A "ghost" who continues to influence law enforcement and the judicial system? A story that should interest law enforcement. So, Oleg Goretsky.
The Local Government Association writes about this , Bagnet reports.
There are stories that, at first glance, appear to be private corporate or inheritance conflicts. But when tens of millions of dollars, criminal proceedings, law enforcement agencies, courts, and individuals previously implicated in high-profile corruption cases come into play, it ceases to be a purely private matter.
This is why this situation attracted the attention of the Local Self-Government Association.
We are talking about the former lawyer Oleg Vasilyevich Goretsky.
According to two residents of a neighboring building, for about two years now, he has been regularly arriving at around 9:00 a.m. at the building at 10 Poltavska Street in Kyiv, where the law firm is located, going up to the second floor, and leaving the premises at around 7:00 p.m.
However, Oleg Goretsky is not officially listed as a founder or member of the association's team. Representatives of the organization explain that he is "not an employee, partner, or representative of the association" and only "occasionally visits the premises as a visitor."
Why does this raise questions?
Who is Oleg Goretsky?
On October 12, 2023, the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court approved a plea agreement between the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and lawyer Oleg Goretsky.
According to the case materials, Goretsky acted as an intermediary in the transfer of an unlawful benefit to former Supreme Court Chairman Vsevolod Knyazev in the amount of $2,7 million: he negotiated, agreed on the amount, and ensured the transfer of funds.
He was sentenced to five years in prison, suspended for three years on probation. He was also sentenced to 21 million hryvnias for the "Drone Army," a special confiscation order of $350, and an obligation to testify against Vsevolod Knyazev.
Four months later, the Kyiv Bar Council terminated his right to practice law.
It would seem that this should have been the end of his legal career.
But then an equally interesting part of the story begins.
The company changes, but the people remain
The Goretsky & Partners law firm was registered in 2019. Its founder and beneficiary was Oleg Goretsky.
On July 24, 2023—after Goretsky's indictment was publicly announced and several months before the verdict—a new legal entity was registered in Kyiv: the Verity Group Law Firm.
The five founders receive 20% each.
Four of them previously worked as advisors at Goretsky & Partner. The fifth founder is M.V. Goretskaya, Oleg Goretsky's sister.
On March 13, 2024, the beneficial owner's record was removed from the old law firm's register, and M.V. Goretskaya was listed as the director. The firm itself was not liquidated, but, according to available information, it is not actively operating.
At the same time, according to the court registry, clients will transfer to a new law firm between 2024 and 2026.
The same people, the same disputes, essentially the same environment. The legal framework has changed.
And this is where the question arises: what actual role does Oleg Goretsky play today?
When asked whether he receives compensation and works with clients, there was, according to available information, no answer.
The Legacy of Leonid Yakovishin
The second part of this story is connected with the enormous legacy of the famous Ukrainian agrarian, politician, and publicist Leonid Grigorievich Yakovishin, the general director of Zemlya i Volya LLC and a people's deputy of Ukraine of the first convocation.
32 thousand hectares of land, a seed plant, nearly two thousand workers, and a large agricultural business are located in the city of Bobrovitsa in the Chernihiv region.
On July 25, 2025, at the age of 86, Leonid Yakovishin died in Kyiv at the National Scientific Center for Surgery and Transplantology.
The circumstances of his death are the subject of a pre-trial investigation in criminal case No. 12025100090003062 dated December 1, 2025, under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The investigation, according to available information, is ongoing. No one has been charged in this case.
Yakovishin was referred to the medical facility by his son-in-law, Professor Alexei Dronov, for routine cardiovascular care and support. Yakovishin's daughter, Victoria, Dronov's wife, cared for her father and consulted with her husband regarding his health.
Less than a month before his death, Leonid Yakovishin amended his 2014 will, removing Victoria and her husband from the list of heirs. He wanted to entrust the future of his business to his grandson, Maxim Yakovishin.
However, the new will was not notarized, so the preliminary document retained its legal force.
It is also noteworthy that, according to the information presented by the authors of the material, the cause of death was not publicly reported, there is no information released about the results of the autopsy, and the body was not exhumed.
Some media outlets have speculated about the possible foul play in Leonid Yakovishin's death and the possible use of improperly prescribed medications. Specifically, these publications mentioned Alexey Dronov and his daughter's husband, Bogdan Tur, who, according to media reports, owed Leonid Yakovishin $30 and is involved in the distribution of inherited assets.
We emphasize: these are versions published by individual media outlets, not facts established by the court. None of the individuals mentioned in this context are suspects in the investigation into Leonid Yakovishin's death.
At the same time, a pre-trial investigation was underway against Alexey Dronov in criminal case No. 12019100010001403 regarding actions that, according to the case file, resulted in grave consequences for the patient. The authors of the case report claim that the investigation was effectively stalled for unknown reasons.
Leonid Yakovishin's legacy was accepted by three people: Victoria Dronova - 50% of the authorized capital, Maxim Yakovishin - 25%, Inna Yakovishina, the deceased's sister - 25%.
And here the story again returns us to Oleg Goretsky.
The interests of all three are represented by Verity Group. The corresponding powers of attorney are issued to lawyers from the same firm, whose representatives refer to Goretsky only as a "visitor."
And now - 20 million dollars in debt
On August 19, 2021, entrepreneur Dmitry Shavl and Leonid Yakovishin signed a written loan agreement for $20 million, interest-free, for one year, for equipment and working capital.
The security for the fulfillment of obligations must be the borrower’s 100% share in the company, which must be transferred as collateral.
The creditor claims the money was never returned. The pledge agreement was never concluded.
In June 2025, Leonid Yakovishin transferred half of his share to his relatives.
After the debtor's death, Dmitry Shavlo filed a claim with the notary and two lawsuits: one for debt collection and one for the obligation to enter into a pledge agreement. The court fee was paid.
That is, the creditor took advantage of the judicial mechanism provided by law to protect his rights.
And then something happened that particularly caught our attention.
According to Dmitry Shavla, he was summoned to the police for questioning in January. The investigator wanted to know the origin of the $20 million and whether the loan agreement was fake.
A criminal case was opened based on a complaint filed by the heirs' representative under Part 4 of Article 190 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code—fraud. Dmitry Shavlo himself is a witness in the case.
The authors of the original article, citing their own sources in law enforcement, claim that Oleg Goretsky may have initiated this criminal case. There is no documentary evidence to support this assertion in the published material, so it requires further investigation.
And this is where the fundamental question arises.
Could a creditor's appeal to court for the return of $20 million be the basis for effectively transforming him from a creditor into a potential "raider" or the target of a criminal investigation?
Conflict between the heirs themselves
According to the authors of the material, the heirs also filed complaints with the National Police against each other, accusing each other of illegally encroaching on Leonid Yakovishin's inheritance.
The authors were unable to document this information: the Inheritance Registry is closed, and the police cited the secrecy of the pre-trial investigation.
Therefore, here too, it is important to draw a line: there is information from two sources, but there is no accessible document that allows us to assert this as a proven fact.
At the same time, the situation appears paradoxical: the heirs, between whom, according to available information, there are serious contradictions over the inheritance, take a common position in the dispute over the return of 20 million dollars.
Oleg Goretsky: Why does this story concern our Association?
Because the issue is much broader than one inheritance, one law firm, or one multi-million dollar debt.
We are concerned about the possibility that a person disbarred after being convicted in a high-profile corruption case may actually retain influence over legal proceedings, clients, and possibly interactions with the law enforcement system if this information is confirmed.
We are also concerned about something else: could criminal proceedings be used as a tool of influence in multi-million dollar property and corporate disputes?
In our opinion, the totality of the listed circumstances should not remain only the subject of journalistic publications or private disputes.
These are questions that should be of interest to the competent law enforcement agencies—in particular, the prosecutor's office and, within the framework of the jurisdiction determined by law, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
This is especially true given that at the center of this story is a person already convicted in a high-profile corruption case involving the former chairman of the Supreme Court.
In our opinion, law enforcement officers must answer a simple but fundamental question:
Is it true that today this person has no connection whatsoever with legal activity and the processes described? Can the formal status of “visitor” conceal actual participation and influence?
A separate legal assessment also requires the question of whether the capabilities of the law enforcement system are being used as a tool of influence in a dispute over tens of millions of dollars and large agricultural businesses.
Subscribe to our X channel and Telegram channel!
Stay informed about who is doing business, in politics, and supporting corruption in Ukraine!
We do not find anyone guilty and do not replace the investigation or the court.
On the contrary, this is precisely why we believe that all the circumstances cited should receive a proper, independent and publicly understandable legal assessment from competent government agencies.
Because if a person has officially left the profession, but unofficially continues to influence processes, the question is no longer about the sign on the door.
The question is who is really behind this door and how legal are the mechanisms that are launched after they are opened.
Skelet.Org
On the topic : The court rejected former lawyer Goretsky's request to refute a report of lust for a seductive agent in his office.
The mystery of Knyazev's phone and why it led to war in the SAP
Oleg Goretsky
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, Facebook , Twitter , VK - Only new faces from the SKLEP section!