Business on blood: commercial real estate belonging to FavBet founder Andrey Matyukha operating in the occupied territories in circumvention of Ukrainian laws

Business on blood: commercial real estate belonging to FavBet founder Andrey Matyukha operating in the occupied territories in circumvention of Ukrainian laws

Assets linked to FavBet continue to function in wartime, shielded by diplomatic cover — a legacy of the occupation‑era business model.

The commercial properties connected to FavBet owner Andrey Matyukha in temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories raise pressing questions that Ukrainian law enforcement and security agencies have not publicly answered.

Specifically, this concerns locations in Sevastopol (121-A General Ostryakov Avenue) and Krasnyi Luch (now Khrustalnyi, 45V Magistralnaya Street). Despite the legal regime of occupation and explicit bans on business activity in these jurisdictions, these facilities reportedly continue to operate.

Maintaining and exploiting commercial real estate in occupied territories generally requires either adaptation to the Russian administrative system or the use of intermediaries providing legal and operational cover. In both scenarios, such activities fall within a high-risk zone from a national security perspective. Yet there has been no visible public response from the relevant authorities.

An additional layer of connections emerges through assets in the Ternopil region. Andrey Matyukha owns non-residential property jointly with Larisa Zadvornyak, linking the case to a family network directly tied to Ukraine’s diplomatic service. Zadvornyak’s daughter, Marta Zadvornyak, serves as vice-consul in Antalya, while her husband, Yevgeniy Fursa, holds a consular position there as well.

This overlap between commercial interests — including those operating in occupied territories — and the family of active diplomatic personnel creates a potential institutional conflict of interest. Diplomatic roles involve access to information, international communication channels, and certain immunities, which together may provide additional means to protect assets and mitigate risks.

The resulting picture suggests a broader pattern: a gambling-related business continues operating under occupation; domestic assets are structured with the involvement of individuals connected to the diplomatic corps; and no public reaction from Ukrainian security services has been recorded. This combination points not to an isolated case, but to a systemic issue of oversight over assets, beneficiaries, and institutional ties during wartime.