The company, which brought together Yevgeny Trusov, Vitaly Dukhopelov, Vladislav Miroshnichenko and Alexander Slobozhenko, reported assets of 79.49 million UAH and revenue of 189,800 UAH for 2025. In May 2026, Trusov, Dukhopelov and Miroshnichenko withdrew from the company’s list of founders. However, their business history remains on record: through a joint company, the ‘1654’ Foundation and rights to commercial brands. We compared these records with court documents relating to ExBid and determined where the links are substantiated, and where sensational headlines are currently outpacing the evidence. [18]
The trigger was an ORD article published on 21 October 2026 about Kyiv-based entrepreneurs, cryptocurrency services and high-value projects. The article mentioned charity work, the OMO bathhouse complex, currency exchange services and allegations of illegal call centres. ORD refers to reports by Kyiv City News and other publications. Their claims require verification on a case-by-case basis. [1]
There is a more specific issue at the heart of this story than the general impression of a lavish lifestyle: Who financed the associated projects, when, and on what terms — and how did control over them change?
Who are Yevgeny Trusov and Vitaly Dukhopelov?
The following appear in corporate records: Yevgeny Vyacheslavovich Trusov — Yevgeny Vyacheslavovich Trusov. He is listed as the owner of the advertising company ‘Community Cloud Keeper’ and the restaurant company ‘Bilyardna’. Vitaly Olegovich Dukhopelov — Vitaly Olegovich Dukhopelov — heads ‘Success EDS’, which operates in the advertising sector, and is listed as its owner. [7][8][9]
The common link between the entrepreneurs is the ‘1654 Foundation’ charitable organisation. In the current profile, both are listed as founders, with Vladislav Yuryevich Miroshnichenko named as the director. [6]
Another point of overlap relates to the past. In April 2024, NGL.media listed Trusov and Dukhopelov amongst the co-owners of the ‘Ikigai Group’, alongside Slobozhenko, Miroshnychenko, Alexander Gorkushin and Maxim Yakupov. The publication estimated Slobozhenko’s stake at 13 per cent. [2]
‘Ikigai Group’: why the ownership structure matters more than the group photo
In the current register entry for Ikigai Group LLC, EGRPOU 45364227, with Alexander Gorkushin listed as a participant — 54,29% — and Maxim Yakupov — 45,71%. Gorkushin is also listed as a director. [3]
The history of changes contains two significant dates. 30 May 2024 Alexander Slobozhenko has been removed from the list of founders. 7 May 2026 — Yevgeny Trusov, Vitaly Dukhopelov and Vladislav Miroshnichenko. In the latter case, the authorised capital was reduced from 40 million to 16.47 million hryvnias; in the current entry, it stands at 14 million hryvnias. [3]
It would therefore be inaccurate to refer to the former shareholders as the company’s current legal owners. At the same time, withdrawing from the group of founders does not nullify previous investments, contracts and obligations.
There are two distinct lines of investigation here. The first is based on the register: who held shares at a specific point in time. The second is financial: who contributed funds, who provided financing, who was paid upon exit, and whether any claims against the company remained after that. The register can only answer the first question within the limits of the registered information. For the second, contracts and financial statements are required.
79 million in assets: what the balance sheet reveals
The ‘Ikigai Group’ financial summary allows for a comparison across two years, rather than focusing on a single eye-catching figure in isolation from the rest. [3]
| Indicator | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | Not included in the summary | 189,800 UAH |
| Net financial result | −80,500 UAH | −1,005,200 UAH |
| Assets | 16,730,700 UAH | 79,491,900 UAH |
| Liabilities | 1,041,500 UAH | 40,577,600 UAH |
| Net assets – editorial calculation | 15,689,200 UAH | 38,914,300 UAH |
Our calculation based on these figures: over the year, assets increased by 62,761,200 UAH, approximately in 4.75 times. Liabilities have risen by 39,536,100 UAH. This is a comparison of balance sheet figures; it does not reconstruct the flow of funds through bank accounts. [3]
For a company developing or acquiring a property, substantial assets coupled with low current revenue may have a perfectly reasonable business explanation. Investments may precede the start of full-scale operation. Therefore, the ratio itself does not prove either the concealment of turnover or money laundering.
But it clearly defines the subject of the audit. Which specific assets appeared on the balance sheet? What proportion of the liabilities consists of loans, payments to contractors or other items? Who provided the funds? How were the acquired assets valued? The general term ‘investments’ must be backed up by specific counterparties and supporting documents.
Assets totalling 79.49 million UAH cannot automatically be classified as the entrepreneurs’ profits, the value of the bathhouse complex, or the amount of cash invested in it. Each of these claims requires its own calculation.
OMO Ikigai Wellness Club: the brand is documented as being linked to the company
The mention of OMO alongside ‘Ikigai Group’ has a verifiable basis. In the brand profile OMO, certificate no. 390935, this company is specifically named as the applicant and owner. The date of application is — 12 March 2025, registrations — 5 August 2026. This information is taken from the iprop-ua record, which reproduces the trademark registration details. [4]
The official OMO website presents the project as the Ikigai Wellness Club on the banks of the Dnieper: steam rooms, Japanese baths, private programmes and an events space. [5]
This establishes a clear link between the trade name and the legal entity. However, a trade mark registration does not replace a property ownership certificate, a tenancy agreement or details of the legal entity receiving payment from guests.
Therefore, the financial audit of OMO must go beyond the advertising website. We need to identify the complex operator, the owner or lessor of the premises, the contracts for the development of the facility and its sources of funding. Only then can the cost of the project be reconciled with the financial statements of the relevant companies.
The ‘1654’ Foundation: general structure and history up to the current members
Charitable Organisation ‘1654 Foundation’, EGRPOU 25791451, registered 27 December 1999. However, this date relates to a legal entity with a history going back further. The entry recording the addition of Trusov and Dukhopelov as founders is dated 10 February 2023; at the same time, Vladislav Miroshnichenko replaced Tamara Denisenko as head. The name ‘1654 Foundation’ appeared in the history of changes 31 October 2023. [6]
According to the published financial statement, the organisation’s income amounts to 9,074,100 UAH for 2024 and 4,480,500 UAH for 2025. For a charitable organisation, this line cannot be interpreted as commercial revenue from clients without further clarification. [6]
The foundation provides a common organisational link between the three entrepreneurs. The flow of donations, procurement and aid to recipients is a separate matter. To verify this, it is necessary to cross-check incoming payments, payment details, suppliers’ documents and confirmation of aid delivery.
Potential transactions with related parties are of particular significance. If such transactions took place, their subject matter, price and execution should be clarified. The mere fact that an entrepreneur is involved in a charitable organisation does not mean that their commercial projects are recipients of its funds.
The materials found do not contain a verified payment trail that would allow one to assert that the foundation financed OMO or managed ExBid’s funds. Such a trail cannot be inferred merely on the basis of matching surnames.
ExBid: how Vladislav Miroshnichenko enters the story
Vladislav Miroshnichenko links several of the entries discussed: he heads the foundation, was previously involved with the ‘Ikigai Group’ and is listed as one of the owners of the ExBid trademark. [2][6][11]
Identity card ExBid, certificate no. 366670, names two applicants and owners: Prokhor Andreevich Guz and Vladislav Yuryevich Miroshnichenko. The application was filed on 11 January 2024, and the trademark was registered on 9 July 2025. [11]
This is a documented connection with the currency exchange service’s brand. It requires a precise description: Ownership of the trademark does not automatically confer ownership on the owner of each exchange office, its operator or the person who managed each transaction.
This is precisely why the legal proceedings involving ExBid must be examined separately from the list of its business connections.
What was actually seized from ExBid and what the court ruled
In a publicly available copy of the ruling by the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv dated 24 December 2025, the case No. 757/63042/25-k, document №132887562, which describes the search of the Exbid Exchange premises on 20 November 2025. It lists the sums seized: [12]
| Currency | Amount |
|---|---|
| US dollars | 1 406 910 |
| Hryvnias | 5 821 250 |
| Euro | 16 625 |
| Pounds sterling | 40 |
Production №12025000000001400 registered on 13 May 2025. The ruling sets out the investigation’s findings regarding organised fraud. It is stated that, during the search, the office’s staff failed to produce documents proving the lawful origin of the transferred funds, and the sums were not recorded in its daily accounts. The court ruled that the seized funds should be transferred to the ARMA for management. [12]
This is a specific procedural ruling. It does not constitute a verdict against the trademark owners. The owner of the outlet is referred to anonymously in the published text; it is not permissible to substitute Miroshnichenko, Trusov or Dukhopelov in their place without further justification.
A distinction must be made between a transfer ordered by a court and one where the enforcement of the judgement has been confirmed. How the funds actually came under management and what became of them subsequently is established by subsequent documents.
The second case: ExBid, Binance and funds for bridge repairs
Another ruling — by the Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv dated 20 February 2026, the case №752/1414/26, document №134420622 — relates to manufacturing №12025100000000939. It sets out the investigation’s version of events regarding the misappropriation of funds during the renovation of the South Bridge, involving officials from the ‘Kyivavtoshlyakhmist’ municipal enterprise and commercial entities. [13]
According to the prosecution’s case, one of the individuals under investigation laundered funds using ExBid Exchange Kyiv and another exchange, after which the funds were transferred to Binance wallets. The text specifies the total volume of transactions: $682,000 and 1.4 million hryvnias. These sums have not been allocated between the two establishments. [13]
The mention of the service in such a document allows for a detailed examination of its role in the transactions. However, it does not prove that all transactions were carried out via ExBid, nor that the brand’s co-owners were aware of the described origin of the funds.
In order to establish liability, it is important to consider the customer, the specific payee, the outlet operator and the circumstances of each transaction. The ruling in question did not establish any direct involvement by Trusov or Dukhopelov in this incident.
Alexander Slobozhenko: joint business ventures and a separate tax case
The link to Slobozhenko in this story stems from their previous joint involvement in the ‘Ikigai Group’, as described by NGL.media. His own tax case has a different origin and a different subject matter. [2]
On 16 August 2024, the BEB announced that the founder of the arbitration business was under suspicion in tax evasion and the legalisation of assets. ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ has identified the individual in question as Oleksandr Slobozhenko. According to the State Bureau of Economic Security (SBES), income for the years 2020–2023, equivalent to more than one billion hryvnias, was not declared, and the tax shortfall exceeded 213 million UAH. The agency described the use of cryptocurrency wallets and the subsequent acquisition of assets. [14][15]
In May 2025, DOU reported on a public statement by Slobozhenko: he admitted that he had not paid taxes and declared his intention to settle the debt. This was his position at the time, rather than confirmation that the debt had been fully settled with the state or that the case had been closed. [16]
The history of these former partners explains the interest in their financial dealings. However, suspicion directed at one individual does not extend to the other participants in the former enterprise. The available documents do not establish that the entire group was jointly responsible for the transactions described by the BEB.
How much do Trusov and Dukhopelov’s companies earn?
The notion that ‘official business makes no profit’ does not stand up to scrutiny in the light of the latest financial statements. The three companies posted differing results for 2025. [7][8][9]
| The company | Link via the register | Revenue for 2025 | Net profit for 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ‘Success EDS’, 45390660 | Dukhopelov is the owner and director | 2,972,000 UAH | +1,704,200 UAH |
| ‘Community Cloud Keeper’, 45603573 | Trusov is the owner and director | 3,102,600 UAH | +2,062,800 UAH |
| ‘Bilyardna’, 45206493 | Trusov is the owner | 2,543,100 UAH | −421,900 UAH |
The fact that these two companies are making a profit clarifies the picture. However, it does not automatically account for all the investments and personal expenditure of their owners. A company’s profit becomes a shareholder’s personal income on specific grounds — for example, following the distribution of dividends; this requires supporting documentation.
The reverse assumption is equally incorrect: a small turnover for an individual limited liability company does not mean that the person has no other legal sources of income. To compare income and expenditure, data is required on specific periods, personal income, profit distributions, asset sales and financing. A public revenue table is insufficient to draw such a conclusion.
JED: yet another departure from the founding team
The company ‘Jed Technology’, EGRPOU 45918103, adds yet another change of control to the story. In the registry entry 14 August 2026 The record reflects the removal of Yevgeny Trusov from the list of founders and the inclusion of Maria Kondratyeva. She is listed as the current owner and director. The record also includes an application for the JED trademark. [10]
This provides grounds for suggesting that Trusov was previously involved in a specific legal entity. Links to all websites and projects using a similar name must be established separately.
The terms of the exit are a matter of financial detail: was a stake sold, how was the price determined, were payments made, and were any obligations retained? These answers are not available in the publicly accessible profile.
Where did the story about call centres and ‘shadow millions’ come from?
The ORD publication brought together several areas: cryptocurrency services, charity, high-value commercial projects and reports of possible call centres. It also lists MIEX ONE, IC Esports, KOGRA and True Ladies. These references do not constitute a proven chain of money flows between all the projects. [1]
An earlier report by BlackBox OSINT from 25 May 2025 contains claims about the Trusov family and estimates of their assets. It should be read precisely as a journalistic accusatory account, with the basis for each calculation and identification being verified. The value of the property as stated in the advert, the purchase price and the source of payment are all different pieces of information. [17]
A new analysis on 368.media dated 21 October 2026 also examines corporate changes, financial statements and court documents. It serves as a useful supplementary publication for comparison, but does not replace the documents to which it refers. [18]
In this investigation, we found no grounds to declare Trusov and Dukhopelov as the identified organisers of a fraudulent network or to link them to ‘Khimprom’. Specific evidence is required to draw such conclusions. A shared partner, a public photograph and the proximity of the names in an article do not establish this.
What answers will determine how the story unfolds?
Trusov and Dukhopelov There are specific issues requiring clarification: the sources of funding for previous shareholdings, the terms of exit from ‘Ikigai Group’, and, in Trusov’s case, also from ‘Jed Technology’. It is important to distinguish between personal investments and raised funds, and to specify the documents supporting the calculations.
The management of the ‘1654’ Foundation — the structure of income and expenditure, any transactions with related parties, procurement and confirmation of aid deliveries. We need a report that allows us to trace how the funds were used, rather than just the total figure for the year.
At ‘Ikigai Group’ and the operator OMO — asset composition, source of funding, counterparties to liabilities, and the distinction between ownership of the brand, premises and the operating business.
Currency exchange operators and law enforcement agencies — the role of specific legal entities and individuals in the ExBid transactions under scrutiny, further procedural decisions and the fate of the seized funds.
The story of Trusov and Dukhopelov merits attention because verifiable links already exist. There is a shared fund, a former joint venture, changes in the composition of shareholders, registered trademarks and legal proceedings surrounding the exchange service. The next step is to link the financial documents where, at present, only organisational links are visible. It will then become clear who actually financed the projects, who received the income and who was responsible for which transactions.
This article was compiled on 23 October 2026 using publicly available sources. Corporate information is presented taking into account the available revision history. Court rulings have been examined in published copies; the versions of the investigation set out therein do not constitute a conviction.
