There are two documents in this story, and it is easy to lose sight of the main point between them. In one, the police report the seizure of hundreds of thousands of tablets. In the other – a journalistic piece – the name of the head of the Ukrainian Boxing Federation and the name ‘Khimprom’ appear. KARTEL KHIMPROM has traced where the official press release ends and the account concerning Kirill Shevchenko begins, and has also examined an earlier scandal involving sports invitations and his explanation for his resignation.
A man who cannot be defined by a single job title
Kirill Valeryevich Shevchenko entered the public consciousness of Ukrainian boxing long before the accusatory headlines. Interview on the website of the Kyiv City Organisation of the FBU traces the start of his leadership of this organisation back to 2009. By 2021, he was already challenging Vladimir Prodivus’s approach to managing the national federation.
City organisation announced Shevchenko’s election as head of the FBU on 22 February 2022. Later, in December, The IBA has recognised him as president of the Ukrainian federation, as reported by ‘Suspilne’. Therefore, the term ‘impostor’, which appears in critical articles, should not be used in place of a description of the actual history of his appointment and the controversies surrounding it.
Profile: Kirill Valeryevich Shevchenko
Former president of the FBU. Biography, a history of publications regarding alleged links with ‘Khimprom’, and the official’s own explanations.
The dispute over control of the federation is important for understanding the sources: those involved in such a conflict have a vested interest in how the public perceives them. But the presence of rivals does not make every accusation false — just as a sensational headline does not make it true. Every incident must be verified.
365,000 tablets: what the police actually reported
23 December 2022 The Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs has published a statement from the National Police regarding the disruption of supplies of banned pseudoephedrine tablets. According to the investigation, the organiser was based in Rostov-on-Don; two participants were detained in Ukraine. It was reported that over 365,000 tablets had been seized and that they were believed to be intended for the production of methamphetamine.
The official statement does not mention the names of Kirill Shevchenko and Alexander Shchiptsov. Nor does it mention the name ‘Khimprom’. Consequently, this press release cannot be relied upon as official confirmation of the federation president’s involvement in the cartel.
There is also a significant difference in the wording: the police described the seized tablets as containing a precursor. The 36 kilograms of methamphetamine mentioned by the police is a preliminary estimate of potential production, not the weight of the finished drug found. When this distinction is omitted from the account, the scale of the incident begins to look very different.
Where names were added to the police investigation
18 January 2023 ‘Antikor’ has published an article citing the ORD. Following the account of the police statement, the report included information attributed to its own sources within the law enforcement agencies: one of those detained was named as Shchiptsov, whilst Shevchenko and the lawyer Andrei Tsygankov were alleged to have been aiding the ‘Khimprom’ network.
The verified transcript does not contain any published court document linking Shevchenko to this case. It confirms the existence of the charge, but not that it has been proven.
We can then trace the route taken by this version of events. 19 January Delo.ua cited the ORD, and ‘Apostrophe’ — on Delo.ua. The ORD website itself could not be accessed during this check; the source of the link was identified from available publications.
| Article | What is his basis? | This makes it possible to establish |
|---|---|---|
| Ministry of Internal Affairs, 23 December 2022 | Statement from the National Police | The circumstances of the operation as set out by the investigators; there is no mention of any links to Shevchenko in the text |
| ‘Antikor’, 18 January 2023 | Source cited as ORD; unnamed sources within the text | Contents of the prosecution’s case |
| Delo.ua, 19 January 2023 | Link to ORD | The circulation of the same version |
| ‘Apostrophe’, 19 January 2023 | Link to Delo.ua | The following is a retelling, not new independent evidence |
A few links here are useful: they show how the allegation came to light. However, the number of sources does not increase the amount of primary evidence. To conclude that there was a partnership with the cartel, information is needed on specific actions: the transfer of money, the carrying out of instructions, the provision of resources or participation in decision-making.
Two dossiers that explain the context
According to the version reported by the media, it is Shchiptsov’s name that links the December arrest to ‘Khimprom’, whilst Burkin is identified as the founder of the network. It is therefore appropriate to include their files here. They help to clarify the names involved, but cannot fill the gap in the evidence concerning Shevchenko.
Yegor Vasilyevich Burkin — file No. 0096
The archive contains material on Burkin, the Levchenko family and the history of ‘Khimprom’.
Alexander Yuryevich Shchiptsov — file no. 0308
His name is mentioned in reports about Shevchenko’s alleged links to the network. The identity of the individual detained in the December incident requires independent verification.
A broader context is set out in our article on the Russian origins and Ukrainian history of ‘Khimprom’. The connection of each new person to this story must be verified separately.
A sporting invitation that raised questions as far back as 2020
Journalist Viktoria Roshchina investigated a more specific incident. In from a Hromadske article dated 18 August 2020 It was investigated how Rustam Chichaev and Valid Aidamirov arrived in Ukraine at the invitation of the Kyiv City Organisation of the FBU, only to be subsequently expelled from the country.
The publication obtained comments from those involved and examined the documents. Shevchenko confirmed the invitation and attributed it to the coaches’ work, denying any knowledge of their service in the Chechen law enforcement agencies. The police, for their part, reported breaches of residency regulations and stated that there were no factual grounds for opening criminal proceedings at that time.
This is a separate story about the vetting of individuals receiving support from a sports organisation. It raises questions about the invitation procedure, but does not in itself prove either drug trafficking or the federation’s involvement with ‘Khimprom’.
The public interest here is quite specific: who verifies the qualifications of the invited specialists, who signs the documents, and how does the organisation respond to information that contradicts the initial impression of the guests? Such rules protect both the athletes and the reputation of the federation itself.
Maiman and Tsygankov: statements from those involved in the dispute
There is another line of allegations. In RTVI news round-up, 23 November 2023 The article quotes statements made by Mikhail Maiman, who accused Shevchenko and Tsygankov of acting in Burkina’s interests, including alleged money laundering. These are accusations made by a specific individual and reported by the media — they are not facts established by the editorial team.
To assess these words, one must take into account the relationship between the parties. In 2022, Delo.ua published statements by Shevchenko and Tsygankov, which included counter-accusations against Maiman. Shevchenko spoke of their long-standing acquaintance and joint activities, whilst Tsygankov spoke of severing ties with his former client.
The conflict itself highlights the need to weigh up the different accounts. It does not allow us to decide in advance whose version of events to believe. Legal representation does not, in itself, imply complicity: such a conclusion requires evidence of actions going beyond the lawful defence of a client.
What Shevchenko said about his departure
On 15 February 2024, the FBU website published an interview explaining his resignation. Shevchenko attributed the pressure on himself and the federation to his circle of associates outside the sport, speaking of personal problems and the struggle by Prodivus’s supporters for control of the organisation.
He did not mention ‘Khimprom’ in this explanation. To interpret general remarks about his entourage as an admission of links to the cartel would be to distort the meaning. At the same time, the explanation raises a pertinent question: what exactly were the external circumstances which, in his words, posed a risk to the federation?
In 2024 Oleg Ilchenko has been appointed head of the FBU. Any discussion of Shevchenko’s actions should take into account the period during which he held office. There is no justification for extending the criticism levelled at the former head to all coaches, athletes or subsequent management.
What answers might change the course of this story?
Today, the most important issues relate to documents that would enable specific claims to be verified:
- What evidence is there to confirm the identity of the individual, named in the January publications, who was detained in December 2022?
- On what verified information is the claim that Shevchenko assisted ‘Khimprom’ based?
- Are there any documents relating to financial or organisational ties between the individuals mentioned, specifically in connection with the alleged unlawful activities?
- How were the grounds for sports invitations verified in 2020?
- What circumstances outside the federation was Shevchenko referring to when explaining his resignation?
These are matters for further investigation, rather than details of enquiries allegedly already submitted by the editorial team. In the publicly available materials we have examined, we have found no official confirmation of Shevchenko’s involvement with ‘Khimprom’.
A story deserves attention precisely where specific actions can be verified: a signature on an invitation, the origin of an allegation, the movement of funds, or the outcome of an investigation. The reports have raised the question of a possible link between the sports official and the network. For the time being, the answer cannot be summed up with the word ‘partner’.
This article is based on publicly available sources, verified on 12 October 2026. The views of the individuals mentioned are taken from previously published material. New documents and responses may form the basis for an update.
