Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

This Is a Robbery in Disguise: Russia Confiscated Usyk's and Franchuk's Property

The Kremlin announced the "nationalization" of the property of 84 individuals and companies in Crimea — from boxer Usyk to businessman Franchuk and the families of servicemen. This is not merely corporate raiding — it's a tool of intimidation that Western experts are already analyzing.

Oleg Bazylewicz

By Oleg Bazylewicz

December 16, 2025 · 2 min read

This Is a Robbery in Disguise: Russia Confiscated Usyk's and Franchuk's Property

Time to face the truth

Time to face the truth: the situation is serious, but under control. The Russian authorities of occupied Crimea have announced the "nationalization" of the property of 84 individuals and legal entities — a move aimed not just at assets but at our people, their support for the army, and their sense of security.

“Among them is athlete Oleksandr Usyk, who is a supporter of Nazi ideology. He repeatedly condemned the SVO and organized fundraisers for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”

– Volodymyr Konstantinov, head of Crimea’s parliament

Who it hit

According to Konstantinov, the list includes both public figures and business structures, and even the property of Ukrainian servicemen and volunteers. Among the names are champion Oleksandr Usyk and entrepreneur Ihor Franchuk; the list also features companies linked to the TMM group (Tavryda‑Plaza LLC), industrial assets on the peninsula, and the property of fighters — Mykhailo and Kostiantyn Novoseltsev, Yehor Tkachenko, Yevhen Babych and others.

This decision is part of a systematic policy: in 2023 Konstantinov already announced the "nationalization" of more than 2,500 objects, including an oligarch’s assets, property of the Mejlis and even the apartments of the president of Ukraine’s wife.

“This is a state‑systemic act of raiding — punishment for ties to Kyiv and an attempt to intimidate those who help their country.”

– a Western analyst

Why it matters

This is not just a legal formality. For our people — it is a loss of income and security and a signal that Moscow is prepared to legalize theft under the guise of law. Western analysts and insiders are already talking about an escalation of economic pressure and institutional repression as a method of war. The world is shocked, and everyone is saying that such steps undermine any "legal" arguments of the occupiers.

What will happen next

This episode is forming a new reality: the theft of assets is becoming a tool of policy. For Ukraine it is another reason to unite — to protect our people, document violations and push for an international response. Insiders say this scenario will be repeated until there is a clear response from partners and human rights organizations.

This is a historic moment: we see the occupier changing the rules of the game, while also accumulating ever more evidence of their crimes. Our duty is to prevent them from erasing people’s ties to their native land and the memory of those who defend our home.

Context: this is another act of systemic raiding by the occupying authorities, which Western experts already call a tool of intimidation. Everyone is discussing the scale and consequences: from personal tragedies to long‑term pressure on Ukrainian business and citizens in Crimea.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026