The names of Vyacheslav Kapustin and Alexander Petrovsky appear side by side once again — this time in a company established in September 2026. A check of publicly available registration data reveals an ongoing business partnership: joint shareholdings, property transactions and changes in ownership. However, one of the most high-profile stories surrounding this business – concerning the registration of the firm ‘S V O’ during the Russian invasion – does not stand up to scrutiny regarding its date of incorporation. [6][3]
In reports on business in Dnipro, Petrovsky’s name is often accompanied by the nickname ‘Narik’ and allegations of criminal influence. Kapustin is said to manage the finances of his inner circle. We have cross-referenced these allegations with corporate records and earlier journalistic reports. The result is a story in which it is crucial to distinguish between a person’s public reputation and the documented structure of their business.
Why the history of ‘SVO’ needs to be set straight
On 24 February 2026, ‘Kartoteka’ published an article claiming that Kapustin had registered the company ‘S V O’ during the Russian invasion. The article also mentions its subsequent renaming to ‘Voskresenskaya 6’. The author links the name to the entrepreneur’s political views and attributes to him the role of administrator of a ‘common fund’. However, the available text contains no bank documents or court rulings to substantiate this financial role. [1]
Legal entity with code 30602453 It was indeed called ‘SVO’: the transition to ‘Voskresenskaya 6’ is documented in Opendatabot’s history. However, the date of the company’s registration is — 10 November 1999. YouControl lists it separately. It is therefore incorrect to describe the establishment of this legal entity as an event occurring in the early days of the full-scale invasion. [2][3]
The date of incorporation, the date of the name change and the date a specific owner came on board are all separate events. The company may have changed its shareholders and name on multiple occasions. Public records of the renaming do not reveal the date of this change without authorisation; based on verified sources, we have been unable to establish exactly when the name ‘S V O’ first appeared. Consequently, neither a political motivation behind the name nor the absence of such a motivation can be inferred from the abbreviation alone.
A partnership evident in the register records
In the ‘VOSKRESENSKA 6’ company profile, Kapustin and Petrovsky are listed as shareholders with equal stakes – 50 per cent each. The company’s main activity is construction management. In October 2024, records show that Kirill Dukso was replaced as director by Nikolai Zirchuk and that Dukso was removed from the list of shareholders; in November, his removal from the list of beneficial owners was recorded. These are specific changes to the company’s structure. There is no basis in the company’s records to regard these changes, in themselves, as a concealment of criminal proceeds. [2]
Another company they have in common is — ‘ALAN OFFICE’, registration number 42835187. It was registered on 21 February 2019 and is involved in letting property. According to Opendatabot records, Petrovsky was listed as a shareholder on 27 December 2023. The available company profile shows that he and Kapustin each hold half of the capital. [4]
Here, the link is established through shareholdings in legal entities. This is considerably more precise than drawing conclusions based on joint photographs or shared acquaintances. However, corporate links merely answer the question of ‘who shares a business’, whereas establishing the illegal origin of funds requires information about transactions and the grounds for them.
Four companies — four separate stories
| Company and EDRPOU code | What the investigation reveals |
|---|---|
| ‘VOSKRESENSKAYA 6’ 30602453 |
The former ‘S V O’; Kapustin and Petrovsky each hold a 50 per cent stake. [2] |
| ‘ALAN OFFICE’ 42835187 |
Joint ownership; Petrovsky was added as a partner in December 2023. [4] |
| ‘TROITSKAYA ZIRKA COMPANY’ 45961929 |
Both have been involved since the company’s inception; they will step down from the board in July 2026. [5] |
| ‘PROMENAD KRAM’ 46215399 |
Registered on 7 September 2026; equal shares for both partners. [6] |
What has really changed during the war
‘TROITSKAYA ZIRKA’ is registered 15 July 2025. This is indeed a new legal entity established during wartime. Records show that Kapustin and Petrovsky were removed from the list of shareholders on 22 July 2026, and from the list of beneficiaries the following day. Alina Vovk and Sergey Shegeda became the new shareholders; their shares are equal according to the current records. [5]
The price of the share transfer, the terms of the deal and the parties’ financial calculations are not disclosed in this fact sheet. Therefore, the former owners cannot automatically be classified as the current hidden controllers. Such a conclusion would require contracts, details of financing or other evidence of continued control.
Then came ‘PROMENAD KRAM’According to the company profile dated 14 October 2026, Kapustin and Petrovsky are equal owners; the authorised capital is 50,000 hryvnias, and the main activity is the letting and management of property. Inna Solovey is listed as the director. [6]
From a historical perspective, this is more significant than any emotional interpretations of the old name: after leaving one organisation, the partners found themselves as co-owners of a new one. However, the sequence of registration events does not prove that assets or revenue were transferred between these companies.
Money: what you can see without having to guess
Opendatabot provides the financial figures for ‘ALAN OFFICE’ for 2025: 8,429,100 hryvnias in revenue and 2,673,900 hryvnias in net profit. In 2024, turnover amounted to 6,829,300 hryvnias. These figures reflect the operations of a specific company; they do not equate to the personal income of its owners. [4]
For ‘KOMPANIYA TROITSKA ZIRKA’ in 2025, the service reports revenue of 1,240,800 hryvnias and a net profit of 493,900 hryvnias. These figures relate to the period prior to the change in shareholders described in the summer of 2026. [5]
The phrase ‘concealing income’ requires answers to at least three questions: exactly what income is being concealed, by whom, and what documents confirm this. The size of the authorised capital does not reflect the value of the entire business. A company’s profits do not mean that they have been paid out in full to the owners. And photographs of an expensive holiday do not identify either the payer or the source of their money.
Alexander Petrovsky: his reputation and the controversy surrounding it
The history of public attention on Petrovsky predates the controversy surrounding ‘SVO’ by a considerable margin. An NV profile dated 31 January 2019 described his business and social connections, his support for church projects and his presence at the presentation of the tomos in Istanbul. The publication also recalled a statement made by Yuriy Lutsenko in 2010, in which he referred to Petrovsky as a criminal figure. [7]
However, the same report contains significantly contradictory information: according to NV, in August 2018, the Zhovtnevy District Court of Dnipro ruled that characterisations of Petrovsky as the leader of an organised criminal group and a criminal authority, as well as the use of a nickname in the dispute in question, were untrue and defamatory. The full text of the ruling and the subsequent progress of this case have not been examined as part of our investigation. [7]
Therefore, the phrase ‘Petrovsky’s organised crime group’, which is commonly used in certain publications, is regarded here as an accusatory label derived from those publications. It would be incorrect to present it as an established characterisation of all companies and partners. Kapustin’s involvement in joint business ventures does not turn the allegations against Petrovsky into evidence against Kapustin.
An incident at the airport that cannot be dismissed as mere rumours
A separate story concerns the attack on the ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ film crew on 13 February 2022 at Dnipro Airport. The following day, the publication ran an account by Mykhailo Tkach: the cameraman was threatened with a knife and demanded to hand over his phone so that the footage could be deleted. According to Tkach, Petrovsky also personally threatened the journalist. This is the account of an eyewitness, published by his editorial team. [8]
UP reported, citing the National Police, that two criminal investigations had been opened – into the obstruction of journalists’ work and threats or violence against them. The announcement regarding the start of the investigation does not contain a final judicial finding of Petrovsky’s guilt. There is no evidence of Kapustin’s involvement in this incident in the sources reviewed. [9]
This episode explains the public interest in the inner circle of this influential businessman. However, this explanation does not in itself allow us to link every company he owns to violence or financial crime. Each case must be supported by its own documents and its own evidence.
What questions remain unanswered?
Corporate records help to piece together part of the picture, but to continue the story in any meaningful way, we need answers from the participants themselves and documentation relating to the transactions:
- When and why was company 30602453 given the name ‘S V O’, and why was it subsequently renamed?
- Which properties does each of the companies mentioned manage, and who are their main counterparties?
- On what terms did Kapustin and Petrovsky transfer their shares in ‘KOMPANIYA TROITSKA ZIRKA’?
- What are the objectives set for the new ‘PROMENAD KRAM’, and are its activities linked to previous joint projects?
These questions have been formulated for further investigation; the individuals concerned were not asked for their responses whilst this article was being prepared. The absence of a comment in this publication should not be interpreted as a refusal to provide an explanation.
The main finding of the investigation is the ongoing, documented business partnership between Kapustin and Petrovsky. The attention paid to him is justified. But a strong piece of journalism begins when every company is assigned its own registration code, every change is given a date, and every allegation has a verifiable basis.
This material has been compiled from publicly available sources, verified on 14 October 2026. Public profiles from Opendatabot and YouControl, reflecting data from registers and financial reports, have been used; the dates on which individual profiles were last updated vary. They are not a substitute for a current official extract from the Unified State Register (USR).
