--- title: "Naspers and Avito: the completed disposal and later civil claims" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/naspers/avito-disposal-and-civil-claims/ as_of: 2026-09-21 keywords: ["Naspers","Prosus","voting control","Nasbel","Keerom","Wheatfields","Takealot","PayU","Media24"] --- # Naspers and Avito: the completed disposal and later civil claims **Question.** What changed hands, when, and what did the retained litigation decide? **Answer.** The disposal completed in October 2022. The civil claims, the reported later appeal withdrawal and the buyers’ sanctions are separate matters; they must not be merged into a single finding against Naspers or Prosus. ## The October 2022 disposal and the later sanctioned buyer - Analysis: Prosus announced its decision to exit Avito in May 2022. The October transaction announcement identified the selling holding companies and the Russian acquisition vehicles, Radio Reklama Vologda and Infrastructure Holding-2, associated with Kismet. The consideration was RUB151 billion; the announcement described a 99% effective interest in Avito Group and distinguished that group interest from the individual legal entities being transferred. [s-d253] [s-d281] [s-d383] [s-supp-prosus-fy23] - Qualification: An agreement announced on 14 October was not itself proof of completion on that same day. The later primary FY23 financial statements confirm that the disposal completed in October 2022. A stray report using million instead of billion is not adopted. - Response: Prosus described the sale as a responsible and structured exit under difficult conditions. - Outcome: Prosus’ FY23 report records the completed disposal and US$2.4 billion proceeds. Avito is therefore a historical portfolio connection, not a continuing Naspers asset in this reconstruction. ## Claimants’ allegations and the separate question of admissibility - Analysis: Stichting Ukrainian Victims of War sued Prosus and three Dutch holding companies in 2022 over alleged military recruitment advertisements on Avito after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Its pleading sought orders aimed at stopping the advertisements and constraining a sale without protections. The ownership chain and allegations in that document are the claimant’s account, not independent findings by the court. [s-d239] [s-d261] [s-supp-review-avito-appeal] - Qualification: The substantial monetary penalties proposed in the pleading were requested enforcement measures, not damages or fines awarded. The archive contains a redacted section for the defendants’ position, so it does not support reconstruction of a full defence from that section. - Response: The pleading itself records Prosus’ March 2022 statements that it was addressing a small number of military advertisements and separating Avito from OLX, with no further investment or economic benefit and no direct day-to-day involvement. Those statements do not resolve the claimant’s disputed factual account. - Outcome: The appeal notice identifies the Amsterdam interim judgment of 15 July 2022 and seeks reversal. Later Loyens & Loeff commentary reports that the claimant withdrew its appeal after Prosus sold Avito and exited Russia. The retained materials do not include the court termination order, so the withdrawal is attributed to that commentary; the old appeal filing is not evidence that the appeal remains ongoing. ## Sanctions belong to the named person and entities - Analysis: The Avito buyer’s wider network became the subject of later sanctions. A December 2023 US announcement designated Ivan Tavrin, Kismet Capital Group, Kismet Consulting and specified Kismet investment vehicles. The UK’s June 2024 announcement also named Tavrin. Kismet Capital and Kismet Consulting are distinct companies and should not be merged merely because they share a controller. [s-d345] [s-d365] [s-d390] - Qualification: These designations post-date the completed October 2022 Avito sale. They do not establish that Naspers or Prosus was itself designated, or that the buyer was already subject to these particular designations when the transaction closed. A sanctions designation is not a criminal conviction. Personal tax identifiers are unnecessary to explain the public corporate connection and are withheld. - Outcome: Official sanctions notices establish their stated designations and grounds at the relevant dates. Dates in later aggregator ownership histories are not independently treated as proof of the exact date of every subsequent share transfer. ## Sources - [s-d253] Media source · s-d253 - [s-d281] Media source · s-d281 - [s-d383] Media source · s-d383 - [s-supp-prosus-fy23] Company statement source · s-supp-prosus-fy23 - [s-d239] Court record concerning Naspers or the identified participant, Netherlands Judiciary - [s-d261] Court record concerning Naspers or the identified participant, Netherlands Judiciary - [s-supp-review-avito-appeal] Media source · s-supp-review-avito-appeal - [s-d345] Regulatory record concerning Naspers or the identified participant, US Department of State (archived official administration site) - [s-d365] Regulatory record concerning Naspers or the identified participant, US Treasury sanctions search - [s-d390] Regulatory record concerning Naspers or the identified participant, United Kingdom Government