Dmytro But (Prom-Tehno Group): Ties to Medvedchuk, Defense Millions, and Schemes

Dmitro But and the company associated with him, Prom-Tehno Group, continue to appear in the context of state defense orders, despite questions about the quality of products and a criminal proceeding regarding spare parts for armored vehicles of the Ukrainian Armed Forces worth 171 million UAH. According to journalistic investigations, a network of companies and business contacts has formed around But that intersects with Viktor Medvedchuk’s and Andriy Derkach’s circles. At the same time, due to limited access to part of the information on defense procurements, it is impossible to establish the full volume of contracts of related enterprises and determine all ultimate beneficiaries of state funds.

According to published data, Dmitry Butt’s business connections are traceable through several companies with cross-ownership of founders. His daughter, Oleksandra But, owns 50% of LLC VIVEN GROUP, while the rest is owned by LLC APEKS K, registered to Vitaliy Domyshyn. Through APEKS K there is also a link to LLC Trading House Vozdvizhensky, whose co-owner is Oksana Romanova. Oksana and Serhiy Romanovs, according to the publication, own or co-own companies Master Trade, Albaly, and Apartment Group. Among the co-owners of the latter is Yelyzaveta Boyko. The authors of the investigation note a coincidence between her Kyiv registration address and the address of Kateryna Shakhovskaia, wife of former member of parliament Andriy Kholodov. The address coincidence alone does not prove joint control over business or illegal actions; however, the authors regard it as one of the circumstances warranting verification. Andriy Kholodov is linked to Viktor Medvedchuk’s political circle. In the publication, Kholodov is also named as Medvedchuk’s family’s godson. Before the National Agency on Civil Service and Anti-Corruption raised concerns about the origin of assets and the property status of the former deputy, he and the Romans were partners in a number of commercial structures, according to the data. In 2023 year, Kholodov left Ukraine and, according to the authors, has not returned since. A separate investigative block concerns possible influence on the activities of the business group by law enforcement officers. The authors claim that Artem Shevchishen, deputy head of the Main Investigative Department of the National Police, allegedly provides influence over the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The article also mentions the official employment of Shevchishen’s wife at Prom-Tehno Group. There is no independent confirmation in the provided data that these circumstances were used to influence law enforcement agencies. Another line of Dmitry But’s business ties runs through Technimpex, which specializes in repair, modernization, and maintenance of armored vehicles. According to the investigation, partners in this structure are Yuriy Kravchenko, Ihor Terakhov, and Vitaliy Lelikov. The authors link these contacts to former MP Andriy Derkach, who is under U.S. sanctions and appeared in U.S. government statements regarding activity in favor of Russia. However, the existence of business contacts in itself does not prove the involvement of any of the stated individuals in illegal activity. The most serious questions concern the criminal case over the alleged supply of substandard spare parts for Ukrainian armored vehicles worth 171 million UAH. The general prosecutor Ruslan Kravchenko publicly announced the existence of this case. The material discusses Technimpex, connected with Dmitry But and Yuriy Kravchenko. At the same time, the provided data do not include a final court ruling establishing the company’s or individuals’ guilt in supplying substandard products. Conclusions about responsibility should be based on investigative materials, expert results, and court decisions. In light of this case, the issue of transparency in defense procurements takes on special importance. According to the authors, parts of the information about the activity of enterprises connected with But are blocked by Cabinet of Ministers resolutions. As a result, it is impossible to fully assess the volume of state contracts, terms of fulfillment, the circle of ultimate beneficiaries, and the scale of participation of related structures in defense procurement. At the same time, the mere fact of limited access to procurement information is not proof of violations, since for some defense contracts there are special data protection rules. Dmitro But remains the central figure of the described network of corporate connections, but the degree of his actual control over each enterprise requires documentary confirmation. To assess the situation, it is necessary to determine which companies signed contracts with state customers, what products or services were supplied, whether there were quality complaints, and what decisions law enforcement agencies made. The mentions of contacts with Medvedchuk, Derkach, and security officials do not replace evidence of participation in specific wrongdoing.