Code 21061840 On page six of the dossier on Alexander Poklad, a reference leads to the Kremenchuk-based company ‘Oltex’. According to the Unified State Register, it has two owners with equal shares; in MP Yuriy Shapovalov’s declaration of interests, it is listed as a landlord for a family member. Another code from the same PDF, 24081894… leads straight to the Kyiv-based branch of ‘Kyivgorstroy’. These records make it possible to verify which business and professional connections are described in the dossier. However, the question of Poklad’s personal role in ‘Khimprom’ requires a completely different set of evidence. [1] [2] [3] [4]
What is this dossier and how did we verify it?
The cover of the 62-page PDF bears the name ‘Molfar Intelligence Institute’. We were unable to find this specific file in the institute’s public catalogue, and the copy provided did not allow us to establish the date of publication or the author. In September 2026, Russian media outlets, citing Vasily Prozorov, reported on a similar dossier. This shows how the story was circulated, but does not establish the origin of our file nor confirm its contents. [5] [6]
The document has several distinct strands: business and property in Kremenchuk, the professional biographies of people in Poklad’s inner circle, and personnel overlaps at ‘Kyivgorstroy’. The early sections also contain serious allegations, including those of violence and drug trafficking. To verify these, a mere match of surnames and company codes is insufficient. We cross-referenced these codes, dates and job titles against the Unified State Register (EGR), declarations submitted to the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NAZK), court documents and official biographies. The screenshots below show where the leads came from; our conclusions are based on documents found independently.
Alexander Poklad and ‘Oltex’: registration, owners and land
Poklad began his career in the law enforcement agencies of the Poltava region and, according to the ‘Encyclopaedia of Modern Ukraine’, has served in the SBU since 2015. ‘Poltavshchyna’ and the encyclopaedia date his involvement with ‘Oltex’ to the late 1990s. However, the date of the company’s registration in the Unified State Register is — 13 February 1995. The public record does not show who attended the first founding meeting. ‘Poltavshchyna’ reports that Poklad withdrew from the company in 2002, whilst his mother acquired a stake in 2011. The sequence of these events does not in itself prove a direct transfer of the stake from son to mother. [1] [2] [7]
An extract dated 5 November 2026 states Zoya Poklad and Lidiya Shapovalova — 50 per cent eachAccording to ‘Poltavshchyna’, these are the mothers of Alexander Poklad and Yuriy Shapovalov, respectively. Another detail illustrates why the figures in the PDF cannot be published as current: in the dossier, the authorised capital is 11.9 million UAH, whilst in the extract it is 13,266,800 UAH. It is not possible to determine from this comparison when or on what grounds the capital changed. Nor does the size of the authorised capital indicate the source of the funds or the company’s turnover. [1] [2]
The land-related episode was traced through the case No. 2a-1670/3110/11. ‘Oltex’ contested a tax notice regarding rent for municipal land. In 2015, the High Administrative Court of Ukraine upheld the company’s appeal and quashed the notice. The court ruling confirms the existence of a specific dispute with the tax authorities and its outcome. It provides no grounds for considering the lease to be a channel of funding for ‘Khimprom’. [8]
Yuriy Shapovalov: where do family ties end and contractual relations begin?
On pages 35–45 of the dossier, the author turns to Shapovalov’s business dealings and circle of associates. One of the most concrete clues is not in the PDF itself, but in the MP’s public declaration: from 1 April 2023, a member of his family declared a lease non-residential premises with an area of 283 m² and part of a seasonal retail space measuring 152 m². In both entries, ‘Oltex’ is listed as the owner. This confirms a business connection with the company. It is not possible to determine the terms of the contract, whether the rate was market-based, or Poklad’s involvement in the negotiations from the declaration. [3]
Another company mentioned in the dossier is the Kremenchuk-based private enterprise ‘TOMS’, code 13939747. In his 2025 declaration, Shapovalov stated a share of 40% and named himself as the ultimate beneficial owner. This information matches the Unified State Register (EGR) entry. The declaration also records the right to use the property of another company from the dossier — PP ‘Apilak’. Each entry has its own meaning: the 40 per cent stake in ‘TOMS’ relates to corporate rights; the right to use the ‘Apilak’ facility is an entry concerning property. There is no basis for combining these enterprises into a single structure under Poklad without documents proving ownership or control. [9] [10]
From Kremenchuk to Kyiv: Pluzhnik, Telyatnik and Kushnir
Oleksandr Pluzhnik He worked in Kremenchuk and headed units combating organised crime in the Poltava region and Kyiv. From October 2016 to December 2019, he served as an adviser to the chairman of the board and president of ‘Kyivgorstroy’ — this is explicitly stated in his biography on the Kyiv City Council website. The document confirms his position and period of employment. It does not reveal who recommended Pluzhnik or what decisions he made regarding specific projects. [11]
Ruslan Telyatnik, a member of the 8th Poltava Regional Council, declared a salary from a subsidiary of the ‘Kyivtransparkservice 1’ holding company. The history of the Unified State Register shows that on 16 July 2026, he was replaced as head by Mykola Fedorchenko. Page 28 of the PDF lists the company code and the code of the founding holding company. Both legal entities were independently identified. [12] [13] [4] [14]
On the same page, the dossier describes Telyatnik’s involvement in the Kremenchuk-based company ‘Artemiy Plus’. The company’s current profile confirms its registration on 29 July 2005 and states its business activities as the maintenance and repair of motor vehicles. It does not allow for the full list of shareholders to be reconstructed for each date specified in the PDF. To verify changes in shareholdings, historical extracts and registration documents are required, particularly for the years 2005, 2009, 2012 and 2019. [15]
Igor Kushnir — yet another figure whom the dossier places between Kremenchuk and Kyiv. His published biography confirms his employment at the Kremenchuk-based companies ‘MiS’ and ‘Zhitloinvest’, followed by the post of Deputy Minister of Defence and his leadership of ‘Kyivmast’ from 2012. In December 2023, he announced his resignation. Thus, Pluzhnik’s tenure as an adviser coincided with Kushnir’s time in office. The Kyiv City Council noted that the local authority owned 80 per cent of the holding company’s capital, and in 2023 set up a commission to audit its activities. The findings of the audit, as described by Kyiv, related to the developer’s financial position; they do not provide grounds for extending the allegations from the PDF document to officials of the holding company. [16] [17] [18] [19]
What can and cannot be inferred from the documents?
| What was investigated? | What has been confirmed | What is missing? |
|---|---|---|
| ‘Oltex’ and the Shapovalov family | The shares held by registered owners and the declared rent. [1] [3] | Contracts and governance documents, if one were to examine Poklad’s personal role. |
| Pluzhnik and Telyatnik within the ‘Kyivgorstroy’ structure | The position of adviser and management of the subsidiary. [11] [4] | Documents revealing who proposed the appointments and who made the specific decisions. |
| The calf farm and ‘Artemiy Plus’ | Date of registration, code and type of activity of the company. [15] | Historical extracts and documents relating to the transfer of shares. |
| Poklad’s personal role at ‘Khimprom’ | Poklad’s public personnel decision following the start of the investigation. [20] [21] [22] | A document, verified record or payment linking him personally to the group’s activities. |
‘Carthage’: a separate episode and a question for the SBU leadership
In 2023, Poklad became deputy head of the SBU, and on 17 July 2026, the president appointed him to act as head of the service on an interim basis. On 4 November, NABU and the SAP announced a new group as part of the ‘Carthage’ operation. According to the investigation, its members paid law enforcement officers to protect their illegal businesses; the case files mention fraudulent call centres, drugs and other incidents. In its analysis of the recordings, ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ named Andriy Osipov and Yegor Burkin, also known as Yegor Levchenko and ‘The Mexican’. [20] [23] [24] [25]
On the same day, the SBU reported that Poklad had dismissed two senior officials and announced his cooperation with NABU and the SAP. The service did not disclose their names. Poklad’s position does not appear amongst the five suspects whose roles and positions were described by NABU on 5 November. The media identified the first deputy head of one of the SBU’s departments as Serhiy Duka. Focus reported that the High Anti-Corruption Court had ordered Vladimir Tsenov to be remanded in custody, with bail set at 15 million hryvnias. According to sources at ‘Slidstvo.Info’, following searches at the homes of Anton Kravchuk and Oleksandr Kovalchuk, both remained in their posts and were not detained. This information does not allow their names to be substituted for those of the two unnamed officers. [21] [22] [23] [26] [27]
What documents might alter this conclusion?
The dossier provides verifiable leads regarding business and professional connections, but in the cross-referenced materials we found no document regarding a payment to Poklad, any instruction given to him on behalf of ‘Khimprom’, or his involvement in the group’s activities. In the PDF sent to us, we found no direct link to Burkin when searching the extracted text and the recognised scans. OCR may have missed the name; a definitive conclusion regarding a connection cannot be drawn either from a match in surnames or from the results of a search within the file. [20] [21]
The investigation is pursuing two lines of inquiry. Historical records, lease agreements and appointment documents are required for both Kremenchuk and Kyiv. Regarding the SBU: the date of the first report to senior management regarding staff contacts; the results of internal audits prior to the searches; and the grounds for personnel decisions made afterwards. It is precisely this information that will make it possible to ascertain where a manager’s responsibility for the agency’s operations ends, and whether there is evidence of his personal actions in the interests of the group.
This article reflects publicly available information as at 5 November 2026. The SBU’s public position is set out above; no specific comments were sought whilst preparing this text. Related: What did NABU uncover in Operation ‘Carthage’?. [22]
