What happened

An investigation by Bihus.Info found that confectionery firm "Onyx" (brand "Luciano") paid wages for years to one of its employees who remained in temporarily occupied Donetsk, obtained a DPR "passport", later a Russian one, and eventually became a co-owner of the local branch of the brand. According to the investigators, at the end of 2022 the owners issued powers of attorney to three former employees to manage the corporate rights of the Donetsk division.

How it worked in practice

After 2014 the legal side of the business moved to Irpin, later was re-registered in Kramatorsk, while production in Donetsk operated separately — some equipment and staff remained on the occupied territory. At the end of 2022 three local managers were given powers of attorney that gave them control over the Donetsk unit. According to Bihus.Info, one of them received a salary from Onyx at least until the first quarter of 2024.

Taxes and numbers

Investigators note that the Donetsk part of the brand operated under Russian laws and paid taxes into the Russian budgetary space. By their calculations, this activity alone brought about $2 million in taxes to the Russian treasury in 2024. Such facts raise questions not only about ethics but also about the legal and tax liability of the parent company or its representatives.

Comments from the parties

"Tsybenko's salary was accrued 'out of inertia,' — explained Eduard Katkovskyi, co-owner of Onyx."

— Eduard Katkovskyi, co-owner of "Onyx" (comment to Bihus.Info)

Journalists also cite open sources (Bihus.Info) and note that the business has felt the effects of the large-scale war: sales are falling and there are no profits. LIGA.net previously described similar challenges for the restaurant industry — some of which also apply to food production.

What it means for the market and the state

The key consequences are threefold: reputational, legal and systemic. Reputationally — a brand known across Ukraine risks losing the trust of consumers and partners because of ties to occupied assets. Legally — questions may arise about the correctness of salary accruals and the transfer of corporate rights during wartime. Systemically — this is another reminder that business presence in temporarily occupied territories creates mechanisms of financial flows that work to the competitive benefit of the aggressor.

What to do next

Experts advise conducting an independent audit of ownership chains and financial operations, ensuring transparency for partners and the state, and initiating inspections by regulatory authorities. Social and market pressure are often more effective than silence: investors and suppliers take note of such cases, and that already affects trust.

Conclusion

The Bihus.Info investigation is not about personal "guilt" but about a systemic weakness that allows critical assets to end up in a legal vacuum during war. The next step lies with partners and state bodies: will statements of responsibility turn into concrete actions that protect the interests of the brand and the state?