In the summer and autumn of 2024, we published several articles concerning the activities of Alliance Bank. Most were based on publicly available data, while one relied on a comment from political scientist Volodymyr Horkovenko.

About a year and a half later, at the end of 2025, the bank filed complaints with Google, alleging that our publications infringed copyright (DMCA), and requested their removal from search results. In essence, they sought to have these materials deleted or obscured so that Ukrainian audiences could no longer access them.

The complaints themselves are extremely strange and, at the same time, revealing: the main part of them is written in Russian, while the actual description of the complaint is in Serbian, using Cyrillic script. While this is not a violation, practice shows that it is often a sign of an attempt to quickly “knock unwanted publications out of the index.” In essence, the actions of Alliance Bank can be seen as an attempt to influence the editorial policy of an independent media outlet. Or, more simply, an overt act of censorship.

Even more telling is the fact that, according to the same complaints, the rights to the bank’s alleged copyrighted content belong to the platform OnlyFans. Yes, the very platform most known for its erotic content.

Currently, Google has not removed the materials inconvenient to Alliance Bank from the search results of OBOZ.UA . But even if that were to happen, they would not disappear from online archives—because, as we know, the internet is more likely to make you disappear than you are to make the internet disappear.

We are shedding light on what Alliance Bank is trying to hide, why they will not succeed, and why the bank’s leadership should focus on saving the institution to prevent its closure by the NBU.

Scandals of Alliance Bank

There are at least four materials that Alliance Bank is trying to remove from Google. These are:

The crux of the matter is that, according to political scientist Volodymyr Horkovenko, after the exposure of a lawyer who allegedly offered a $200,000 bribe to NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors in a case involving an unfulfilled bank guarantee by Alliance Bank for Ukrenergo, the bank should be immediately withdrawn from the market due to systematic evasion of responsibility and failure to fulfill obligations to the state.

The source of information for the material was political scientist Volodymyr Horkovenko, who, at our request, commented on the scandalous situation surrounding Alliance Bank. Therefore, it is unclear which part of this content could belong to the bank.

This material discusses how the head of the bank’s supervisory board, Pavlo Shcherban, is allegedly withdrawing assets from Alliance and investing them in other businesses, including those with ties to Russia—for example, in trade, logistics, agriculture, and IT. Such diversification raises questions about the future of the financial institution and the protection of depositors’ interests.

The primary source of the material is a journalistic investigation published in one of the Ukrainian media outlets. Thus, what exactly the bank considers its “copyright” in this context remains a mystery.

This piece addresses the fact that, at the time of publication, the bank had failed several times to place an additional share issuance, which could have increased its capital and confirmed the viability of its operations. Against the backdrop of numerous financial violations and issues with fulfilling guarantees, this is seen as an attempt to delay the recapitalization process and avoid NBU measures to withdraw the bank from the market.

As in the previous case, the primary source of the material is a journalistic investigation published in one of the Ukrainian media outlets. Thus, it is also unclear what exactly Alliance considers its own in this context.

This material covers how the same Horkovenko called on the President of Ukraine to impose sanctions on the bank, its top management, and shareholders for schemes related to Ukrenergo and money laundering.

The source of information is a petition on the website of the President of Ukraine, which, no matter how you look at it, cannot possibly be the bank’s property.

An attempt at censorship?

Overall, all the listed materials share a common feature: they concern socially significant information about the activities of Alliance Bank, its leadership, and related individuals. Specifically, they address potential corruption schemes, as well as:

• financial risks;
• failure to fulfill obligations to the state;
• threats to depositors’ interests.

By their nature, these are either journalistic investigations, public statements by experts, or official documents and petitions. In other words, information that is in the public domain and clearly of public interest.

Thus, the bank’s attempts to have these materials removed appear to be an effort to conceal a negative information background and restrict public access to critical assessments of its activities. At the same time, the bank is essentially trying to claim as its “property” content that does not belong to it, neither by authorship nor by legal nature.

Therefore, there are all grounds to believe that this is not about protecting copyright but about using relevant procedures as a tool of pressure and censorship regarding unwanted but legitimate information.

Complaining to hide corruption?

In general, DMCA complaints to Google are a legal tool through which a copyright holder can demand the removal of content. However, in practice, it is often used as a tool for pressure or censorship. As is the case here.

It is important to understand that DMCA pertains exclusively to copyright infringement. In other words, this tool cannot be applied for reasons such as alleged defamation, corruption accusations, or false information.

In other words, with its complaints, Alliance does not seek to refute the information presented in our materials—it merely wants Google to recognize its ownership of certain parts of the information in them and, on that basis, remove them from search results. Again, the bank does not aim to clear its reputation—it seeks to prevent the spread of inconvenient information. This, once more, bears all the hallmarks of censorship.

Moreover, the bank’s actions show signs of a coordinated censorship campaign. Because:

• They were sent to Google within the same time frame—December 29-30, 2025.

In other words, not immediately after the materials were published, but approximately 1.5 years later. And while there is no time limit for filing a DMCA complaint, did the bank really not consider its rights violated during all this time?

• All materials have in common the mention of Alliance.

They describe various aspects of this bank’s activities. In essence, the bank does not dispute the coverage of specific topics or aspects of its operations, for which certain materials could theoretically have been used, on which the institution could claim copyright. Instead, it questions the very legitimacy of publications about itself.

• The complaints do not specify which exact parts of our materials violate the bank’s copyright.

Alliance has not provided a description of the specific copyrighted work that was allegedly misused by us.

In fact, the bank claims that we violated its copyright during the creation of media materials based on open-source data—but provides no evidence for this. They simply assert it and demand punishment for the publication.

Mention in an article does not fall under copyright

And now for the most interesting part. Google itself clearly states: the mere presence of the complainant in a media material is not enough to claim copyright over such content, even if the complainant dislikes the article. Because this is:

• not copyright;
• not a license;
• not intellectual property rights.

In other words, the fact that media materials mention the bank’s name and the names of related individuals is not considered by Google as a copyright violation. Thus, the bank’s complaints are baseless.

But why Is Serbian used in the complaints?

The exact answer to this is likely known only to the person who filed the complaints—a certain Anton Polovynchenko (or Polovinchenco—his name is written in English in the complaints, so there could be different readings).

In the appeal to Google, he is listed as a representative of the copyright holder of the allegedly illegally used content. However:

• Which copyright holder exactly is not explained.
• Which work he owns is not specified.
• How our content violates his rights is not demonstrated.

Google itself has no information about such a person—Mr. Anton does not appear anywhere as an employee of Alliance Bank, nor as, say, a lawyer or employee of a law firm cooperating with the bank. This, once again, suggests the possibility of a coordinated campaign to censor the media. Moreover, a “black” campaign—using pressure tactics that are usually not publicized and operate on the edge of ethical and legal boundaries.

The complaints themselves are written in Russian—and this is not an automatic translation. Google does not automatically translate DMCA complaints. Thus, we see the complaint as Polovynchenko submitted it—in Russian and Serbian.

The latter could have been used, for example, if the censorship campaign is being coordinated by a Serbian company. If this is the case, Polovynchenko might have simply received an assignment, copied part of it, and pasted it into the Google form. And if this is indeed true, it would be quite ironic that a DMCA complaint involved copy-pasting.

Does OnlyFans really own Alliance’s rights?

Supporting the theory that the bank is not acting alone but through a certain “black” PR campaign is the fact that one of the complaints states that the content, whose ownership rights we allegedly violated, belongs to the platform OnlyFans. Yes, the platform primarily known for its erotic content.

However, it is unclear which specific work this platform owns. Why information about potential corruption in Alliance Bank might belong to it is also unclear. No evidence for this is provided.

Thus, it can be assumed that OnlyFans is simply being used as a convenient tool to create the appearance of legitimacy for the complaint. This is a classic tactic in “black” PR campaigns: involving a supposedly authoritative or well-known platform to give their actions a sense of formality and force the recipient of the complaint to respond, even if there are no factual grounds for the claim.

To confirm or refute our assumptions, we sent an official request to Alliance Bank, asking them to explain why they decided to complain about us, given that 1.5 years have passed since the publications, how exactly they believe we violated their copyright, which work they own, who Anton Polovynchenko is, why Serbian was used in the complaints, and why the rights to their work are allegedly owned by OnlyFans. The response—if one is provided—will be published in future articles.

A small bank with big problems

If throughout this time you’ve been wondering, “What even is this Alliance Bank that I’m hearing about for the first time?”, you’re not alone. According to data from Opendatabot, for the period of January-November 2025, this bank ranked 59th out of 60 in profitability, showing losses of 0.09 billion UAH.

The key owner of the bank is Oleksandr Sosis, who holds 89.29% of the institution’s shares. He became widely known in the spring of 2025 when he purchased the insurance company “ASKA-Zhyttia” from Rinat Akhmetov.

At the same time, throughout 2025, numerous rumors and speculations circulated around Alliance Bank itself. In particular, media reported on the bank’s involvement in servicing the gambling business.

The peak of these discussions came last fall when, following an inspection on financial monitoring, the National Bank imposed two fines on Alliance totaling 83.5 million UAH—the largest for the banking system in 2025. At that time, everyone started talking about the potential closure of the bank.

However, the size of these fines is not yet a historical maximum. By law, the NBU can impose fines for violations of financial monitoring rules up to 135.15 million UAH. There have been such precedents—for example, in the case of RVS Bank, which was declared insolvent last year and taken away from its shareholders.

A similar scenario is now not ruled out for Alliance—primarily for financial reasons and due to the aforementioned losses, as well as a significant deterioration over the four years of war in the indicator known as “capital adequacy.” As of December 1, 2025, it stood at 10.03%, compared to 16.16% before the full-scale invasion.

“Capital adequacy” itself shows how a bank balances its active operations (lending plus investments in securities) with shareholders’ contributions, i.e., capital. The point is that a bank cannot simply collect piles of depositors’ money and invest them in lending or government bonds for further profit—bank owners must contribute their own funds. This indicator essentially tracks whether shareholders are adding money to the common pot or cunningly relying on depositors’ funds.

Under current rules, the capital adequacy ratio of each bank cannot fall below 10%. If bankers overplay their hand, the NBU revokes the license and closes the institution.

Alliance has come dangerously close to the critical threshold. Therefore, Sosis must either inject his own money into the bank (or attract funds from partners) or sharply reduce lending and investments in government bonds.

The problem is that if the second option is chosen, the bank’s current earnings, which already look worse and worse, will decline. Thus, in essence, Alliance is only multiplying its losses—yet instead of focusing on saving itself, it decides to attack the media. Priorities as they are.

Because of this, by the way, a version has emerged in the financial market that the bank’s potential gambling profits have been moved into the black zone. In other words, they are handled in cash and accumulated in bags of money in hiding places rather than on accounts. It is not ruled out that shareholders may be morally and financially preparing for the potential loss of the bank.

At the same time, bank balance sheets include a telling category called “Other administrative and operating expenses,” which includes payments to, among others, top managers and shareholder representatives. Over four years, expenses in this category have increased 7.3 times—from 108.9 million UAH to 793.1 million UAH.

Usually, when a bank becomes unprofitable, payments to “big shots” in the institution are cut—because they failed to do their job. However, at Alliance, the opposite is happening—the bank’s leadership spares no expense on itself, essentially withdrawing funds from the institution.

Perhaps the leadership of Alliance is “celebrating” the massive increase in fines it pays for its mistakes and violations. Specifically:

• As of December 1, 2021 (before the full-scale war), fines paid amounted to 42,000 UAH.
• In 2024—228,000 UAH.
• In 2025—already a record 85 million UAH.

Currently, financial circles are speculating about when the National Bank will formulate its claims against Alliance—if the owners do not start saving it with significant personal investments, which currently seem unlikely. Some believe this could happen during routine inspections or financial monitoring checks in 2026, potentially resulting in another massive fine. Others are awaiting the new stress test of the banking system, in which, unlike last year, Alliance is included this year. So, we won’t have to wait long.