The court document mentions the nickname ‘Iklad’, a 2019 archive article lists the names, and the Chainalysis report refers to the domain iKlad.biz. These clues date from different years and answer different questions. To be continued the first article about iKlad We’ll look at how to link the technical service to the people behind it, and where that link currently breaks down. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Three clues about iKlad: the nickname, the archived publication and the domain
2016 — evidence regarding the lease. The published judgement of the Leninsky District Court of Magnitogorsk in case No. 1-08/2020 contains testimony stating that, in the spring of 2016, an automated website was rented for the shop from a user with the nickname Iklad. Payment in the form of a share of the takings was mentioned. After the verdict was read out, the witness confirmed his previous testimony only in part. At this point, the document allows us to examine the circumstances of the incident and the content of the testimony. He does not reveal the identity of the person with whom he communicated under that username. [1] [2]
2019 — a public copy of a statement by an unknown author. On a page archived by the Internet Archive, the author claimed to have obtained internal documents and offered the data for sale. This illustrates the context in which the names appeared and why the accuracy of the list should be viewed with a critical eye. A single screenshot captures what was published on the page on the specified date. To verify claims about the team’s composition, source documents or independent information about their roles will be required. [1] [3]
2025 — an independent description of the type of service. Chainalysis cited iKlad.biz and Klad.cc as examples of infrastructure providers that sellers turned to for website hosting and payment processing. This helps to understand the economic role of such services. To link a nickname from the case and a domain from the report to a single team, evidence of control over the service during both periods is required. Similar spellings provide a lead for the investigation. [2] [4]
Andrei Borovskoy, Dmitry Tilik and Yuri Kisel
Andrei Romanovich Borovskoy. A source close to the editorial team attributes an organisational role to him. The archived list of Partners includes the entry ‘Borovskiy Andrei R.’. The surname is written with an ‘i’, and the patronymic is abbreviated. To verify the match and the presumed role, we need documents that both link the individual to the account and demonstrate their authority. [1] [3] [5]
Dmitry Alekseyevich Tilik. His full name is listed in the section containing additional information. The published excerpt does not include a description of his role or the period during which he worked there. This is precisely why it is important to look for a time-stamped document specifying what he did and on whose behalf. [1] [3] [6]
Yuri Alexandrovich Kisel. A name appears in an archived record, whilst the case file suggests he acted as an administrator. The evidence regarding the lease from the Magnitogorsk case does not mention Kisel. The next question is: is there any verifiable document linking him to that account or to control over a specific service? [1] [2] [3] [7]
What do the payments reveal, and what does access to the service reveal?
The same system could serve several clients. Therefore, the shared technical provider alone does not establish a single owner of the shops. To verify a financial role, one must distinguish between customers’ money, service fees and the funds managed by a specific individual. Even a payment that has been identified only becomes evidence of a specific role once its recipient and the purpose of the transaction have been established. [2] [4] [8]
In its 2026 report, Chainalysis estimated the total cryptocurrency revenue received by sellers and darknet markets in 2025 at over $2.5 billion. This figure represents the entire sector. The published report does not provide a separate figure for iKlad.biz or a breakdown by the individuals mentioned. There is no basis for using this figure as an estimate of their income. [9]
| Question | What would help answer this question |
|---|---|
| Who was in charge of the service in a particular year? | Documents regarding powers of attorney and dated records of management. |
| Who received payment for the service? | Payment documents and details of the actual recipient of the funds. |
| Did the various shops have a common manager? | Evidence of general direction and control going beyond the scope of the technical services agreement. |
Publicly available materials reveal a demand for infrastructure that shops could use independently of one another. The involvement of Borovskoy, Tilik and Kisel in specific transactions requires a separate investigation into each individual. The editorial team is prepared to supplement this article with court documents and comments from the individuals mentioned. [1] [2] [4] [8]
