The name of Ukrainian businessman Yaroslav Grishin became known in Bulgaria in connection with his plans to cooperate with former Prime Minister Kiril Petkov on the production of unmanned aerial vehicles in the country.
In Ukraine, however, the entrepreneur and his company “General Cherry” have been the subject of serious media attention, including reports alleging non-transparent public contracts and possible connections in the defence sector.
Particular attention has been drawn to the report “Drones at Double the Price: How Yaroslav Grishin and «General Cherry» Secured 4.5 Billion in State Contracts”, published in August 2026.
According to the authors of the investigation, the company received contracts worth UAH 4.5 billion, while some of its products were purchased at prices significantly higher than market rates.
But what lies behind these allegations, and what is the other side of the story?
UAH 4.5 Billion and a Tenfold Increase in Contracts
One of the first serious journalistic questions surrounding Grishin’s business emerged in July 2025.
On July 10, the Ukrainian investigative publication “Nashi Hroshi” published an article titled “The Billion-Dollar Rise of ‘General Cherry’ Drones in Zhumadilov’s Contracts.”
According to the publication, in 2024 Ukraine’s Defence Procurement Agency signed contracts for drones under the “General Cherry” brand worth slightly more than UAH 400 million.
In the first half of 2025, however, the amount reached UAH 4.5 billion – a tenfold increase.
The journalists raised the question of whether this growth was solely the result of production capacity and product quality, or whether other factors were also involved.
Particular attention was paid to the relationship between Yaroslav Grishin and Arsen Zhumadilov, who had headed the State Logistics Operator before becoming head of the Defence Procurement Agency.
The report states that Yaroslav Grishin’s brother, Stanislav Grishin, provided legal services to the State Logistics Operator. Another former employee of the structure, Andrii Lavrenovych, subsequently joined the drone-manufacturing company.
These circumstances have prompted questions about possible dependencies in the awarding of state contracts.
However, the mere existence of professional contacts does not prove improper influence.
How Does Grishin Respond?
Interestingly, the Ukrainian publication Forbes Ukraine devoted an interview to Yaroslav Grishin specifically in connection with these suspicions.
In a report published on July 21, 2025, journalists asked him about his relationship with Arsen Zhumadilov and the sharp increase in contracts.
Grishin denied that his brother’s connections or those of the former State Logistics Operator employee had influenced state contracts.
According to his explanation, a significant portion of the contracts carried out in 2025 had been planned as early as the end of 2024, when the agency was headed by Marina Bezrukova.
He also explained the increase by pointing to the expansion of the product portfolio and the gradual acquisition of permits to use new drone models.
According to data provided by the entrepreneur himself to Forbes Ukraine, the company’s revenue for the first half of 2025 amounted to UAH 1.5 billion.
This is Grishin’s position, which should be considered alongside the questions raised by the investigative journalists.
Drones at Twice the Price?
In August 2026, the issue resurfaced, this time with a focus on the prices of the products.
According to the report “Drones at Double the Price,” comparable FPV drones on the Ukrainian market cost between UAH 10,000 and UAH 18,000, while “General Cherry” products were purchased by state institutions at prices ranging from UAH 17,900 to UAH 39,000.
The authors raise the question of whether the differences are justified by the technical specifications and configuration, or whether they reflect unjustified price inflation.
Public contracts in Zaporizhzhia region are also cited in which the company was the only bidder.
Here, however, an important clarification is necessary: comparing drone prices requires an assessment of the specific models, equipment, warranty terms, delivery and technical specifications. The difference in final prices alone is not sufficient to prove a violation.
Nevertheless, the question of how public funds for military equipment are spent is of significant public importance.
Five Criminal Proceedings – What Do the Reports Claim?
The allegations in the reports published in August and October 2026 are even more serious.
They list five criminal proceedings allegedly linked to drone-supply contracts and the actions of public officials.
Investigations by Ukraine’s Bureau of Economic Security, the State Bureau of Investigation and the Security Service of Ukraine are cited.
The reports mention suspicions of embezzlement and abuse of office.
Sources: Forbes Ukraine, Nashi Hroshi, FTTC, Reporter Online, Krayina “Ukraine”, Media•Hub