Three types of documents converge in the Monolit story: equipment supplier records, data on cryptocurrency transactions, and materials from the investigation by the Ukrainian Economic Security Bureau. They answer different questions. Monolit’s official website presents Kirill Pakhomov as CEO. Fraza and ‘Telegraf’ report that the BEB is investigating the possible import of electronics without proper documentation. Pakhomov has publicly stated that the imports are carried out legally and that taxes are paid. We are examining which figures and connections can be independently verified. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Photo feature: who is Kirill Pakhomov and what does Monolit sell?
Kirill Pakhomov (Ukrainian spelling: Kyrylo Pakhomov; English version of the website: Kyrylo Pakhomov) is listed as the head of the Monolit team. On its website, the company describes its work as supplying equipment and providing procurement support for businesses. ‘Telegraf’ notes separately that the entrepreneur has registered a sole trader with data processing as its primary activity. The position listed on the brand’s website, the sole trader’s status and the authority to sign on behalf of a specific importer are all separate entries. It is not possible to deduce the others from any one of them. [2] [3]
‘Flymultitech’: a legal entity that can be verified
In his publications, Pakhomov also mentioned ‘Flymultitech’ LLC. According to the Unified State Register, the company has the code 45834804 and was registered in 2025; the entry history from May 2026 lists a new shareholder, Yevgeny Kozlov. This establishes registered ownership in a specific limited liability company. To understand which legal entity imported a specific consignment, one needs the customs declaration, the contract with the supplier and the documents relating to the subsequent sale of the goods. The Monolit brand may feature in this chain as a front, but does not in itself identify the declarant. [2] [5]
Publications citing case documents date the alleged start of the shipments under investigation to 2022. This is prior to the registration of ‘Flymultitekh’. This means that data relating to the later-established company cannot automatically be applied to the entire period: for earlier shipments, the seller, buyer and importer must be identified separately. [1] [2] [5]
Three figures that do not add up
| Indicator | What does this mean according to the source? |
|---|---|
| 26.85 million USDT | The total amount received at an address on the TRON network from 5 March 2022 to 14 February 2026, according to the version of the investigation reported in the media. Fraza puts the equivalent at around 1.07 billion UAH. It is not possible to determine the profit or the ultimate beneficiary from the total amount of receipts. [1] [2] |
| 78.5 million UAH | An estimate of potential non-payment of personal income tax and military levy in the summary of the investigation’s findings. This is a different figure; there is no final court ruling in the verified sources. [1] [2] |
| Around 55 million UAH | Taxes and customs duties reported by the business itself in the ‘Fakty’ article. Without a specific time period, a list of consignments or a breakdown by legal entities, this figure neither confirms nor refutes the investigation’s assessment. [4] |
Even if the exact amount received at the crypto address is established, the question remains as to who controlled the address, how the transfers relate to the sale of specific consignments, and whether internal transfers were counted twice. To answer these questions, we need documents linking the transactions to contracts, invoices and specific individuals. [1] [2]
What is known about the BEB case and Pakhomov’s position
Fraza and other publications cite the production number 72025001110000049 Dated 23 October 2025. Publicly available reports discuss searches and the seizure of property, as well as allegations of irregularities in the import of Apple, DJI and other brands’ equipment. These procedural actions do not establish guilt. A complete set of the case’s primary documents has not been found in the public domain; claims regarding the searches and calculations are based on those publications which report having examined the case files. [1] [2] [6] [7]
Pakhomov has stated that Monolit and ‘Flymultitech’ process imports and fulfil their tax obligations. To verify both the company’s position and the BEB’s version against the same set of facts, at least one traceable route of the goods is required: a customs declaration, payment against an invoice, a delivery note and a sales document. Without such a chain of evidence, the large figure cited in the publication remains grounds for an investigation, rather than a definitive answer as to who did what. [2] [4]
