Pakhomov's Polish firm supplied drones via Lviv: customs data and links to LLCs

Polish trail in the "grey" equipment network case

Continuing our analysis of the Monolit network's activities, we have gained access to data that had not previously been published. In particular, it was possible to establish Kyrylo Pakhomov's Polish trail and find customs records that directly link him to the companies where searches were conducted in Lviv.

On 18 May 2023, the entrepreneur MonoLit Kyrylo Pakhomov was registered in Poland. He was assigned tax number NIP 9512568346 and REGON code 525298415. The official business address is listed as apartment No. 137 in building 9 on Adam Branicki Street in Warsaw. The registry lists the website mnlt com, which matches the resource of the Monolit channel in messengers. The company's main type of activity is wholesale trade in electronics and telecommunications equipment, as well as e-commerce.

Customs records and key buyers

An analysis of customs statistics made it possible to determine exactly who this Warsaw-based structure supplied goods to. The main buyers in Ukraine were LLC "Flymultitech", LLC "Eltekhopt" and LLC "Campbell". It was the seals of the first of these companies that detectives seized at the warehouse at 6 Poliska Street in Lviv. There, together with Monolit documents and the line "Monolit Kyryl Pakhomov", folders for "Flymultitech", "Eltekhopt" and "Campbell" were also stored.

According to customs data, 79 customs records have been recorded for the Warsaw address alone. The last shipment is dated April 2026. The declarations specify drones weighing from 250 grams to 7 kilograms, which were imported from China. The cargo was accompanied by logistics companies M and M Air Sea Cargo in Rzeszow and Silver Cargo in Warsaw, marked "on behalf of Monolit Kyrylo Pakhomov".

A scheme that operated earlier

In 2023 and 2024, a similar scheme was used by LLC "Prime Opt Delivery" and LLC "Maywest". In particular, in one of "Maywest"'s declarations, the invoice amounted to 835,000 dollars.

Financial indicators and court practice

In 2024, LLC "Campbell" declared revenue of 784.8 million hryvnia, having only two employees, with a net profit of 413,000 hryvnia. The company supplied DJI Mavic 3 drones to the Zaporizhzhia Regional State Administration for the amount of 14.6 million hryvnia, as well as to military units for several million. The director and 100% owner was Viktoria Kravchenko. As of 13 October 2026, the company changed its name to "Amina K1", and its director became Ablaz Akimov.

LLC "Eltekhopt" was registered in September 2024. During that year, the company received no revenue, having one employee. In 2025, "Eltekhopt" won tenders for a total amount of 18.49 million hryvnia, of which 16.04 million hryvnia went to military unit A4862. Both companies — "Eltekhopt" and "Campbell" — are mentioned in a criminal ruling of the Kyiv District Court of Poltava in case No. 552/4789/25. "Campbell" is also mentioned in the decisions of the Berehiv and Perechyn courts of Zakarpattia Oblast.

LLC "Flymultitech" appeared in 2025. Data aggregators indicate two managers: Vladyslav Malakhov and Yevhen Kozlov. The company is part of a framework agreement with the state institution "Professional Procurements" for the supply of drones.

Coincidences in the profile of activity

Among the documents found in Lviv was also the seal of the company "Airspark". This structure was registered on 4 March 2026, i.e. four months after the opening of the proceedings. The director is Iryna Skliar, and the registration address is 45 Lympkivsky Street in Kyiv. Among the types of activity is the production of optical fibre cables. This coincidence is telling: in June 2026, Pakhomov's Warsaw firm imported spools of optical fibre for FPV drones through Lviv Customs in batches of up to 1.7 tonnes for one of the Ukrainian manufacturers.

Conclusions

A foreign supplier with an address in an apartment, several Ukrainian LLCs with minimal staff but tenders worth millions, seals of which were found in the same warehouse, as well as a mass change of names and directors precisely at the moment when courts refuse to lift seizures — all this forms a clear picture. We do not claim that the supplies for the military were fictitious. However, the question of who is actually behind these companies and whose goods passed through them is taking on very specific outlines. The continuation of the investigation will be published later.