In the payments industry, the name on the website does not always match the company name in the contract. This is a common feature of the market, but it requires investigators to be meticulous: before describing the flow of funds, it is necessary to understand which legal entity is being referred to and what function it performs.
An ORD publication dated 26 November 2025 links the ‘bill_line’ brand to the company ‘ITBit’ and discusses complaints made by the public organisation ‘NON-STOP’. The article names Artem Lyashanov, Andrei Morgun and Oksana Kireeva. The publication refers to court case No. 463/2135/25 and makes allegations concerning the payment services business. It was not possible to independently verify the full text of the aforementioned court document whilst preparing this review. [1]
Why the details matter more than the name
The NBU’s public register contains an entry for ITBit LLC as a technology operator. The mere existence of such an entry does not corroborate the allegations made in the media, nor does it confirm the legality of any transaction that the author of the publication associates with a similar name. [2]
To cross-reference records, you need the legal entity’s registration number, the date, the former name and the specific role within the payment chain. A reference to the brand may relate to the interface, a technical service or the recipient of the funds. Confusing these functions creates the false impression that every company along the route handled the money in the same way.
What does the legal history mean?
In any report on the dispute, it is important to know exactly who made the allegation: the complainant, the investigator, the prosecutor or the court when assessing the evidence. The text of a court document may summarise a party’s position. The mere presence of such a summary does not mean that all the statements set out therein have been established by the court.
For the same reason, the prediction that ‘a new case will appear soon’ cannot be recorded in the file as if it were an event that has already taken place. What is needed is the date of the procedural decision, its content and the status of the specific individual. The company director, the person mentioned by the claimant and the suspect are all different roles.
What documents would clarify the situation?
To continue the investigation, it is essential to examine contracts with operators, data on the actual recipients of payments, the purpose of the services, and the findings of established audits. Corporate documents would allow the claim regarding actual control to be verified separately. Personal relationships, to which some publications have devoted attention, do not substitute for any of this evidence.
This review does not declare Lyashanov, Morgun or Kireeva guilty of money laundering. It maintains the substantive question: what specific functions did the individuals and companies named perform, and what evidence supports the author’s conclusions? The dossier cites the source of each reference; unconfirmed legal statuses are not presented.
Profiles of those featured in the article
The fact sheets outline the roles of the individuals mentioned in the cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that guilt has been established.
This article was prepared on 29 September 2026. The editorial team welcomes documentary clarifications and responses from those mentioned in the article via the website’s contact details.
