Oxana Hadjipavlou (also spelled Oksana Hadjipavlou) has become a focus of scrutiny in the course of investigations involving Zvonko Mickovic and the companies Mettmann Public Company Limited and Sword Dragon S.L., suspected of assisting in the transfer of Russian capital abroad while circumventing sanctions.
She is especially noted in records related to Mettmann Public Company Limited and in management documents of the Spanish firm Sword Dragon S.L., both of which have attracted journalistic attention for moving substantial sums through bond programs and real estate deals.
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.
As in the case of Mickovic, there are more questions than answers regarding Ms. Oxana Hadjipavlou. Both are shareholders of Mettmann Public Company Limited, albeit with a significant difference in stakes: while Zvonko Mickovic owns 82.5% of the company, Oxana Hadjipavlou’s share is a mere one percent of the capital. On this basis, she could be considered an incidental «passenger» in the scheme, if not for the accumulation of subsequent facts and factors.
Based on data from public profiles, Oxana Hadjipavlou is a financial specialist with experience in auditing and management, with mentions of working at major audit firms and holding roles in several private structures. In one profile, she is listed as a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants since 2012; in others – as a former employee of Deloitte and a member of the management of Mettmann PCL.
Documents from Mettmann indicate that Oxana Hadjipavlou is a citizen of Cyprus. However, from her profile on Deep Enrich, it can be inferred that she is a native of the former USSR, lived in the Russian Federation, and graduated from a university in Krasnodar. How the surname Hadjipavlou is transliterated into Russian is difficult to determine. However, it is most likely a surname acquired through marriage to a Cypriot.
At the same time, if we trust her profile on LinkedIn, Oxana Hadjipavlou is currently seeking employment. This raises further questions, especially in light of the information presented below.
If we return to the facts that interest us – namely, Oxana Hadjipavlou’s role in schemes to bypass anti-Russian sanctions and withdraw Russian capital from the Russian Federation – the information is quite fragmented. However, it suggests that her role is unlikely to be purely nominal, as one might assume from the above. Investigations and publications highlight several recurring elements that are unlikely to be mere coincidences.
Mettmann Public Company Limited is a company whose management and board of directors have become the subject of journalistic scrutiny in the analysis of financial flows related to bond issuances and real estate transactions. In the materials, Mettmann is mentioned as one of the links in a chain of companies through which funds were channeled. Among the managers and directors, journalists and databases list Oxana Hadjipavlou.
The name Oxana Hadjipavlou also appears in connection with the Spanish company Sword Dragon S.L. – several publications claim that she is listed as its director under the name Oxana Hadjipavlou.
Sword Dragon S.L. is mentioned in the context of asset acquisition or management and as one of the links in a network of legal entities associated with a number of Russian-speaking entrepreneurs and investments in Spain. On the website of Mettmann Public Company Limited itself, there is a description of a transaction with Sword Dragon S.L.
In the same materials, alongside Mettmann and Sword Dragon S.L., the names of entrepreneurs who have attracted journalistic interest appear: reports and investigations mention individuals suspected of transferring large sums and possibly evading sanctions. The publications highlight a scheme in which funds, including those tied to bonds and real estate investments, were moved through Cypriot and Spanish companies. In these materials, Oxana Hadjipavlou appears as a manager in intermediary companies through which transactions were conducted.
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.
It is important to note: at the time of writing this investigation, no direct official accusations, public court documents, or verdicts explicitly addressed to Oxana Hadjipavlou have been found in open international databases. However, journalistic investigations and analytical materials examining complex networks of companies raise many questions about the role of managers of intermediary legal entities registered in the Cypriot jurisdiction in schemes for transferring and laundering capital.
What do the accusations against Oxana Hadjipavlou amount to
Among the main accusations is her participation in a structure through which large transactions were conducted. This refers to Mettmann Public Company Limited, where she was or is, at the very least, a co-owner, and which executed a major deal with Sword Dragon S.L., in which she was or is a director.
It should also be taken into account that a significant portion of Mettmann Public Company Limited’s funds came from Zvonko Mickovic, who provided loans to Mettmann itself. Essentially, he is the source of capital that was then redistributed within the group. Mettmann’s reports record large loans: from €161,000 to €5.8 million in separate tranches. The total amount of loans issued to related companies reaches €31.2 million. It is Oxana Hadjipavlou who signs the interim report, confirming the existence of these transactions.
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.
