Zheleznyak alleged possible tax evasion by Petrov, Ivanov, and Zolkin
People’s Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak
?si=gisQ_OhokIRpz4QK">has released a new investigation in which he casts doubt on the official incomes of three well-known media figures—Vladimir Petrov, Sergey Ivanov, and Vladimir Zolkin.At the heart of the story are not just the figures in their financial disclosures. It raises a broader question: how much can political bloggers, YouTube channels, Telegram channels, and media figures who have been working in the Ukrainian media landscape for years actually earn?
According to Zheleznyak, all three were actively engaged in public activities, had their own or affiliated media platforms, and could have earned income from advertising, broadcasts, monetization, Telegram posts, and political campaigns. At the same time, the officially declared amounts, in the MP’s opinion, do not always seem commensurate with the scale of this activity.
Separately, Zheleznyak stated that cases have already been opened against Petrov, Ivanov, and Zolkin under Article 212 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine—regarding possible tax evasion. The MP plans to submit new evidence—including an analysis of the 2025 tax returns—to the Economic Security Bureau.
UA.News explains what amounts are involved in the investigation and why the story involving Petrov and Ivanov has a much broader context.
What exactly was Zheleznyak examining in the media figures’ tax returns?
Zheleznyak explained that the deadline for filing 2025 tax returns has already passed. That is why, he said, it is now possible to analyze what income was officially reported by people who were actively working in the Ukrainian media landscape.
The MP emphasizes that media activity is not limited to public appearances, TV broadcasts, YouTube videos, or Telegram posts. It also involves money: channel monetization, advertising placements, commercial publications, participation in projects, and, likely, political commissions.
That is why the main question in the investigation is simple: do these individuals’ official incomes match the scale of their public activities?
The final answer to this question should come not from politicians or journalists, but from the competent authorities. At the same time, public scrutiny of such figures’ financial disclosures is justified, especially during wartime, when the issue of taxes is directly linked to the financing of the state and the military.
Zolkin: YouTube, Telegram, and Over 500,000 Hryvnias in Income
Zheleznyak mentioned Volodymyr Zolkin first among the three individuals in question. According to the MP, in 2025 Zolkin was actively involved in the media sphere, ran several YouTube and Telegram projects, and appeared on broadcasts.
In his investigation, Zheleznyak notes that Zolkin spoke publicly about paying taxes. However, according to the MP, Zolkin declared just over 500,000 hryvnias in income for 2025.
In Zheleznyak’s opinion, this amount seems too low when compared to Zolkin’s activity on YouTube and Telegram. The MP suggests that his actual income could have been significantly higher, particularly due to YouTube monetization and other media activities.
According to Zheleznyak, information regarding Zolkin will also be forwarded to the Economic Security Bureau.
Serhiy Ivanov: 899,000 hryvnias and questions about media income
Zheleznyak devoted special attention to Sergey Ivanov in the investigation. In his case, the MP emphasizes not only the financial disclosure but also the previous incident involving the reservation.
According to Zheleznyak, in 2025, Ivanov was actively involved in the media sphere, ran a YouTube channel and a Telegram channel, and was a prominent figure in political information campaigns.
The MP also recalled the story of Ivanov’s reservation through one of Energoatom’s contractors. This episode had previously drawn public criticism, and now Zheleznyak has revisited the topic of Ivanov through the lens of taxes.
According to data cited by the MP, Ivanov officially declared 899,000 hryvnias in income for 2025.
Against this backdrop, an official income of less than one million hryvnias per year, according to Zheleznyak’s logic, requires further explanation—especially when it comes to someone who works in the political media sphere, runs his own platforms, and wields public influence.
Ivanov is significant in this story not only as a blogger or commentator. For years, his activities have been linked to political issues, information attacks, and public campaigns. Therefore, the question of income sources in this case has not only tax implications but also public significance.
Volodymyr Petrov: “Iceland,” Bookings, and Tax Returns with Questions
The largest set of allegations in the investigation concerns Volodymyr Petrov. Zheleznyak links him to media projects, Telegram channels, political influence, and previous scandalous stories involving reservations.
The MP recalled that Petrov previously had a reservation through the National Military Memorial Cemetery, but after public outcry, that arrangement was terminated. According to Zheleznyak, Petrov later received another reservation—through the company “Korysne TV.”
The investigation also mentions the “Iceland” channel and several Telegram channels with which, according to the MP, Petrov is associated. This is precisely why questions about his official income appear particularly pressing.
According to Zheleznyak, Petrov declared approximately 3.8 million hryvnias through his sole proprietorship. In addition, the MP says his financial disclosure statement lists another roughly 1.2 million hryvnias.
Formally, this is more than Zolkin or Ivanov reported. But Zheleznyak claims that even combined, these amounts may be significantly less than the actual amount of money that flowed through Petrov’s media activities.
At the same time, the story involving Ivanov and Petrov is not limited to tax issues alone. Previously, UA.News published an extensive investigation into their activities, their role in the media landscape, their ties to political information campaigns, and scandalous incidents involving ad placements.
The UA.News article stated that Petrov and Ivanov had been active in the Ukrainian media landscape for years, attacking opponents, participating in smear campaigns, and, according to critics, employing black PR tactics.
UA.News also reported that Petrov was one of the founders of the YouTube channel “Iceland” and had a reputation as a political strategist linked to provocative campaigns against political opponents. Serhiy Ivanov, for his part, worked over the years in the prosecutor’s office, the media, and political projects, and later became a prominent figure in the information sphere surrounding Bankova Street.
The key question now is whether the Economic Security Bureau will conduct a full-scale audit of official income, advertising payments, YouTube monetization, potential income from Telegram channels, and other sources of funding.
