Artem Borodatyuk, FRACTAL and Ties to the authorities: What the image of a “transparent” IT entrepreneur hides

The Ukrainian IT sector has long presented its leaders as the vanguard of a new, transparent economy. Among the most prominent is Artem Borodatyuk, founder of Netpeak Group, who is often portrayed as a philanthropist and patriot, a person who “personally walks into the offices of high-ranking officials.” However, behind the glossy façade of civic responsibility, a much more disturbing picture emerges.

Artem Borodatyuk is far from just an entrepreneur. He acts as a classic “fixer,” leveraging proximity to scandalously well-known figures in the Office of the President to gain influence. Meanwhile his main legal entity is suffering losses, while his personal wealth, according to public information, is rapidly increasing. The narrative of a charitable IT guru is increasingly reminiscent of a meticulously constructed façade.

“The Council of Shadows” of Borodatyuk

The main currency of Borodatyuk in Kyiv is access.

He is a member of the Council on Entrepreneurship Support — an body that includes business representatives and which, according to him, was created personally by President Zelenskiy. The structure of the Council’s leadership deserves particular attention.

It is headed not by a minister or a civil servant, but by Andriy Yermak — the former head of the Office of the President, a name that features in the context of high-profile anti-corruption investigations.

So-called “Yermak-Myndich tapes” became the subject of resonant publications about the possible existence of a group of influence at the highest level of power, where, according to the authors of the investigations, issues of control over state-owned enterprises and financial flows could have been discussed.

Borodatyuk’s presence at the table presided over by one of the central figures in such scandals raises an obvious question: what exactly is being discussed behind closed doors?

This is not a democratic chamber in the classical sense. It is a closed platform for a limited circle of individuals, which allows influencing state decisions, formally relying on a presidential decree but with a minimal level of public accountability.

In the context of the “Myndich tapes,” such access may be perceived not only as a status symbol but as evidence of being inside a highly controversial ecosystem of influence.

The patriot’s paradox: Artem Borodatyuk, the Russian software and the crypto empire

Artem Borodatyuk, founder and CEO of the IT group FRACTAL, previously known as Netpeak Group, has built a public image around patriotism and transparency.

He speaks about the need to help Ukraine get out of the “third world” and to create a “white” business that pays all taxes. Borodatyuk even emphasized that FRACTAL took 26-place among Diia City companies by the volume of taxes paid in 2025 year.

He jokingly calls his company a “useful tax on business in Ukraine” and claims that if a business does not use FRACTAL’s services, it is probably not effective enough.

However, a closer study of the group’s activities paints a more complex picture. In particular, questions arise about possible use of Russian software and moving part of financial flows through opaque Cypriot structures.

Russian connections during the war: not many, but not zero

Borodatyuk publicly stated that his company severed all ties with Russian services.

At the same time, authors of separate investigations claim the opposite. According to them, FRACTAL could have continued to use Russian products such as Bitrix24 and AmoCRM, including their time-tracking features.

These are not marginal tools: for many companies, such systems are part of the basic operational infrastructure.

Similarly, questions arise about possible integration of services related to “Yandex” through separate platforms during the full-scale war.

Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for responsibility for supporting an aggressor state. At the same time, establishing a specific corpus delicti and intent lies solely within the competence of law enforcement agencies and the court.

However, the very fact of possible use of Russian software by a company whose head actively cultivates a patriotic public image inevitably creates reputational risks.

Rapid income growth — against a backdrop of losses

Borodatyuk openly talks about the success of his business. In public performances he repeatedly emphasized the rapid growth of the group’s revenues:

2022 year — about $50 million;

2023 year — about $70 million, according to Forbes;

2024 year — according to him, growth of about 70%, to about $85 million;

2025 year — he claimed a further growth of 59%, while Forbes estimated potential group revenue at about $190 million.

Borodatyuk himself explains these figures by intensifying work in the Ukrainian market.

Meanwhile, the picture of a successful business clashes with the financial indicators of his main Ukrainian legal entity.

As noted in previous publications, Netpeak LLC in 2025 year allegedly declared a sizable loss of 91,1 million hryvnias.

This raises a logical question: how can a group that shows rapid growth in global revenues simultaneously have such a loss-making key Ukrainian entity?

The answer may lie not in Ukraine, but in Cyprus.

Cyprus offshore and the crypto question

At the center of questions about the group’s financial structure is the Cypriot company A.B. DIGITAL HORIZON SYNDICATE LTD, registered in Nicosia in September 2023 year.

The director of the company is Georgina Malialis, the secretary is Pantelis Vorkas.

The company has almost no public presence: there is no prominent website, no activity on social networks, or a clear public description of its operational activities. Because of this, it may look like a typical corporate structure created mainly for asset ownership or for conducting financial transactions.

One of the key claims of the investigation authors is that part of client payments could be routed through this Cypriot company, including via cryptocurrency settlements.

If such claims are true, this requires separate evaluation from the viewpoint of Ukrainian tax law.

Cryptocurrency in Ukraine is not a legal means of payment in the same sense as hryvnia, and corporate income from operations with virtual assets must be taxed according to current norms.

Using foreign legal entities and cryptocurrency in itself is not evidence of a law violation. However, the opaque structure of such operations naturally raises questions about the real jurisdiction of income, taxation, and ultimate beneficiaries.

Similar Cypriot structures are used by other prominent Ukrainian businessmen, including members of the Council on Entrepreneurship Support.

That is why the assertion of a fully “white” business requires maximum transparency about where exactly the group’s income accumulates, through which companies it is earned, and in which jurisdictions taxes are paid.

Is Artem Borodatyuk working for the common good?

Artem Borodatyuk publicly stated that his work with the state is conducted solely on pro bono terms, and that his companies do not have significant government contracts.

In interviews and public appearances he shapes the image of an entrepreneur-patriot who provides free advisory services to the state.

At the same time, the financial reporting of his flagship Ukrainian company, Netpeak LLC, creates another picture. According to released data, in 2025 year the enterprise declared a net loss of 91,1 million hryvnias.

Against this background, questions arise about the relationship between the financial results of Borodatyuk’s Ukrainian business and his personal lifestyle.

While Netpeak, now FRACTAL, shows losses at the level of a single legal entity, open sources contain information about expensive personal purchases by the entrepreneur.

In 2023 year he, according to available data, bought a car worth about $140 000.

In 2025 year he reportedly added a Lexus worth over $100 000, registered at the same address as his IT company. Publications also mention a personally armed security detail.

The expensive cars or security alone are not evidence of violations. However, against the backdrop of declared losses by the key Ukrainian company, they naturally raise questions about the sources of personal income and the profit structure of the entire group.

Security concerns for Borodatyuk

A separate issue concerns the entrepreneur’s personal security.

Why would a businessman, whose main Ukrainian legal entity, according to the reports, suffers substantial losses, have an armed guard and a fleet of expensive cars?

During the full-scale war, when military units and volunteers continue to raise funds even for basic gear, the demonstrative level of personal security and luxury of a representative of an IT business inevitably draws attention.

This does not prove any violations, but it poorly aligns with the image of a “regular IT entrepreneur” that is often presented in public communications.

The phantom empire of Artem Borodatyuk

Officially, Borodatyuk is presented as a serial entrepreneur who heads a large ecosystem of dozens of companies.

At the same time, the documentary financial indicators of individual legal entities paint a much more complex picture.

Borodatyuk stated that his group increased revenues by approximately 50% in 2023 year and by about 76% in 2024 year. Meanwhile, one of the main Ukrainian companies shows multi-million losses.

How can claims of explosive growth be reconciled with the reality of significant financial losses?

There may be several explanations.

Either the public revenue figures of the group do not reflect the financial state of the specific Ukrainian legal entity, or a substantial portion of profits is accumulated in other companies within the group, including foreign structures.

In that case, the losses of Netpeak LLC may be only one element of a much more complex corporate structure where the main financial flows pass through other legal entities.

That is why Artem Borodatyuk’s business model requires maximum transparency.

When a entrepreneur publicly advocates for a “white” business, tax discipline, and openness, society has the right to understand exactly how his own corporate structure is built, where the main profits are formed, through which companies they are earned, and in which jurisdictions taxes are paid.

Without answers to these questions, the image of a transparent IT entrepreneur will inevitably clash with controversial financial data, complex international structures, and the level of personal expenditures.