The Dubai scam of Yana Rudkovska and the "invisible" house

In the promotional brochures, Yana Rudkovska’s project looks like a typical premium off-plan in Dubai: renderings with rooftop pools, panoramic windows, and the promise of "completion in Q4 of next year." In reality, it is a pit and a foundation that have been stagnant for several years without any changes.

According to official documents and communication with buyers, the project is represented by Yana Yard Properties LLC, a company registered in Dubai and linked to Yana Rudkovska’s name. However, what appears to be a promising investment is actually filled with all the hallmarks of a classic scam: selling air, money transfers outside escrow, a complex network of shell companies, and, consequently, million-dollar losses for investors.

Below is a chronology and argumentation of the facts that can be confirmed today and the risks that, in our view, require the attention of law enforcement and auditors.

Who and what: Yana Yard, Oak Yard, and One Yard

Yana Yard Properties LLC appears as the agent and formal owner of the brand The Yard/Yana Yard in advertising materials, brokers’ business cards, and on the agency’s website. On the surface, it looks like a boutique real estate agency that handles sales of off-plan projects in Dubai and supports clients.

However, there is another link: publications and several registration documents reveal a corporate ownership scheme featuring multiple Dubai-based SPVs and a Cypriot holding firm. From a scheme in one of the documents (a visual diagram of asset and profit movement), the architecture is as follows: Gold Assembly Investment LLC → One Yard Real Estate Development LLC → Development Company, with Futura Edge Investment LLC and other structures at the top.

The owners include a direct indication that Yana Rudkovska has a 75% stake, while Vyacheslav Belimenko has 25% in the relevant investment company. The same diagram also references $11.4 million as the "purchase price for 80%" (this sum is associated with a specific deal to acquire project rights).

These internal materials almost perfectly reflect a scam "card": they simultaneously show the project’s business logic and the channels through which money should flow — yet reveal that the operational part (construction) does not match the financial investments.

Where the Money Comes From and Where It Goes

Public investigations and media reports claim that a significant portion of the investments came from Ukraine. According to one public source, there are well-known Ukrainian names among the investors; the article mentions Stepan Chernovetskyi as an investor allegedly having contributed $11.4 million.

The authors of the articles claim that this money was transferred for the purchase of investment rights and that part of it allegedly disappeared into a network of companies. This version is supported by bank transaction documents and purchase agreements that include Stepan Chernovetskyi’s name and the names of Cypriot firms linked to him.

According to internal schemes (a document with a visual plan of money movement), the model was as follows: investors’ funds enter an Investment Company (Dubai), then are redistributed via an Investor’s Holding Company (Cyprus) to an Investor’s Project Company, and eventually enter a Joint Development Agreement with a local development company.

The scheme also shows the profit model: "cash out: purchase price for 80% (USD 11.4M)," with profits split 80/20. This architecture turns contributions into "investment capital" while complicating the tracing of ultimate beneficiaries through its network of jurisdictions.

However, according to some investigators and sources familiar with Yana Rudkovska’s activities, Stepan Chernovetskyi is neither a co-author nor a co-beneficiary of the scam, as one might think, but rather, he himself was "scammed" out of those $11.4 million. Whether this is true or not is an open question, but most interviewed experts lean toward this version.

Construction Site: Foundation Instead of Skyscraper

Independent checks of the site (visual inspections, reports from local sources, satellite services) show that plans do not match reality. Where Oak Yard/One Yard is supposed to rise on the renderings, there are only preparatory earthworks and incomplete foundations, while neighboring developers’ sites are filled with cranes witnessing the speed of construction.

This is a typical "red flag" for the off-plan market: the project is sold before obtaining all permits or opening escrow, and the money does not reach controlled DLD reserves.

Public reports mention several names associated with the scheme. According to publications, around the project were figures like Volodymyr Skorobohach (a former MP in Ukraine, with cases and searches mentioned against him) and Vitaliy Shevchenko, referred to as Yana Rudkovska’s husband or partner. His Russian citizenship is noted in the media.

These claims are reported in investigative and news materials; they are subject to verification in the criminal legal field and, though no one does so, already appear as risk indicators since the combination of political figures, individuals with criminal backgrounds, and international transfers is a typical setup for funds diversion schemes.

Internal documents also mention Vyacheslav Belimenko as a co-owner of the business structure alongside Yana Rudkovska (25% in the relevant investment company). In the scheme, Belimenko acts as a local partner, combined with the registration of Ukrainian firms in relatives’ and nominal names (confirmed by official sources), creates a smokescreen for asset diversion.

Journalists in Kyiv published materials with informants’ statements that through these structures, millions of dollars were withdrawn to Dubai. Major media outlets have taken note of public scandals around The Yard and its founder; for example, RBC mentions that The Yard’s founder spoke of an informational attack on her business, indicating a conflict and attempts of political or business “damage control.” These publications show that the issue has already moved beyond purely a commercial dispute and attracted media interest.

All the mentioned claims — from the alleged $11.4 million investment to the role of specific political figures — are presented as versions or information from sources. Yana Rudkovska either does not comment on these accusations or dismisses them without going into specifics.

While a legally correct conclusion requires documents of bank transactions, purchase agreements, and escrow payments, the internal documents of Yana Rudkovska’s and Vyacheslav Belimenko’s companies already raise many questions.

Information gathered by journalists and confirmed by open registers indicates that there is a series of companies around Rudkovska and her partner Belimenko in Kyiv and Ukraine, registered to relatives and front men. These companies, according to sources, were used for operational activities, fund “flipping,” and partial income withdrawal.

This practice (registering firms to nominal directors, relatives, and friends) is standard in schemes where real beneficiaries need to be hidden.

Why This Could Become an International Case and What Investors Should Do

If claims about systematic multi-million-dollar fund withdrawals from Ukraine to Dubai are documentarily confirmed (payments to UAE bank accounts, transfers through Cypriot holdings, lack of escrow, or transfers to agency accounts), the case automatically acquires a cross-border character. International operations combined with individuals linked to the aggressor country’s jurisdiction make the case even more politically and criminally sensitive.

Nonetheless, investors who suspect they have fallen victim to a scheme should demand complete documentation from the company: copies of trade licenses, ORN/BRN, escrow account numbers of the project, agency agreements between Yana Yard and the developer, complete SPA with signatures, bank payment confirmations. If these documents are not provided — this is a signal to contact the DLD (Dubai Land Department) and Ukrainian law enforcement agencies.

Currently, we observe the following: public announcements about the investment drivers; internal corporate ownership and profit distribution scheme; factual discrepancy between renderings and the actual construction site. This is enough to speak of "strong suspicions" of a fraudulent scheme and to demand an investigation by competent authorities.

Today, we face a combination of three things: ambitious marketing, a complex network of companies, and facts indicating a mismatch between the declared investments and actual construction. An internal document showing the ownership structure (Rudkovska 75% / Belimenko 25%) and financial contributions of about $11.4 million, combined with public announcements and visual "emptiness" at the construction site, create grounds for a deeper criminal investigation.