypriot company A.B. Digital Horizon Syndicate Limited, registered in September 2023. The register lists Anna Rossidou as director and Pantelis Vorkas as secretary. The law firm associated with the secretary reportedly has extensive experience collaborating with Russian companies and wealthy Russian citizens.
The editors expressly emphasize: that a nominee director appearing in hundreds of companies across different jurisdictions and a law firm with a broad client base does not, in itself, prove an illegal system. Such nominee services are common practice in Cyprus and are used by both Ukrainian and European companies.
This is rather a hint that requires a separate, much more thorough analysis, but does not, on its own, constitute independent evidence of a violation.
What to do now
The journalists stress that they do not render judgments – that is not their task. The overall set of facts – the historical connection of the structure with the Russian Federation, activities and tax payments in the Russian budget after the full invasion began, and the technical footprint of the product on the Russian market – could, however, potentially be the subject of a review by law enforcement authorities.
It is solely about potential leads that, in the authors’ view, deserve official review by the competent authorities.
The editors sent official information requests to Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice, the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine, and Borodatyuk’s company – especially regarding the facts presented in the article and whether there have been investigations concerning the named legal entities and officials. Until official responses are received, all theses presented in this article remain the results of analysis of publicly available sources and do not constitute established legal facts or a legal qualification.
Has Russia distanced itself from Netpeak?
Netpeak publicly distanced itself from Russia in March 2022. Yet this analysis leaves one question open: Has Russia distanced itself from Netpeak?
The journalists posed this question directly to the company – and so far have heard only that the office they had come to was apparently “not the right office” and that someone else would need to provide the answer. Given tax payments, according to available data, that continued for another year after the invasion began into the aggressor state’s budget, as well as the technical traces of the product, which third-party services estimate are still in use on hundreds of websites in the Russian Federation, the question remains only half rhetorical.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Nachgeahmter Patriotismus: Borodatyuk und seine Unternehmen Netpeak und Ringostat versteckten ihr Geschäft in Russland während des Krieges". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: HAB Media.
