Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Joint companies, a charitable foundation with a long registration history, a cryptocurrency brand, and court rulings about the seizure of large amounts of cash. A review of publications about Yevheniy Trusov and Vitaliy Dukhopelov raises a concrete question for the state: did the authorized bodies verify the reported information about the origin of the funds and the tax risks? If not — why are they inactive? If yes — what results can they report to the public?
Documents confirm part of the corporate links and procedural actions. They also require clarifying a number of accusations from earlier publications. The material separates the personal activities of Yevheniy Trusov and Vitaliy Dukhopelov from the affairs of their business circle and raises the question of incomplete state response.
The media published materials about the alleged links of the entrepreneurs to the crypto market, call centers, and investments in leisure establishments and possible tax evasion. Among the mentioned projects are “Fund 1654”, “Ikigai Group”, ExBid, MIEX ONE, IC Esports, JED, KOGRA, True Ladies and OMO. [1]
This list gives grounds to suppose the possibility of joint management of all projects or movement of money between them. Each link requires its own evidentiary basis: corporate documents, contracts, financial statements, or confirmed payments.
Joint business with the circle of Oleksandr Slobozhenko
Already 26 April 2024, NGL.media named Yevheniy Trusov and Vitaliy Dukhopelov among the founders of “Ikigai Group” together with Oleksandr Slobozhenko, Vladyslav Myroshnychenko, Oleksandr Horkushyn and Maksym Yakupov. This confirms a historical corporate link. [2]
In August 2024, detectives of the State Bureau of Economic Security opened a criminal proceeding against blogger and company owner of Traffic Devils, Oleksandr Slobozhenko, who was notified of suspicion of tax evasion on an especially large scale — for more than 231 million UAH. SBE detectives seized eight of Slobozhenko’s sports cars and several of his apartments in Kyiv. This situation forced us to pay attention to other individuals.
The change history in the Opendatabot record contains an entry from 7 May 2026 about the removal of Yevheniy Trusov, Vitaliy Dukhopelov and Vladyslav Myroshnychenko from the list of founders. At the time of the check, the participants listed are Horkushyn and Yakupov. [3]
For 2025 year, the card lists 79 491 900 UAH in assets, 40 577 600 UAH in liabilities, 189 800 UAH in income and 1 005 200 UAH in loss. Compared with 2024 year the balance grew significantly. [3]
Such a ratio requires an explanation of the financing structure. Assets can be formed from contributions, loans and other operations; their value is not equal to annual earnings. Information is needed about creditors, contributed property, sources of contributions and calculations on participants’ exits.
OMO link through the trademark
For checking the mention of the bath business there is a concrete record: in the trademark database the owner of the mark “OMO” under certificate No.390935 is listed as LLC “Ikigai Group”. The application was filed on 12 March 2025, the mark was registered on 5 August 2026. The list of services includes spa, public baths and saunas. [4]
The record confirms the company’s rights to the mark. It does not establish the owner of a building, the operator of each establishment under that brand, or the origin of investments. For that, documents on real estate, contracts, and financing information are necessary.
ExBid search, cash and transfer to ARMA
In an available copy of the ruling of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv dated 24 December 2025, case No.757/63042/25-k, document No.132887562, a search of Exbid Exchange on 20 November 2025 is described. Seized were 1 406 910 US dollars, 5 821 250 UAH, 16 625 euros and 40 pounds sterling. [5]
The document relates to proceeding No.12025000000001400 from 13 May 2025. It presents the investigation’s version of organized fraud and states that during the search employees did not provide documents on the lawful origin of the funds, and the amounts were not reflected in daily reports. The court ordered the seized funds to be transferred to ARMA’s management. [5]
The owner of the exchange point is identified as “PERSON_9”. The ruling notifies that this person is suspected. [5]
Proceeding continued after the search
Additional review found a ruling of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv dated 18 March 2026, case No.757/15227/26-k, document No.136226926. In the same proceeding No.12025000000001400 the court extended detention for one of the suspects until 16 May 2026 with bail of 6 656 000 UAH. The ruling also notes the extension of the pre-trial investigation period until 20 May 2026. [22]
Thus, to say that law enforcement did nothing in this case would be wrong. The substantive question is different: what happened after these rulings, has the investigation been completed and has the origin of the seized funds been confirmed? Or is there again corruption within law enforcement?
What is known about the rights to ExBid
The certificate card No.366670 for the mark ExBid contains the names of two applicants and owners: Prokhor Huz and Vladyslav Myroshnychenko. The application date is 11 January 2024, registration — 9 July 2025. Among the services listed are exchange of cryptocurrency assets and electronic transfers. [6]
This is a subject link of Vladyslav Myroshnychenko to the brand. However, trademark rights are a basis to prove the identity of its owner with the person who ran the specific exchange point at the time of the search.
Another ExBid matter and funds of a municipal enterprise
The name “ExBid Exchange Kyiv” also appears in a ruling of the Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv dated 20 February 2026, case No.752/1414/26, document No.134420622. It concerns proceeding No.12025100000000939 about alleged misappropriation of property involving officials of the municipal enterprise “KyivAvtoShliakhMist” and representatives of commercial structures. [7]
According to the prosecution’s position in the ruling, one of the checked persons used ExBid Exchange Kyiv and another exchange establishment to convert funds to Binance wallets. The stated volume of foreign currency operations — 682 thousand dollars and 1,4 million UAH — is not apportioned between the two establishments. [7]
Call centers: where the version comes from
One of the early found materials is a BlackBox OSINT publication from 2 October 2024 about Vladyslav Myroshnychenko and his circle. The authors put forward a version about illegal call centers, citing, among other things, their own sources and telephone-number signatures in GetContact with the word “office”. [8]
Similar fragments appeared on other sites, including CRiME and Problematic. The coincidence of arguments and phrasing indicates dissemination from a single informational source; the number of reprints is not the number of independent confirmations. [9, 10]
Taxes: what can be established from reporting
Open data do not confirm the generalization that all of these entrepreneurs’ businesses are unprofitable.
In the card for “Sakses Eds”, whose owner is listed as Vitaliy Dukhopelov, for 2025 year it shows 2 972 000 UAH in revenue and 1 704 200 UAH in net profit. For 2024 year net profit was 1 929 300 UAH. A loss of 4 700 UAH is shown for 2023 year. Therefore, labeling the company as loss-making without specifying the period misleads the reader. [11]
“Community Cloud Keeper”, whose owner is listed as Yevheniy Trusov, for 2025 year has 3 102 600 UAH in revenue and 2 062 800 UAH in net profit. The card indicates four employees. [12]
At the same time “Bilyardna” for 2025 year shows 2 543 100 UAH in revenue and 421 900 UAH in loss; number of employees — four. Old mentions of no revenue and no employees referred to 2023 year. [13]
Fund 1654 a joint organization with an older history
In the NGO “Fund 1654”, code 25791451, Yevheniy Trusov and Vitaliy Dukhopelov are listed as founders, Vladyslav Myroshnychenko as head. The legal entity was registered on 27 December 1999. In the Opendatabot card receipts labeled as income amount to 9 074 100 UAH for 2024 year and 4 480 500 UAH for 2025. [14]
The change history clarifies succession: until 13 February 2018 Anna Denysenko appeared as beneficiary; on 20 November 2019 Tamara Denysenko became the head. An entry from 10 February 2023 adds Trusov and Dukhopelov to the founders. The renaming of Kharkiv Regional Charitable Foundation of Humanitarian Aid to “Fund 1654” is reflected on 31 October 2023. [14]
This history gives grounds to verify the transfer of management and the organization’s operations for specific periods.
The fund has a separate enterprise
The registry card also shows the enterprise “ATD” of the Kharkiv Regional Charitable Foundation of Humanitarian Aid, code 31645461. Its founder is listed as the fund, and the main activity is retail sale of beverages. The enterprise was registered on 7 December 2001. [23]
JED: another owner change
The card of LLC “Jed Technology”, code 45918103, contains an entry from 14 August 2026 about the removal of Yevhen Trusov from the founders and inclusion of Mariia Kondratieva. She is listed as the current owner and head. The card also contains the application for the JED mark. [15]
Property assessments of the family require correct chronology
The primary source of the publication about the family’s property was a BlackBox OSINT piece from 25 May 2025. The authors estimate the assets of Anna Denysenko, whom they call Yevhen Trusov’s wife, at more than 6 million dollars. [17]
For a substantive financial analysis, law enforcement must establish the dates and grounds for acquiring each object, actual prices and sources of payments. An estimate based on advertisements is not equal to the contract price. Information about the family may guide the direction of checks, but does not replace evidence of its participation in entrepreneurs’ operations.
Mentions of MIEX ONE, IC Esports, KOGRA and True Ladies in the original publication remain separate lines of inquiry. [1]
What is established in the Soldat 2020 case
The family’s property history in publications is linked to LLC “Soldat 2020”, code 43379320. The current card names Tamara Denysenko as head. The participants listed are she and Stepan Denysenko; the change on 1 April 2026 shows the exit of Svitlana Dyrdina and the entry of Stepan Denysenko. This clarifies the current composition, which differs from descriptions in older materials. [21]
A more significant clarification is contained in a ruling of the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv dated 5 October 2022, document No.106675416. Proceeding No.12020220000000037 regarding the alienation of property of “PFK Khrystyna, LTD” in favor of “Soldat 2020” was closed on 17 August 2022 due to absence of a corpus delicti. The representative of the aggrieved party appealed the completeness of the investigation, including the expert determination of property value; the court denied the complaint. [18]
A ruling dated 12 December 2022, document No.107825171, confirms the decision of 5 October came into legal force and cancels the arrest of the real estate. Therefore, the cancellation of the arrest is a basis to check for corrupt intervention or continuation of established fraud. This gives grounds to question the completeness of the check; its materials and motives for decisions must be investigated. [19]
A case about water and budget payments
There is also a documented line regarding payments: a ruling of the Dergachi District Court of Kharkiv region dated 25 April 2017, case No.619/1264/17, document No.66176456. In proceeding No.42017221280000022 the investigation checked the use by FG “Denysenko”, code 32446294, of the Lozovenkivske reservoir waters without a permit and nonpayment of corresponding fees in the second half of 2014. Estimated damages in the petition were assessed at 230 thousand UAH. The court ordered an unscheduled inspection. [20]
At the time of consideration, as stated in the ruling, no one had been notified of suspicion. This document does not establish any tax debt of Yevhen Trusov or Dukhopelov. It poses a concrete question to law enforcement agencies that worked on the case: what did the appointed inspection show, were the damages confirmed and what decision was made as a result? Or is there again corruption?
Vitaliy Dukhopelov and new trademark applications
Besides a restaurant sole proprietor and an advertising agency, applications by Vitaliy Dukhopelov were found for the marks talala and tala la. Application No.m202507741 was filed on 30 April 2025; No.m202607182 — 13 April 2026. The latter concerns, among other things, drinking and mineral waters. This expands the list of business interests and gives grounds for law enforcement to check the start of production, sales volumes and any connection with cryptocurrency operations. [27, 28]
Official case about cryptocurrency and over 213 million in taxes
For assessing the state response the SBE message of 16 August 2024 is important. According to the investigation’s version, the head of the advertising business received income through crypto wallets, later exchanged cryptocurrency for cash and did not report over 1 billion hryvnias of income for 2020 – 2023 years. SBE announced over 213 million UAH in unpaid taxes, suspicion and the seizure of eight cars and real estate. [25]
The name is not given in the message itself. Forbes Ukraine linked it to Oleksandr Slobozhenko, citing its own sources. Thus, in this story it is about 213 million UAH. [26]
Cryptocurrency income is not exempt from tax inspection
In a clarification dated 6 October 2026, the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy region states that an individual’s income from the sale of cryptocurrency is included in the general annual taxable income. The authority additionally emphasizes that specific cases require analysis of the relevant documents. [24]
So the question to the tax service must be practical: did it check specific transactions and their reflection in reports when it had proper grounds? At the same time, general references to the crypto market do not explain the origin of money in a particular operation.
Charitable activity must also be reflected
Alongside critical publications there is a report by Krasnograd.Info about the opening of an accessible sports park in Berestyn with the support of “Fund 1654”, another fund and at the initiative of Yevheniy Trusov. The outlet also reports on his service after the start of the full-scale invasion. This is attributed media information that complements the public portrait of the entrepreneur. [29]
The fact of reporting a socially useful project does not determine the lawfulness of all financial operations. Likewise, criminal versions about the circle do not justify silencing charitable work. For a substantive check by law enforcement, the budget, sources of funding and confirmed use of funds are significant.
Did the state bodies verify the reported information and if not, why are they inactive?
The existence of searches, seizures and suspicions in the mentioned proceedings excludes the claim that law enforcement did no work at all. But these actions still do not answer the question of the completeness of checks of all the links mentioned in the publications and about final results.
The State Tax Service has explanations to give within the law’s limits: were the financial risks and information about possible untaxed incomes analyzed; were audits ordered when there were grounds; which violations have been confirmed or refuted?
The SBE should answer whether it checked possible financial operations between participants of joint companies, sources of corporate contributions and information about receipt of income through cryptocurrency. If such information was not confirmed, that is also a result that should be clearly separated from media accusations.
The National Police and the prosecutor’s office are asked about the current status of proceeding No.12025000000001400: has the investigation been completed, has an indictment been sent to court, what procedural decision was made regarding the seized money? Separately, were the accuracy of the published statements about call centers regarding the named entrepreneurs checked?
ARMA can explain within its powers whether it actually took funds into management under the ruling of 24 December 2025, how their safekeeping was ensured and what their subsequent fate was. A ruling on transfer does not substitute confirmation of its execution.
Kharkiv law enforcement bodies — a question about the results of the long-standing check of FG “Denysenko”. To assess the proceeding regarding “Soldat 2020” it is necessary to consider its closure, judicial control and the motives for the related decisions, rather than repeat initial accusations as established facts.
Yevhen Trusov and Vitaliy Dukhopelov are asked about the sources of funds for corporate contributions, the conditions of exit from joint businesses and their position regarding versions about call centers and cryptocurrency income. Representatives of the fund — about reporting and operations with related structures. Owners of the ExBid brand — about the operator of the exchange point and its relation to the trademark owners.
If the reported information was not checked despite the existence of legal grounds, why are the competent bodies inactive? If they were checked, which facts were confirmed, which were refuted and how did the response conclude? These are the answers the public needs for oversight.
The questions were formulated based on analysis of open sources.
Sources and limits of the check
Opendatabot cards and trademark databases were used as open reproductions of registry data. Original extracts from the Unified State Register and a full set of financial documents were not ordered. Court texts were read in the YouControl reproduction: direct access to the corresponding pages of the USRR was unavailable during the check. Rulings reflect procedural decisions and the prosecution’s positions, not final determinations of guilt. The search does not guarantee discovery of all publications, court acts or subsequent changes.
[1] KyivCity News, 20.10.2026 — original publication
[2] NGL.media, 26.04.2024 — “Mother’s son, grandmother’s grandson”
[3] Opendatabot — “Ikigai Group”, 45364227
[4] Trademark card OMO, certificate No.390935
[5] Ruling dated 24.12.2025, No.132887562, reproduced by YouControl
[6] Trademark card ExBid, certificate No.366670
[7] Ruling dated 20.02.2026, No.134420622, reproduced by YouControl
[8] BlackBox OSINT, 02.10.2024 — piece about Myroshnychenko and his circle
[9] CRiME — piece with a similar informational basis
[10] Problematic — piece with a similar informational basis
[11] Opendatabot — “Sakses Eds”, 45390660
[12] Opendatabot — “Community Cloud Keeper”, 45603573
[13] Opendatabot — “Bilyardna”, 45206493
[14] Opendatabot — “Fund 1654”, 25791451
[15] Opendatabot — “Jed Technology”, 45918103
[16] “Pravda narodu” — piece about family property and the circle
[17] BlackBox OSINT 25 May 2025 — family property and history of related structures
[18] Ruling dated 5 October 2022 No.106675416 — complaint about case closure
[19] Ruling dated 12 December 2022 No.107825171 — cancellation of arrest
[20] Ruling dated 25 April 2017 No.66176456 — inspection of FG Denysenko
[21] Opendatabot — Soldat 2020 code 43379320
[22] Ruling dated 18 March 2026 No.136226926 — extension of preventive measure
[23] Opendatabot — enterprise ATD code 31645461
[24] Main Department of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy region 6 October 2026 — taxation of cryptocurrency income
[25] SBE 16 August 2024 — suspicion regarding over 213 mln UAH in taxes
[26] Forbes Ukraine 16 August 2024 — identification of the subject of the SBE message
[27] Application card talala No.m202507741
[28] Application card tala la No.m202607182
[29] Krasnograd.Info — sports park in Berestyn
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Благодійний фонд чи ухилення від податків: бізнес Трусова та Духопелова". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: 368.media.
