There is a twist in the story of Andrei Matyukha and Favbet that changes the interpretation of the sensational headlines from this summer. On 29 May 2026, PlayCity revoked the licences of two companies associated with the brand. On 9 September, the court of first instance overturned both decisions. Between these dates lay a dispute over Russian links, claims of millions seized, and a battle over what information could be considered evidence.[4][5][6][7]
We cross-referenced StopCor’s original material with court documents, regulatory documents, the UK register and the Croatian press. The resulting story highlights three key distinctions: the brand and the specific company; claims versus established facts; and the value of the investment project and the origin of the invested funds.
Who is behind the Favbet brand?
Andrei Matyukha was born in Kyiv in 1972. Public biographies trace the start of his business to 1999, and the development of FAVBET to betting, online casinos and land-based establishments. Today, the founder is also associated with a distinct philanthropic profile: the Favbet Foundation, his own charitable organisation, and various sporting and social projects.[1][15]
But the question ‘Who owns Favbet?’ requires a date and the name of the legal entity. The Page states that Dmitry Matyukha has owned the group since 2025. The public record of ‘Favbet Bookmaking Company’ LLC reveals a more complex sequence of events: Dmitry replaced Andrei in December 2024, but in October 2025 the register once again listed Andrei as a shareholder and beneficial owner. According to the company’s details, he holds 100 per cent of the capital.[2][3]
This is a specific discrepancy between a generalised biography and the history of a single company. It does not prove that any transaction was fictitious. However, it does show why the phrase ‘handed the business over to his son’ is not sufficient for a journalist: control must be verified for each company and as at the date of the event.
May’s decisions: exactly what the regulator has suspended
Two decisions by PlayCity on 29 May concerned licences for the operation of land-based casinos. The documents mention various companies and brands.[4][5]
| Legal entity | Conclusion | The brand in the document |
|---|---|---|
| Favourit Casino Company LLC, EGRPOU 44101120 | No. 208-R, 29 May 2026 | FAVBET CASINO/FAVBET POKER |
| Favbet VIP Casino LLC, EGRPOU 45026610 | No. 209-R, 29 May 2026 | BILLIONAIRE |
The regulator cited breaches of the requirements governing the supervision of the gaming operator and its ultimate beneficial owners. The politically sensitive issue of Russian links has resulted in specific administrative consequences in this case. However, a licensing decision concerning one company does not constitute a blanket ban on all companies with a similar name.
Another document illustrates just how varied the grounds for such proceedings can be. PlayCity’s April decision regarding the online licence of Favbet Bookmaker LLC states that the licence has expired and that the relevant administrative proceedings have been closed. This is a separate matter: it should not be confused with the May decisions concerning land-based casinos.[16]
The September twist that cannot be left out of the article
On 9 September, Roman Golobutovsky, a judge at the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court, upheld the claims brought by ‘Favbet VIP Casino’ and ‘Favorit Casino Company’, ruling that Decisions No. 209-R and No. 208-R were unlawful and annulling them accordingly.[6][7]
In the ‘Favbet VIP Casino’ case, the court found that the beneficiary’s Russian residency and control by Russian residents had not been sufficiently proven. It took a critical view of the treatment of information regarding a possible connection as an established fact. This is a substantive assessment of the evidence, which cannot be reduced to a technical formality.[6]
In the ‘Favorit Casino Company’ case, the court examined the image of the alleged passport separately. It pointed out the need to verify the source and the original document. However, the court did not regard the technical processing of the file and the probabilistic conclusion of the portrait analysis as conclusive evidence of forgery.[7]
Both rulings relate to the first instance. Based on the material reviewed, it is not possible to state with certainty that the entire dispute has been definitively resolved: confirmation of the final appeal status has not been received. However, it is no longer sufficient to publish only the May version of events in October.
Criminal proceedings and a licensing dispute – where does the line lie?
In its ruling of 9 July in the ‘Favbet VIP Casino’ case, the court stated that the regulatory decision was based on the findings of an investigation by the State Bureau of Investigation (GBR), which began on 26 August 2025. The document lists charges relating, in particular, to a criminal organisation, tax offences, money laundering and aiding an aggressor state.[17]
This list outlines the areas under investigation. It does not imply that every person associated with the company faces all these charges or that their guilt has been proven. The July ruling concerned the production of documents: the court requested the materials relating to the licensing case and the grounds for the regulator’s decisions.[17]
The revocation of an administrative decision also has a specific purpose. It does not replace the outcome of a criminal case. What is important for the reader here is not the longest chain of articles in the code, but the answer to the question: which specific authority, in which proceedings, and what did it establish?
907 million UAH: a staggering sum and the limits of what is known
The original source of the claim regarding this sum is an interview given by Philip Pronin, head of the State Financial Monitoring Service, to ‘Telegraf’. The official linked the freezing, seizure and transfer of 907 million hryvnias to ARMA to the activities of the online casino Favbet and alleged that its owner was collaborating with Russia. This is an accusatory statement by a public official, not a verdict handed down in the interview.[8]
To piece the whole picture together, we need court documents and details of the assets: who owned the accounts, on what grounds the assets were frozen, and what powers the administrator was granted. As long as our collection does not contain such documents, it is not possible to label the funds in question as ‘Matyukha’s personal billion’ or to declare them definitively confiscated.
The same interview discusses ‘drops’ and other illegal financial flows. The proximity of these topics does not prove that all the transactions mentioned have a single organiser or a common source of funds. To draw such a conclusion, a traceable chain of payments is required.
The casino’s losses do not equate to the group’s overall losses
StopCor draws attention to the negative financial results of certain land-based operations despite their growing revenues. This provides a reason to examine expenditure and transactions with related parties; however, one cannot automatically extrapolate these figures to the brand as a whole.[9]
OpenDataBot reports that another company — ‘Favbet Bookmaker’ — recorded revenue of approximately 21.3 billion UAH and a net profit of 1.75 billion UAH for 2024. These figures relate to a specific legal entity over a specific period. They do not correspond to the volume of bets, the group’s total revenue or the personal earnings of its founder.[3]
To investigate the possible transfer of profits within the group, one needs contracts, service fees, licence fees, loans and counterparties’ financial statements. A single negative entry in a report is not sufficient to conclude that money laundering has taken place. Similarly, a profit and loss statement on its own does not answer questions about the origin of each item of income.
A British connection: two Andalidi, two different stories
Companies House holds a verifiable record for ANDALIDI INVEST LTD, registration number 08322568. Andrei Matyukha ceased to be its director on 4 October 2022; on the same day, Valery Sokol became director. The change in significant control is dated separately: on 25 November 2022, Matyukha stepped down, and Sokol became the person holding a stake and votes of at least 75 per cent.[11][12]
This should not be confused with ANDALIDI ASSETS LTD. No. 08322630. In its company profile, Matyukha remains a director with significant control, also holding between 75 per cent of the shares and voting rights.[13]
A difference in just one part of the name alters the meaning of the corporate structure. Withdrawal from INVEST does not imply withdrawal from ASSETS; a change of director is not the same as a change of control; and British registration does not, in itself, make a company an instrument of crime. It is precisely these boundaries that are valuable to the investigation: they allow verifiable links to be established rather than an impressive list of foreign jurisdictions.
Croatia: a €600 million story that goes beyond casinos
On 12 February 2026, Index.hr reported on the Premium Chicken Company and Renaissance Capital project linked to Matyukha: poultry farming and processing facilities in Sisak-Moslavina County with a stated value of €600 million. According to the publication, the project was opposed by some local residents and environmental groups, who feared pollution and other consequences for the region.[14]
The publication also quoted a statement from a representative of the investor: at that time, she said, €45 million had already been invested in the project. It is important to distinguish between the total declared value and the amount already invested. The information relates to a publication from February; it does not confirm that construction has been completed or that all the promised investments have been made.[14]
The Croatian episode is interesting as a case study in business expansion. It raises a number of separate issues — financing, permits, environmental impact assessments and obligations to the local community. It would be premature to link the money to the Ukrainian criminal proceedings without any documentation of the transfers.
What the business itself says
In a press release published by MMR on 27 May 2022, Favbet denied operating in Russia and announced the closure of its Belarusian operations with effect from 1 March. This article is marked as a sponsored feature: it reflects the company’s position and is not the result of an independent audit.[10]
The Matyukha Foundation’s website reports that the group paid 6.75 billion UAH in taxes in 2024, as well as providing support to the army and funding social projects. In this article, these figures are presented as statements made by the foundation itself. Charitable activities warrant independent verification based on reports and confirmation from recipients; this does not replace the verification of business transactions.[15]
Public responses and successful challenges to the regulator’s decisions are as much a part of the story as the complaints themselves. Including them makes the investigation more accurate and allows the reader to understand where the dispute actually lies.
What documents could change the picture
Further investigation hinges on a few specific sources, rather than on the severity of the allegations:
- court orders relating to assets worth 907 million hryvnias and documents concerning their transfer to management;
- up-to-date extracts regarding the owners of each company and the grounds for corporate changes;
- subsequent rulings on licensing disputes, including at the appeal stage;
- confirmed sources of funding for the Croatian project;
- primary sources enabling the verification of disputed information regarding citizenship and residency.
The key feature of this story is that the documents alter one’s initial impression. Decisions to revoke licences do exist, but these were subsequently overturned by the courts. The public transfer of the business does not invalidate subsequent changes to the register. Major international investments require transparency, but their scale does not prove illegality. It is precisely these verifiable developments that should form the basis of any discussion about Matyukha and Favbet.
This article is based on publicly available sources, verified on 13 October 2026. The allegations and positions of the parties cited are distinguished from the documented events.
