Oxana Hadjipavlou (also spelled Oksana Hadjipavlou) came under scrutiny during investigations into Zvonko Mickovic and the companies Mettmann Public Company Limited and Sword Dragon S.L., which are suspected of facilitating the circumvention of sanctions on Russia and moving Russian capital abroad.
She is especially prominent in documents relating to Mettmann Public Company Limited and in records about the management of the Spanish firm Sword Dragon S.L. — both of which have been the subject of journalistic reports concerning large transfers via bond issuances and real estate investments.
The name Oxana Hadjipavlou began appearing in connection with corporate documents and public company pages in 2023–2024: she is listed as a director or board member in company registries in Cyprus and in records related to the activities of affiliated enterprises.
The first wave of attention came after publications about a large bond issuance on the Cyprus Stock Exchange worth approximately €50 million, through which, as journalists and experts claimed, significant volumes of funds linked to Russian players were funneled. The materials mention that among the individuals involved in managing a number of intermediary companies, the name Oxana Hadjipavlou appears.
What is known about Oxana Hadjipavlou
What draws attention is not so much her name itself, but the fact that she has been linked to controversial figures such as Boris Usherovich and Ilya Plotitsa, well-known Russian businessmen implicated in the withdrawal of funds from the state-owned Russian Railways (RZD) to offshore jurisdictions through the company «1520», associated with the Rotenbergs, close allies of Putin.
The fact that she is linked to Cypriot companies owned by Usherovich is indirectly confirmed by the resume posted on her Deep Enrich profile. Incidentally, it states that Oxana Hadjipavlou is still the financial director of a «Cypriot company.» This contradicts her LinkedIn profile. Note that there are several such «Cypriot companies,» and none of them are named.
Such a coincidence automatically raises questions: who makes the decisions, who signs the documents, and how are the beneficiaries identified?
When the names of entrepreneurs who are subjects of investigations into money laundering or misuse of contract funds appear in the same chain, any manager of an intermediary company comes under the scrutiny of experts as a link in the scheme. Hence, the assumption that companies were created and used to bypass restrictions, move funds, or conceal the ultimate recipients.
Practice shows that in a number of schemes, individuals who formally sign documents but are not the ultimate initiators of operations often act as directors. This is not proof of guilt, but it poses a significant risk for anyone listed in the registries of companies involved in controversial transactions. Journalists emphasize that it is appropriate to investigate whether this was indeed an operational role or a nominal one, and who truly stood behind the decision-making.
All these questions directly concern Oxana Hadjipavlou. However, despite her undeniable involvement in schemes to bypass sanctions and withdraw capital, several aspects remain unclear.
Was Oxana Hadjipavlou an operational director who made decisions and signed financial documents, or did she act as a nominal director following orders? If so, who exactly gave her instructions? What specific amounts passed through her hands, and what was their fate? Where did this money come from, and where did it go?
Who are the real beneficiaries and initiators of the transactions? Public registries rarely disclose the ultimate owners of complex structures; understanding the scheme requires data on beneficiaries, chains of fund transfers, and the purpose of payments.
Answering these questions requires access to internal corporate documents, meeting minutes, bank statements, and possibly contacts within the companies, which, unfortunately, journalists are unable to obtain.
