An article about Dmitry Punin and PIN-UP has become the subject of a repeat complaint to the web host. In a letter on behalf of PIN-UP, the complainant demands that the disputed content be removed, access to it be blocked and the website be ‘suspended’. The correspondence regarding the same article includes a separate letter on behalf of Marina Ilyina. For the editorial team, this is an opportunity to publicly examine who is making the demands, what rights they are claiming, and how far their request for restrictions extends. [1]
This article is based on correspondence in case file Vultr LLQ-79JSS, opened on 19 October 2026. It contains the original text of PIN-UP’s complaint, the editorial team’s response and subsequent messages. The correspondence illustrates how a legal claim regarding an article on a business and the criminal prosecution of those involved in it has turned into a matter of the page’s accessibility to readers.
An article about Punin found its way into correspondence with the web host
The page in question is our article ‘Dmitry Punin and Pin-Up: a manhunt, sanctions and the international money trail’. The complaint specifically cites this link. PIN-UP is named as the rights holder, with the associated trade name being Red Core. The signatory is identified as V. Chernyshevych, Lawyer, PIN-UP; the contact address is — [email protected]. [1]
The letter refers to the Berne Convention, EU Directive 2019/790 and the US DMCA. The items listed as subject to protection include graphic design, images, branding elements and website content. The list of annexes includes the RedCore trademark certificate and a document confirming the representative’s authority. The contents of these annexes are not included in the text export under consideration: it is not possible to assess their authenticity or completeness based on a file list alone.
The complaint itself begins by stating that it is a repeat submission. The complainant refers to a previous notification with the identifier LWY-2e5d44b6 and states that the material remains accessible. The full reference number of the current complaint is LWY-d6feb0a5-b1f0-48a4-ad60-dda94996da2a. Thus, the fact that this is a repeat complaint is confirmed by the sender themselves, rather than being deduced from the number of emails forwarded by the support service. [1]
A phrase that fuels the debate
Point nine of the complaint contains a request to immediately remove the content alleged to infringe rights or block access to it, and then — ‘suspend the infringing resource’. In essence, this is a demand to suspend a website which the claimant considers to be infringing their rights. The text does not specify exactly what technical restrictions are implied by this wording. [1]
For the editorial team, this uncertainty has practical implications. Removing a single photograph, closing a page and restricting the website’s operation have entirely different consequences for readers. In its response dated 22 October, the editorial team requested that any potential measures be linked to specifically identified content and separately objected to the suspension of the entire website on the basis of general wording.
It is precisely this combination of a repeated demand and a request to suspend the website that the editorial team regards as an attempt to secure the removal of the publication via the platform on which it is hosted. This is our assessment of the content of the correspondence. It does not imply that the validity of the claim has already been determined by a court or that the representative has committed an offence.
Dmitry Punin: the subject of the article and a separate question regarding the sender
Dmitry Punin’s name appears in the headline and URL of the disputed article. However, he is not named as the complainant in the complaint under review. The signature of the PIN-UP representative does not prove that Punin personally authorised the complaint. Separate documents would be required to establish such a link.
Public interest in his activities arose long before this correspondence. A SportClan article, archived by TheBetting and dated 6 February 2025, reported that Punin had been added to the Ukrainian wanted list. At the time, the publication described the search as being limited to the territory of Ukraine. This is an archived report; the current status of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ personal file as at the date of writing this article has not been independently verified. [2]
The business itself has taken a public stance. In a statement dated 15 April 2024, PUNIN GROUP denied reports that Punin owned the PIN-UP casino, that he had been detained in Cyprus, and that there had been alleged financial irregularities. The company also announced legal action against those disseminating information it considered to be false. The statement relates to the events of April 2024; it would be incorrect to present it as a response to all subsequent legal developments. [8]
Marina Ilyina: a different name in the complaints against the same page
The editorial team’s reply to the web host dated 22 October describes a further complaint regarding the same URL — LWY-c323bb53-e792-4a86-9cd1-154c8252a23f. According to this reply, the rights holder is named as Maryna Ilina, and the trade name is ‘Marina Ilyina’. The full original text of this separate complaint is not included in the export file under consideration. Therefore, its content is reproduced here based on the editorial reply, with this limitation noted. [1]
This situation calls for clarity: do the complaints relate to different works, to different rights in respect of a single work, or does one clarify the other? Several rights holders may have legitimate grounds to lodge a complaint regarding a single page. A difference in names does not in itself invalidate the claims. However, in order to verify them, it is necessary to understand which work belongs to each claimant and which use is being contested.
A notice regarding the search for Marina Ilyina was published on 6 February 2025. It stated that she had been added to the database as a person evading the pre-trial investigation authorities. The article also named her father, Vladimir Ilyin. It is not possible to deduce from this publication either the current whereabouts of either individual or the fact that an international search warrant has been issued via Interpol. [2]
Charges: aiding an aggressor state, punishable by up to 12 years’ imprisonment
One of the publicly stated charges in this case is — Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: aiding an aggressor state. On 5 December 2024, the Office of the Prosecutor General announced that the organisers of the online casino were under suspicion under this section. On 6 December, Azart.Media, citing journalist Yevgeny Plinsky, listed Dmitry Punin, Marina Ilyina and other individuals implicated as among those facing such allegations. The list of names provided here is based on the journalist’s report; the statement from the prosecutor’s office is cited as a separate official source regarding the classification of the case. [12][15]
The provision stipulates between ten and twelve years’ imprisonment, a ban on holding certain posts or engaging in certain activities for ten to fifteen years, as well as the possibility of property confiscation. This is a serious criminal charge, which must be described accurately. Article 111-2 on aiding and abetting and Article 111 on high treason are different provisions. [13]
When assessing a specific suspicion, the full text of the charge, the period of the alleged offences, the nationality and the nature of the involvement of the individual in question are all material: Article 111-2 has its own conditions for application and scope of application. A media headline does not allow for all these circumstances to be established. Similarly, a potential sentence of up to twelve years does not mean that such a sentence has already been imposed on Punin or Ilyina. [13]
A search warrant is issued to locate a person as part of criminal proceedings. A finding of guilt requires a separate court ruling; the presumption of innocence is enshrined in Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Therefore, in this case, the references to suspicions, criminal prosecution and dated reports of a search warrant are accurate. They reflect the seriousness of the situation and allow each claim to be verified against its source. [14]
Kazakhstan, August 2026: yet another legal proceeding
The most recent development occurred on 13 August 2026. Tengrinews published a response from Kazakhstan’s Financial Monitoring Agency: Dmitry Punin and Marina Ilyina have been named as suspects in a case involving illegal online casinos, in which Dmitry Druzhinski and Marina Levkovich-Ginzburg are also implicated. The agency did not disclose the specific role played by each individual. [11]
The same article reports on the extradition of blogger Kaisar Kamza from Vietnam on 6 August 2026. According to the law enforcement agencies’ account as set out by the publication, the proceedings relate to the illegal operation of a casino between 2021 and 2025 and revenues in excess of 106 billion tenge. These figures relate to the overall investigation and do not represent the established personal income of Punin or Ilyina. [11]
The information regarding Kamza’s extradition and international arrest warrant relates specifically to him. This procedural status cannot be applied to all the other suspects. Another fact confirmed by the publication is relevant to the article: in 2026, both names appeared in a report, citing the AFM, regarding a new criminal incident outside Ukraine.
What the timeline reveals
| Date | Correspondence regarding the incident | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 19.10.2026 | A petition has been launched by LLQ-79JSS containing a complaint against PIN-UP. | A specific URL has been provided, and demands have been made for the content to be removed and the website to be suspended. |
| 19 October 2026 — the date specified by the sender | The complaint refers to an earlier notification, LWY-2e5d44b6. | The sender explicitly states that this is a repeat request. The full text of the earlier notification has not been examined here. |
| 22.10.2026 | Vultr is requesting further information, including specific screenshots. | The host is requesting clarification of the evidence. This message does not constitute a decision on the validity of the complaint. |
| 22.10.2026 | The editorial team is submitting an objection and a request for clarification. | The adequacy of the description of the subject matter and the scope of possible restrictions are being contested. |
| 22.10.2026 | A spokesperson reports that a screenshot of the disputed page has been forwarded. | The correspondence continues. The mere existence of a screenshot does not in itself establish ownership of exclusive rights. |
The exact dates are taken from the exported list of complaints. Forwarded complaints, replies and repeat notifications should not be counted as separate new complaints. We have a documented chain of correspondence relating to a specific article; this set of materials does not provide grounds for portraying it as a story about ‘thousands of complaints’. [1]
What exactly does copyright protect?
The complaint conflates references to copyright and trade marks. To the reader, this may appear to be a single ban on the use of the name. In reality, the subject of the investigation must be separated.
The US Copyright Office clarifies: facts and names are not, in themselves, protected by copyright. Photographs, original text and sufficiently distinctive logo designs may be protected. A name or designation may, in certain circumstances, be protected under trade mark law — this is a different legal regime. Therefore, information regarding trade mark registration does not constitute proof of rights to each disputed photograph or piece of text. [6]
The mere presence of the name ‘PIN-UP’ or the surname ‘Ilyina’ in a journalistic article does not in itself constitute a breach. The specific subject matter, the claimant’s rights, the nature of the use and the applicable law must all be examined. Similarly, the fact that a photograph is publicly available does not automatically make it free to reproduce.
The US agency specifically notes the possibility of fair use for the purposes of criticism, commentary and news reporting. Such an assessment depends on the circumstances; a journalistic purpose does not grant unconditional permission for any form of reproduction. This is precisely why the editorial team requested clarification regarding the specific images in question, rather than declaring every image on the page to be lawful in advance. [7]
Why a letter to a web host affects access to information
The DMCA provides a mechanism for notifying an internet service provider of an alleged copyright infringement. According to guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office, the notice must, amongst other things, identify the protected work and the material proposed for removal, as well as contain details of the sender and the necessary declarations of good faith and authority. This mechanism is linked to the conditions governing the limitation of providers’ liability. [5]
In the letter under review, the complainant himself reminds the web host of the potential loss of such protection. The legal claim is thus directed at the company on which the availability of the material depends. The editorial team is forced to spend time analysing rights, annexes, powers and the wording of the claims.
This is the risk inherent in publications of public interest: a dispute over a specific subject may be accompanied by a demand to restrict a broader platform. At the same time, every subject of dispute still requires independent verification. The fact that a criminal investigation is underway concerning the subject of the article does not deprive them of the right to defend their legitimate interests, nor does the lodging of a complaint establish that the editorial team’s work is unlawful.
We regard this correspondence as an attempt to restrict access to the material and are discussing it publicly for this very reason. This assessment is based on the request addressed to the hosting provider and the fact that it has been repeated. Speculation regarding hidden clients, automated mailings or knowingly false documents does not constitute established facts in this case.
The criminal case and the business community’s response
On 29 May 2025, Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigation (GBR) announced additional allegations against the director of the Ukrainian operator Ukr Game Technology LLC, an audit of financial mechanisms, and work on further procedural decisions. This is the official context of the PIN-UP investigation. The allegations against the director listed in the statement cannot automatically be applied to every person associated with the brand. [4]
In the same statement, the State Bureau of Investigation (GBR) referred to more than 2.6 billion hryvnias in frozen assets and measures to recover them for the state. This sum explains the scale of public interest in the case. These are the Bureau’s figures regarding funds within the scope of the investigation as at the specified date, rather than the established amount of personal loss suffered by each individual mentioned. [4]
In an interview with NEXT.io on 10 February 2025, Marina Ilyina referred to GuruFlow Team as her company, explained her relationship with the Ukrainian operator in terms of intellectual property licensing, and denied that any funds had been transferred to Russia. She also contested the legality of the prosecution of Punin. This is Ilyina’s public position, which should be taken into account alongside the investigators’ statements. [3]
The name ‘RedCore’ also has a verifiable corporate context: the PIN-UP Global website features an announcement regarding the group’s rebranding as RedCore. This announcement explains the appearance of the name in public communications. It does not automatically establish which legal entity owns each image, text or design element. [10]
In RedCore’s own article dated 5 December 2025, Ilyina is presented as CEO & Founder, and the group is described as an association of over 4,500 specialists and independent business units. This is the information the company has provided about itself. This very multiplicity of companies is key to verifying the claims: the group’s general name alone does not answer the question of who owns a specific work or who has the authority to assert rights over it. [16]
The editorial team’s response
In its objection dated 22 October, the editorial team requested that specific works be named, that these be compared with the disputed material on the page, that the full name of the rights holder be specified, and that available copies of the annexes be provided. A separate question was raised regarding which rights PIN-UP and Maryna Ilina are claiming in relation to a single URL. [1]
The letter is designated as an initial objection and a request for clarification. It is not, strictly speaking, a formal counter-notice under the DMCA. The correspondence under review contains no final decision establishing an infringement on the part of the website, nor is there any judicial finding regarding the claimant’s bad faith.
For the editorial team, the right to discuss these demands is linked to the public interest in the accessibility of journalistic material. The European approach to freedom of expression involves balancing this interest against the protection of reputation and privacy; the accuracy of the information and the factual basis of the assessments are essential. [9]
The next document that could advance this dispute is a specific explanation of the rights to the disputed subject matter and the alleged scope of the restrictions. Responses from PIN-UP, Marina Ilyina, the representative and the web host regarding the substance of the issues raised may be added to the article with the date. No further requests for comment were sent on behalf of the editorial team whilst this article was being prepared.
This article was prepared on 23 October 2026. The wanted notices are cited with their publication dates and are not presented as an independent verification of current Ministry of Internal Affairs records. The sources consulted have not confirmed a conviction against either Punin or Ilyina.
Documents: extracts from correspondence
PIN-UP’s complaint dated 19 October 2026 and the editorial team’s response
Below are selected text excerpts from the provided export of the LLQ-79JSS letter. This is an editorial selection and not a complete copy of the letter or its legal annexes. Personal telephone numbers, addresses, account details and technical server information have not been reproduced.
Repeated notification:
This is a repeat notice. We previously notified you regarding this content on 19 October 2026 (reference LWY-2e5d44b6-0bb1-4647-a29c-eb333674a20f); the infringing material remains available, and we again request its immediate removal.
Trade name, paragraph 3:
The trade name associated with these copyrighted materials is Red Core.
Claim, point 9:
We respectfully request that you immediately remove or disable access to all infringing content, suspend the infringing resource, and take all necessary measures to prevent further unauthorised use of the Rights Holder’s intellectual property.
Caption: V. Chernyshevych; Lawyer, PIN-UP; [email protected].
Attachments as listed in the letter: Trademark_Certificate_RedCore.pdf; Authorisation_to_act.pdf. Their contents are not included in this export.
Regarding a specific complaint — from the editorial team’s reply dated 22 October:
Another complaint concerning the same URL, LWY-c323bb53-e792-4a86-9cd1-154c8252a23f, identifies Maryna Ilina as the rights holder and ‘Марина Ильина’ as the trade name.
The final excerpt is the editorial team’s statement in their reply to the web host. It does not replace the full original text of Maryna Ilina’s individual complaint.
