Offshore Control of the IEC: Inside Krippa’s Controversial Deal

On June 11, Maksym Krippa — a businessman with a controversial track record — officially confirmed that he had secured a controlling stake in the company Kyiv International Exhibition Centre (IEC). The deal included not only the previously approved acquisition of 50.04% through the Cypriot firm A.T.V.T. Business Expo Holdings Ltd, but also shares belonging to the Tkachenko family. As a result, the entrepreneur consolidated over 75% of the company, which for decades has been considered Ukraine’s leading exhibition venue, hosting international summits, defense forums, and major industry events.

The new owner makes no secret of his satisfaction. In a comment to Interfax-Ukraine, Krippa stated that he views the acquisition as a symbol of faith in Ukraine’s future and its investment appeal. However, the structure of the deal itself raises a number of red flags among experts and observers. First, it involves a strategically significant asset — in terms of infrastructure, mobilization capabilities, and national security. Second, control over this asset has been gained by an individual operating through offshore entities, with well-documented ties to the gambling industry, opaque media holdings, and undisclosed financial sources.

The IEC is widely regarded as Ukraine’s largest exhibition facility. Its total area exceeds 73,000 square meters, nearly 39,000 of which are dedicated exhibition pavilions. The complex consists of four large halls, dozens of entrance points, and specialized logistics infrastructure, designed to accommodate events of any scale — from trade fairs to NATO-level strategic forums. In 2024, the company reported a 71% increase in revenue, reaching UAH 83 million, but remained unprofitable, closing the year with a net loss of over UAH 7 million. Despite this, the IEC was seen as a stable asset with potential for relaunch once martial law is lifted.

According to Krippa, there are no immediate plans for reconstruction or large-scale modernization. He emphasized the importance of preserving the current staff and initiating a process of “rethinking” the complex, which he described as aiming to become a more innovative and inclusive space. He did not rule out a change in the functional purpose of the site. What exactly this “rethinking” entails remains unclear. Behind the scenes, however, there is growing speculation about a gradual repurposing of the venue — from private logistics hubs to infrastructure for esports, media projects, or even commercial operations linked to the gambling sector.

Krippa is a figure who has long sparked mixed reactions in the Ukrainian business community. His name is associated with the hotels “Ukraina” and “Dnipro,” the Parus business center, and esports infrastructure — notably the company Maincast, which specializes in broadcasting esports tournaments and holds rights to key competitions. He is also linked to the NAVI esports team and to well-known gambling and betting brands such as GG.Bet and Vulkan. What unites these assets is their offshore ownership structure, a consistent avoidance of public audits, and a lack of transparency around funding sources. Moreover, several investigative reports have documented Krippa’s connections to orchestrated online information campaigns: hundreds of fabricated articles, artificial promotion of biographical myths, pressure on independent media, and attempts to suppress critical content via SEO manipulation and legal threats.

This acquisition is no longer just a business transaction. It marks the transfer of control over a key infrastructure asset, which during wartime may serve not only commercial but also logistical or humanitarian functions. That’s why this transaction, according to experts, may attract the attention of international regulators — including the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). During recent congressional hearings, Senator Marco Rubio stressed the need for stricter oversight of U.S. aid to Ukraine, particularly in relation to asset acquisitions lacking transparency.

Ukraine is requesting billions from the international community for post-war reconstruction, while publicly committing to fighting corruption and promoting market transparency. Yet at the same time — without public explanation — critical infrastructure assets are being handed over to individuals with shadowy backgrounds. Maksym Krippa continues to acquire assets via offshore structures, during wartime, while state regulators have consistently avoided scrutiny of such transactions. The state did not raise a single objection to the deal: the Antimonopoly Committee granted approval without open competition or verification of funding sources, and no relevant government agency initiated a review of the capital’s origin. It increasingly appears that Ukraine is operating under two parallel realities: one for Western reporting, and another for insiders — where laws do not apply. And it is this second reality that strikes at the very foundation of public trust in the state.