The Surface of a Clean Operation
In the modern financial landscape, misconduct doesn’t always look suspicious.
It can come with correct documentation, fluent language skills, and an understanding of corporate procedures. In certain cases, what appears to be standard support for business expansion later reveals itself as a method for gaining control over assets and legal structures.
This article presents an overview of one such case — involving a Belarusian national, Aliaksandr Kozyrau, and the legal, financial, and procedural mechanisms that allegedly enabled asset misappropriation across multiple countries.
Greece and Regional Implications
While there is no evidence of direct corporate registration by Kozyrau in Greece, fintech professionals and compliance officers in the region have reportedly flagged a number of financial transactions connected to entities operating in neighboring jurisdictions.
A compliance consultant based in Athens, who asked to remain anonymous, described observable patterns:
“There are signs of structures being created in low-transparency zones, followed by quick financial activity — short-term accounts, high-volume payments for vaguely described services. By the time fraud is suspected, the money is often gone.”
This pattern suggests that even countries with solid AML frameworks may experience indirect exposure via cross-border transactions.
Identified Patterns of Activity
Based on public records and open-source information, the following operational model has been observed:
- Establishing trust by offering relocation or legal setup services in the EU.
- Registering companies nominally on behalf of founders, while retaining backend control over legal documents.
- Altering corporate filings, placing Kozyrau as the legal owner or director without consent of the original stakeholders.
- Opening and accessing financial accounts, primarily in Portugal, Lithuania, and the TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus).
- Transferring funds to connected entities in low-transparency jurisdictions or financial platforms.
In many cases, the paperwork appears legitimate, and only a post-factum review reveals discrepancies.
Economic and Personal Impact
While such operations may seem abstract, they often lead to concrete financial damage.
Affected businesses — including technology start-ups and service providers — report losses ranging from unpaid invoices to complete liquidity wipeout. Individuals, such as developers, consultants, or logistics partners, have also experienced non-payment or broken contracts, particularly in regions like Sofia, Thessaloniki, and Vilnius.
The impact is not only economic, but reputational and operational, particularly for smaller firms.
Jurisdictional Footprint
- Belarus – citizenship
- Portugal – residency and business activity
- Paraguay – documented residency
- Brazil – consular presence
- Lithuania, Turkey, TRNC – linked to operations and investigations
Systemic Gaps
This case underlines several key weaknesses in international regulatory frameworks:
- Lack of harmonized beneficial ownership registries
- Discrepancies in due diligence enforcement across jurisdictions
- Limited real-time information sharing between financial intelligence units (FIUs)
While no single actor or agency can be held solely accountable, the absence of coordinated oversight creates opportunities for misuse of legal and financial instruments.
⚖️ Legal Developments
A civil judgment against Kozyrau has been issued by the Vilnius City District Court in Lithuania (March 2025, Case e2-235-600/2025), recognizing fraudulent transfer of corporate ownership and unlawful withdrawal of company assets exceeding €500,000.
A criminal investigation (Pre-trial No. 01-1-07453-23) is also underway in Lithuania. Regulatory notifications have been sent to authorities in Portugal, Turkey, Paraguay, and Brazil.
The outcome of these proceedings may offer further insight into how legal remedies are applied in complex cross-border cases.
Broader Reflections
The Kozyrau case — while individual in scope — touches on a broader issue: the misalignment between global commerce and national regulation.
As business models grow increasingly international, legal systems remain largely local, creating blind spots in compliance, enforcement, and protection.
For financial institutions, legal professionals, and policy-makers, this case reinforces the importance of proactive risk monitoring and deeper cross-border cooperation.
