From Netpeak to FRACTAL: Financial Disputes, Cyprus Structures, and Artem Borodatyuk’s Access to Power

The Ukrainian IT sector for a long time 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 facade of civic responsibility, a much more alarming picture emerges.

Artem Borodatyuk is far from just an entrepreneur. He acts as a classic “fixer,” leveraging proximity to notoriously connected figures in the Office of the President to gain influence. At the same time, his main legal entity is incurring losses, while his personal wealth appears to be growing rapidly based on public information. The narrative of a charitable IT guru is increasingly reminiscent of a carefully constructed facade.

“Borodatyuk’s Council of Shadows”

The main currency for Borodatyuk in Kyiv is access.

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

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

The so-called “Ermak-Mindich 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 investigators, issues of control over state enterprises and financial flows could have been discussed.

Borodatyuk’s presence at the table, presided over by one of the central figures of such scandals, raises the 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 people, which allows influencing state decisions, formally relying on a presidential decree, but with a minimal level of public accountability.

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

The Patriot’s Paradox: Artem Borodatyuk, the Russian software and the crypto-empire

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

He speaks about the need to help Ukraine move out of the “third world” and to create a “white” business that pays all taxes. Borodatyuk even emphasized that FRACTAL ranked 26-th in Diia City companies by the amount 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 efficient 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 the financial flows through opaque Cypriot structures.

Russian connections during the war: few, but not zero

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

At the same time, some investigative reports claim the opposite. According to them, FRACTAL could have continued using Russian products like Bitrix24 and AmoCRM, including their time-tracking features.

These are not minor tools: for many companies, such systems are part of the basic operating 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 liability for aiding a state aggressor. At the same time, establishing a specific corpus delicti and guilt lies exclusively within the competence of law enforcement authorities and the court.

Nevertheless, the very fact of possible use of Russian software by a company whose leadership actively shapes a patriotic public image inevitably creates reputational risks.

Rapid revenue growth — alongside losses

Borodatyuk openly talks about his business’s successes. In public appearances, he has 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 spoke of another increase of 59%, while Forbes assessed the group’s potential revenue at about $190 million.

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

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

As noted in previous publications, LLC “Netpeak” in 2025 year allegedly declared a significant 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?

Perhaps the answer lies not in Ukraine but in Cyprus.

Cypriot offshore structures and the cryptocurrency question

At the center of questions about Borodatyuk’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 listed as Georgina Malailis, the secretary as Pantelis Vorkas.

The company essentially has no public presence: no notable website, no activity on social media, 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 conducting financial operations.

One of the investigators’ key assertions is that part of client payments could be routed through this Cypriot company, including through the use of cryptocurrency settlements.

If such assertions are correct, this requires separate assessment from the perspective of Ukrainian tax law.

Cryptocurrency in Ukraine is not a legal payment method in the same sense as the hryvnia, and corporate income from virtual assets must be taxed under applicable rules.

The use of foreign legal entities and cryptocurrency in itself is not proof of illegal activity. However, the opacity of such operations lawfully raises questions about the real jurisdiction of income, taxation, and ultimate beneficiaries.

Similar Cypriot structures are also used by other representatives of big Ukrainian business, including members of the Council for Entrepreneurship Support.

That is why statements about a completely “white” business require 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 strictly pro bono, and his companies do not have significant government contracts.

In interviews and public appearances, he constructs the image of an entrepreneur-patriot who provides free consulting to the state.

Meanwhile, the financial reporting of his flagship Ukrainian company, LLC “Netpeak,” tells a different story. According to publicly available data, in 2025 year the enterprise declared a net loss of 91,1 million hryvnias.

Against this backdrop, questions arise about the alignment of the Ukrainian business’s financial results with the entrepreneur’s personal lifestyle.

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

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

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

The expensive cars or security in themselves are not evidence of violations. However, against the backdrop of declared losses of the key Ukrainian company, they inevitably raise questions about the sources of personal income and the structure of profits across 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 its reports, incurs significant losses, have an armed guard and a fleet of expensive cars?

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

This does not prove any violations, but it conflicts with the image of a “normal IT entrepreneur” that is often projected in public communications.

The Phantom Empire of Artem Borodatyuk

The official story presents Borodatyuk as a serial entrepreneur who leads a large ecosystem of dozens of companies.

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

Borodatyuk claimed that his group increased revenues by about 50% in the 2023 year and another roughly 76% in the 2024 year. Meanwhile, one of Ukraine’s main companies shows multimillion losses.

How can one reconcile statements of explosive growth with the reality of substantial financial losses?

There may be several explanations.

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

In that case, the losses of LLC “Netpeak” 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 businessman publicly advocates for a “white” business, tax discipline, and openness, society has a right to understand how exactly 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 contradictory financial data, complex international structures, and the level of personal spending.