In the case concerning the rucksacks for the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, there is a contract number, the price of a single item and the verdict of the Kharkiv court. The investigation into the ‘Trukha’ Telegram network includes the brand’s history, details of advertising and people who gave varying answers to the question of who owns it. The article on online casinos mentions the names CatCasino, Kent, R7 and Daddy Casino, but there are no documents revealing the owners. The name Vladimir Yakovlevich Litvin features in all three stories. What connection can be traced in each of them? [1] [2] [3] [4]
Lytvyn is a Kharkiv-based entrepreneur who worked in internet marketing. His RBC-Ukraine profile lists his date of birth as 30 May 1987 and mentions TurboSeo and the Lytvyn Foundation. Back in 2017, ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ referred to a figure involved in the ‘backpacks’ case as the head of TurboSeo in 2014. NGL.media later linked the same entrepreneur to ‘Truha’. These publications explain why articles about procurement, the media business and casinos all appear in a single search result for his name. Each story has its own evidence. [5] [6] [3]
‘Trukha’: the face of the project, the trademark and the money spent on advertising
In September 2023, NGL.media reported on how a Kharkiv-based Telegram channel had grown into a network and become a prominent advertising platform. Maksym Lavrinenko spoke publicly on behalf of the project and described himself as its owner. Journalists traced other links, including the registration of the ‘Truha’ and ‘Truha’ trademarks and reports of Litvin’s investments. One of NGL.media’s sources, a former business partner of Litvin, spoke about these investments anonymously. Lavrinenko disputed the journalists’ interpretation and continued to claim ownership. [3] [7]
Every single document here has evidential value. Trademark registration demonstrates ownership of the brand. The advertising proposal shows how the ad space was sold. A payment document could reveal who received the money. Access to the Telegram channel and control over its administration is another matter. The convergence of several links lends credence to the theory, but the published investigation does not reveal the full structure of shareholdings and financial transactions. [3]
In January 2024, ‘Detector Media’ investigated how ‘Trukha’ reported on its own charitable projects and promoted its network. This is an independent examination of how public engagement can boost a media brand’s visibility. Publications on charity work, advertising placements and the channel owners’ accounts leave various documentary traces. From the channel’s public content, it is possible to determine what the audience saw. To answer questions about revenue distribution, contracts and payment data are required. [8] [3]
| A clue | What can be verified | What is needed to conclude that he is in control |
|---|---|---|
| Trademark | Who was the applicant, and who held the rights to the trademark during that specific period? [3] | Licences to use the trademark and agreements on the transfer of rights. |
| Advertising sales | Who claims to be the advertising space seller, and which platform do they offer access to? [3] [8] | The contract, the recipient of the funds and the documents detailing the distribution of proceeds. |
| Public representation | Who speaks on behalf of the channel and how do they describe their role? [3] [7] | Corporate documents or the administrator’s verified powers of attorney. |
What makes the Telegram network a standalone business
In 2023, NGL.media reported a price of 93,000 hryvnias per post on the main channel, according to data from the advertising platform. When journalists placed a test order, they were quoted 80,000 hryvnias to promote another channel. According to the investigation, the advertising manager requested $4,000 for the publication of a negative piece they had prepared about the mayor. These are the rates and negotiations from that period. They allow for a comparison of how different formats were sold and provide a basis for assessing the advertising market. [3]
During test orders, journalists obtained payment details and examined transactions across seven crypto wallets linked to the network’s advertising. According to NGL.media’s calculations, 427,000 USDT passed through one of them over five months. This figure represents the total value of transactions for that specific wallet. To draw conclusions about advertising revenue and the recipients of the income, relevant accounts, contracts and information regarding control over the address would be required. In his response to the publication, Lavrinenko stated that staff are paid in hryvnias in accordance with their contracts. [3]
Trademark registration also requires a chronological framework. If one person submitted the application, another acted on behalf of the channel, and a third received payment for advertising, the legal basis for each party’s actions must be established. The NGL.media investigation provides grounds for questioning Litvin’s role. Its published findings allow for further investigation into registrations, trademark licences and contracts where the parties are specified. [3] [7]
CatCasino, Kent, R7 and Daddy: what the theory is based on
On 6 December 2024, ‘Sledstvie’ published an article on the Russian online casino payments market. It named CatCasino, Kent Casino, R7 and Daddy Casino among the platforms it attributed to Litvin, and described the alleged route involving transfers between individuals and conversion into cryptocurrency. The article refers to an unnamed source. The article contains no details of an official FSB statement, court order, registry extract or contract that would allow Litvin’s ownership of these platforms to be verified. [4]
The article also mentions Alexei Kharitonov and German Polyakov. The publication links these names to the alleged operation of the payment infrastructure. The publicly available article does not specify which transaction relates to whom, who the recipients of the transfers were, or in what capacity each of the named individuals acted. To establish their roles, dated bank records, contracts or case files would be required to link a specific transaction to an individual. [4]
In a later article, *Kommersant* summarised an *Izvestia* report on the CatAffs network. In that report, CatCasino, Kent, Gamma and R7 were mentioned together, whilst sources attributed control of the network to a different individual. This claim concerns management and is also based on reports from sources. The two articles share some overlap in terms of the brands mentioned. However, it is not possible to determine the owner, the date of the transfer of rights or Litvin’s personal role based on this information. [4] [9]
Verification of ownership begins with the operator specified in the terms of service and licence for a particular domain. Next, a company register extract is required, along with contracts between the operator and the trademark owner, and, where necessary, details of beneficial ownership. The money trail begins elsewhere – with the payee and the register of payments. In the materials examined, the editorial team found no primary document linking Litvin to ownership of the listed websites or showing that he had authorised specific payments. [4] [9]
How to check the operator and recipient of a single deposit
Even websites with similar names may have different domains, terms and conditions, and payment recipients. To verify this, first note down the domain, the date and the legal entity listed there. The information is then cross-referenced against the regulator’s records and the company register. If a licence is listed on the website, its number and jurisdiction must be verified. Only then can it be determined which documents specifically relate to the site mentioned in the publication. [4] [9]
The next step is to trace the payment from the customer to the settlement with the operator. The payee on the receipt, the transaction ID and the bank statement allow the records to be cross-referenced. If a conversion to cryptocurrency is claimed, a document linking the specific debit to the exchange and subsequent transfer will be required. A public blockchain can show the movement between addresses. To determine who owns an address, further information regarding control over the wallet is required. [4]
‘Avakov’s rucksacks’: how 5,000 rucksacks turned into a case that has dragged on for years
The story surrounding the procurement for the Ministry of Internal Affairs has a more detailed documentary history. In January 2015, according to the NABU timeline, 6,000 rucksacks were included in the plan, with an expected cost of 2,024 hryvnias per unit. In February, the commission approved a proposal from ‘Dniprovend’ LLC for 5,000 units at 2,899 hryvnias each. The contract value totalled 14,495,000 hryvnias. The investigation focused on the supplier’s documentation, delivery times and the products’ compliance with the technical specifications. [1]
In public discussion, different figures were sometimes treated as interchangeable. The contract price refers to the entire procurement. The sum of approximately 4.85 million hryvnias mentioned in the summary of the judgement refers to the difference between the amount paid and the value of the goods. ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ reported on Litvin’s transfer of funds to the budget and listed court costs separately. Comparing these sums requires understanding where each one came from and to which stage of the case it relates. [10] [11] [1]
On 11 September 2018, the Chervonozavodskyi District Court of Kharkiv approved a plea agreement in case No. 646/5598/18. A later court document indicates that the agreement was concluded on 25 July, and the sentence came into force on 12 October 2018. The court found Lytvyn guilty under Part 4 of Article 190 and Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for a probationary period of two years. The proceedings concerning the allegations against Oleksandr Avakov and Serhiy Chebotar were discontinued. [2] [10] [12]
In September 2020, the court released Litvin from serving his sentence upon completion of his probation period. RBC-Ukraine reported that his criminal record was deemed expunged. In December 2024, the court reconsidered the matter under the same case number. The Ministry of Internal Affairs requested the return of the physical evidence. The Public Prosecutor’s Office stated that samples from the seized rucksacks had been handed over to a National Police unit in 2022. The court rejected the application to order the return of the property. The latest ruling concerns the enforcement and fate of the material evidence. [13] [2]
| Date | What happened | Source |
|---|---|---|
| February 2015 | The purchase of 5,000 rucksacks from ‘Dniprovend’ has been approved. | NABU timeline. [1] |
| 11 September 2018 | The court approved the plea agreement and imposed a suspended sentence. | Case file and court ruling. [10] [2] |
| 17 September 2020 | Litvin has been released from serving his sentence following the completion of his probation period. | Case overview and RBC-Ukraine. [10] [13] |
| 17 December 2024 | The court considered the application regarding material evidence and rejected it. | Court order No. 123803916. [2] |
There is another, lesser-known episode in the procurement story. In 2017, ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ reported that NABU had purchased tracksuits from Litvin. The Bureau explained that the businessman had taken part in open tenders and that, at the time of the purchase, he had not yet been designated a suspect. NABU also stated that it had not entered into any contracts with ‘Dniprovend’. This episode helps to distinguish between the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ 2015 procurement and the Bureau’s own subsequent contracts. [14] [6]
What is known about TurboSeo and its current projects
RBC-Ukraine attributes Litvin’s early projects to web hosting, SEO and internet marketing. In Opendatabot’s corporate data, his full name appears in the entry for ‘Internet Technologies “TurboGroup”’. NGL.media has separately described his work with Roman Katerynchyk on the TurboSeo project. These publications confirm the business context and help distinguish between him and people with the same surname when searching through registers. [5] [15] [3] [6]
In 2026, RBC-Ukraine presented Lytvyn as the founder of the Lytvyn Foundation. Its public projects include MindCraft, which teaches teenagers about online business; the Code The Future series of hackathons; and the MindShift Awards competition. The Elina Svitolina Foundation describes the joint ONE POINT programme separately. These projects have their own web pages, programmes and partners. The foundation’s public activities are covered in its own documents and in its partners’ publications. [5] [16] [17] [18]
The dossier on Vladimir Yakovlevich Litvin
An editorial source’s account of the payment intermediaries
According to a source at KARTEL KHIMPROM, who is familiar with the workings of the payment infrastructure, some of the payment intermediaries, whom he associates with the gambling business described in the article, may have processed transactions that he links to ‘Khimpom’ and to Yevgeny Viktorovich and Zlata Yaroslavovna Zaifert. According to the editorial team, the evidence gathered has been handed over to the law enforcement authorities. The editorial team does not cite any public procedural decision or accessible documents confirming this payment route.
To verify this theory regarding Litvin’s involvement, it is particularly important to examine documents that simultaneously identify the specific casino domain, the operator on the relevant date, and the actual recipient of the payment. If an intermediary served several clients, its name indicates where to look for the contracts. Drawing conclusions about the flow of funds requires a match between transactions in terms of dates, amounts and recipients.
What questions remain unanswered?
The most precise questions relate to specific documents. Who received money for a particular advert placed on ‘Trukha’? Which legal entity accepted the deposit on the specific CatCasino or Kent domain? How is a payment transaction linked to a payment intermediary’s client? There is a chronology of court proceedings regarding the purchase of the rucksacks. For the Telegram network and online casinos, the answers must be sought in the relevant registers, contracts and payment records. [3] [2] [4] [9]
The individuals, companies and their representatives mentioned may submit comments and documents via Contacts: KARTEL KHIMPROM.
