There are several starting points to the story of Yevgeny Zaifert. In a public statement by Everstake, he is described as the company’s co-founder and the man who donated $9 million to Ukraine. In reports about his alleged past, the name Yevgeny Smirnov crops up. In the history of Ukrainian organisations, the name Zlata appears alongside the surname Zaifert. Meanwhile, reports on cryptocurrency collections mention criminal proceedings and questions regarding the return of assets. [2][6][7][8][11][13]
It is easy to link these stories with a sensational headline. It is far more difficult to show where there is documentary evidence connecting them, and where the reader is simply being asked to believe in a connection based on the similarity of names. We have cross-referenced official reports, a court ruling, corporate records and Russian wanted notices. The result is a story about public trust, which must be based on a verifiable biography and the flow of money.
Nine million in his public biography
On 23 May 2022, Everstake issued a press release announcing a new campaign to aid Ukraine. In it, Sergey Vasylchuk and Yev Zaifert were named as the company’s co-founders. Everstake reported that the combined donations from the business and its co-founders totalled $10 million, with $9 million attributed personally to Zaifert. Recipients named included Aid For Ukraine and other initiatives, including the Kyiv School of Economics Charitable Foundation. [2]
A donation of this magnitude becomes a significant part of one’s public reputation. However, it is important to understand the nature of the source: this is a statement by the company regarding its members and transfers. It confirms how Everstake portrayed Zaifert, but does not replace documents detailing the origin of the wealth, asset valuations or a full list of recipients.
On its official website, Everstake describes its business in terms of staking infrastructure and validators. This involves providing services to blockchain networks. Neither the origin of the co-founder’s total capital nor his personal access to charitable wallets can be deduced from the product description. Other sources are required to draw these conclusions. [19]
Ministry of Digital Transformation, Everstake and the promise of transparent fundraising
The public partnership is confirmed by a primary source. On 14 March 2022, the Ministry of Digital Transformation announced the launch of the Aid For Ukraine website in collaboration with Everstake and FTX. The funds were earmarked for the army and humanitarian aid; other areas mentioned included cyber defence, digital infrastructure and specialised equipment. [1]
The announcement also outlined the respective technical roles. Everstake was involved in implementing the initiative, whilst FTX was tasked with converting donations from crypto-assets into dollars. The Ministry of Digital Transformation promised to track the fundraising in real time, displaying the total amount in dollar equivalent. [1]
For the donor, this is a straightforward arrangement: a state-run platform, well-known crypto companies, and public wallets. But monitoring incoming funds and verifying the final purchase are two different matters. Even a fully transparent transfer does not answer the questions of who authorised the payment, who owned the recipient’s account, and what equipment was supplied.
This is precisely where the line is drawn between fundraising publicity and accountability. To assess the outcome, a sequence of documents is required: receipt, expenditure authorisation, transfer to the supplier, delivery or return. The ministry’s logo does not make up for the missing link in this sequence.
Criminal proceedings are ongoing. His personal status is being determined separately
Publications about Aid For Ukraine mention manufacturing №12025000000000407. His existence is confirmed by the ruling of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv dated 20 June 2025 in case No. 757/27958/25-k, document No. 128621114. The text refers to an investigation by the Main Investigation Directorate of the National Police, launched on 25 January 2025 under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. [3]
The court has granted temporary access to the documents. The investigator’s application describes cryptocurrency donations to the army, estimated proceeds of $42 million and the subsequent movement of part of the funds. This is a procedural decision at the investigation stage; the circumstances outlined have not, as a result, been established as facts by a court judgement. [3]
In the available text, names and organisations have largely been anonymised. There are no explicit references to Zaifert, Smirnov or Everstake. Consequently, it cannot be inferred from this account that Zaifert was personally under suspicion, had been charged, or had control over the assets described. [3]
This distinction is essential for the investigation itself. The document granting access to evidence shows what information the investigation is seeking. A document naming a specific individual as a suspect answers a different question altogether. Substituting one for the other makes the public accusation sound more forceful, but does not add any substance to it.
Three sums that cannot be reduced to a single ‘missing amount’
Several large figures recur in this story. Without dates or explanations, they give the impression of a single estimate of the losses, although sources cite different figures.
| Amount | What exactly does the source describe? |
|---|---|
| Over $60 million | Total funds raised for Aid For Ukraine, according to an Everstake report from May 2022. The company also reported that over $45 million had been spent. [2] |
| Around $42 million | Estimated inflows to the wallets in question, as set out in the 2025 investigative application. [3] |
| Around $4.67 million | An estimate of the unrecovered balance from a separate publication on the purchase of drones and transactions via FTX.us. [4] |
The total amount of donations does not equal the losses. The amount received in the wallets under investigation does not mean that the entire sum has been embezzled. Furthermore, the value of the remaining crypto-assets depends on the valuation date. These figures cannot be added together or automatically attributed to a single individual.
Drones, NEANY and unrecovered crypto assets
On 7 August 2026, 368.media, citing Absolution, reported on the alleged purchase of attack drones from the American company NEANY Inc. The article described a transfer of 150 BTC and 2,500 ETH, followed by a partial refund of the assets routed via FTX.us. The outstanding balance was stated as 53.7787 BTC and 2,048 ETH. [4]
The publication estimated these balances at $1.23 million and $3.44 million respectively. Their combined total — approximately $4.67 million — relates to the estimate given in the publication, not to the current cryptocurrency exchange rate. It was specifically the unrecovered balance that was described; verified documents do not substantiate any claims that Zaifert personally received these funds. [4]
Any mention of FTX requires extra caution. On 28 March 2024, the US Department of Justice announced that the exchange’s founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, had been sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment for fraudulent schemes, including the misappropriation of client funds. This is a separate US case in which the liability of a specific individual has been established. It cannot be used as conclusive evidence of the actions of Ukrainian partners or the fate of any individual transaction. [5]
To sort out the drone purchase, it is necessary to establish the exact counterparty, the terms of the obligations, the date and purpose of the transfer, the subsequent owner of the funds, and the grounds for a partial refund. A temporary delay, a dispute with a supplier and the misappropriation of funds each require different forms of evidence. The name of the exchange alone is not sufficient to distinguish between these explanations.
The Novosibirsk trail: who was being sought under the name Smirnova
The Russian part of the story begins with verifiable archive reports. On 30 December 2016, ‘Tvoy Novosibirsk’ reported that Police Station No. 7 ‘Leninsky’ was searching for Evgeny Alekseyevich Smirnov, born 2 January 1985, a native of Novosibirsk. The publication pointed to suspicions under Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. [6]
On 5 December 2017, the publication repeated the report on the search for 32-year-old Smirnov, citing part 3 of the same article. These reports confirm that the name in question appeared in previous wanted notices. They do not confirm the current status of the businessman with a different surname. [7]
The key issue is the identity document. In Ukrainian corporate records, one finds ‘Yevgeniy Viktorovich Zayfert’, in Russian reports — ‘Evgeny Alekseyevich Smirnov’. The discrepancy in the middle name must be explained with supporting documentation. It does not prove a change of identity, nor does it rule it out; it simply indicates where exactly the evidence is lacking. [8][11]
At the time of writing, no current official record from the Ministry of Internal Affairs had been obtained confirming an active search for Zayfert specifically and linking the two names. Consequently, the separate profile for Smirnov on our website remains an archived entry. [17]
The story behind the name Dyakunov and the Ukrainian documents
The information submitted for verification mentions another possible scenario — Yevgeny Vladimirovich Dyakunov. At the same time, a claim has been made that Ukrainian documents were obtained containing different personal details. This information was reported with reference to the SBU, but the service’s original document, its details and the basis for identification have not been provided.
Consequently, in the published dossier No. 51263, this information is labelled as a ‘version’. There are currently no grounds to classify it as officially established data from the SBU or to consider the illegality of obtaining the passport as proven. The date of birth from the unverified record has not been attributed to Zaifert. [16]
This is a fundamental gap in the biography. A previous full name, changes to personal details and the validity of a specific document can be established through registration or court records. A list of three names without such a connection does not constitute a proven history of a single person.
Yanis Veselago: a Russian story told through his own documents
On 8 January 2013, *Amurskaya Pravda* reported on a case involving the supply of synthetic drugs from China via Blagoveshchensk. The newspaper named Yanis Veselago, a native of Novosibirsk, as the ringleader and reported on the involvement of Amur State University student Ivan Sukhoterin in the summer of 2010. The article mentioned shipments of JWH-class substances and the dispatch of the products to other regions of Russia. Veselago’s own sentence was not mentioned in the publication. [12]
KARTEL KHIMPROM file No. 4080 contains an archived personal details form in the name of Yanis Vladimirovich Veselago. The website explicitly states that there is no confirmed active search for him. [18]
The Russian strand is significant as a separate part of the investigation. However, it does not establish any joint involvement between Veselago and Zaifert. To determine the role of an accomplice, information is required regarding joint actions, timing, intent and the division of responsibilities. It is not possible to attribute such a role on the basis of two biographical accounts alone.
Zlata Zaifert: her business ties are more apparent than her family ties
A specific pattern can be traced in Ukrainian company registers. OpenDataBot shows that Zlata Yaroslavivna Zaifert is listed as the director, shareholder and ultimate beneficial owner of DLT SOLUTIONS LLC. The history of the company’s directors shows a change from ‘Yevgeniy Viktorovich Zayfert’ to Zlata. [8]
This company has another level of involvement: it is listed as the 100 per cent owner of GRIN UBS LLC, whose main activity is related to the car trade. Zlata is also named as the director of the latter. This is the legally documented corporate link between the two organisations. [10]
The change in leadership from Yevgeny Viktorovich Zayfert to Zlata is also reflected in the history of GROUND SOLUTIONS LLC. The available company profile, dated 7 September 2025, also lists her as a shareholder and beneficiary. It is important to note the date of the information: a historical record does not replace a current extract. [9]
In the fund EVERAID UA / ‘EVERAID UA’ History shows that Yevgeny Viktorovich Zayfert was replaced by Zlata in the management team and amongst the founders. The foundation was registered on 27 January 2023. These records confirm the involvement of two people with the surname Zaifert in the same organisation. However, a similar name does not establish that the foundation is the same as the ‘Aid For Ukraine’ initiative announced in March 2022. [11][1]
The claim regarding Zlata’s marriage to Yevgeny has been submitted for the preparation of this article; however, no independent confirmation of their marital status has been obtained. Business roles can be described on the basis of corporate records; they do not prove either kinship or unlawful activity. Nor do they, in themselves, identify the legal operator of Everstake.
Search by surname and websites of people with the same name
In October 2026, the story of his online reputation was added to the financial and biographical issues. On 19 October, SPILNO, citing ABleaks, described two websites — yevheniizaifert.net and zaifertyevhen.com — as alleged tools for manipulating search results relating to Zayfert. The publication linked their creation to the entrepreneur; no independent documentation regarding the client has been obtained for this article. [13]
The content of the websites, however, can be examined separately from speculation about their owner. On the homepage of yevheniizaifert.net, viewed on 21 October, the site was presented as a ‘Club of Famous Namesakes’. Among the posts were stories about a model from Paris, a programmer from Moscow and other people named Yevgeny Zayfert. The mere publication of these texts does not confirm the biographies set out in them. [14]
zaifertyevhen.com was positioned as an expert blog by his namesake. The homepage featured articles on cosmetology, YouTube earnings, butterfly collecting and the co-founder of Everstake. This is the observable structure of the content; it has not been separately established that it belongs to the entrepreneur. [15]
Our conclusion regarding this structure is simple: the existence of numerous pages bearing the same name makes it difficult to locate a specific biography. However, proving that the content was commissioned requires establishing a link between the websites and the payer or the person in charge. The impression given by the photographs and the style of the texts does not replace such verification. Nor does the publication date of the article establish the date the domain was registered.
Where should evidence of links to ‘Khimprom’ emerge?
The question of alleged shady crypto flows and links to ‘Khimprom’ requires the most concrete evidence. The materials verified for this article did not contain any documents establishing that Zaifert or Zlata belonged to a criminal organisation, received income from the cartel, or that Everstake facilitated such operations.
For a financial audit, wallet attribution, individual transactions, and links between senders and recipients to a specific incident are required. For a biographical audit, proven identity of the individuals is required. Participation in the crypto market does not confirm money laundering, and historical suspicions regarding Smirnov cannot automatically be transferred to Zaifert. It is precisely these two strands – the identification of the individual and the identification of the funds – that remain unresolved for the time being.
Trust must be backed up by documentary evidence
His public image as a major donor and the company’s involvement in a government initiative make questions about accountability entirely justified. However, the quality of such an investigation depends on its thoroughness: donations must be accounted for separately; controversial procurement must be examined separately; and the owner of the wallet and the person hiding behind the registry entry must be identified separately, if such concealment did indeed take place.
The next substantive step in this story is to obtain a reconciliation of transfers and refunds relating to the purchase of drones, documents confirming the authority of those involved in the fundraising, and confirmation or refutation of claims regarding their former names. These materials will make it possible to ascertain the liability of specific individuals. Until such evidence emerges, the severity of the allegations must not be allowed to substitute for the lack of evidence.
This article was prepared on 21 October 2026. Official statements, company announcements, media reports and information submitted for verification are cited separately. No requests for comment were made whilst preparing this article. Drafts of these requests are included in the editorial package.
