The Carlsberg Russia sale is allegedly tied to Gennady Timchenko, a sanctioned oligarch and close ally of Vladimir Putin, according to findings by the Anti‑Corruption Foundation (FBK) reviewed by Danish media in August 2025.
The claims concern the December 2024 transfer of Baltika Breweries to the Russian vehicle VG Invest for 2.3 billion Danish kroner (≈€308 million), and suggest that financing routed through opaque intermediaries points to Timchenko’s de facto control. Carlsberg says it conducted extensive due diligence and cannot comment on what may have happened after closing.
What the FBK investigation alleges
FBK’s reporting, fronted by journalist Maria Pevchikh, traces a 34 billion ruble (≈€324 million) bank loan issued on 3 December 2024 by Rosselkhozbank to VG Invest, which then paid Carlsberg for Baltika Breweries. Twenty‑two days later, VG Invest allegedly received an equivalent‑size loan from Novaya Sistema, whose funds purportedly originated from Ena Invest—a company controlled by Gennady Timchenko.
Corporate registry details and overlapping directors indicate a structure designed to obscure beneficial ownership, a technique widely used in Russia to mask control of strategic assets. While the ownership chain remains formally undisclosed, the financial trail described by FBK implies that Timchenko provided the capital and influence behind the acquisition.
From seizure to sale: a choreographed exit
Carlsberg’s Russian saga began when the Kremlin placed Baltika Breweries under “temporary management” in July 2023, derailing an earlier exit plan. On 2 December 2024, a presidential decree reversed the state management, and within 24 hours Carlsberg announced the sale of Baltika to VG Invest, led by long‑time company managers.
The price—2.3 billion DKK (≈€308 million)—was a fraction of the ≈20 billion DKK (≈€2.68 billion) valuation Carlsberg had assigned before Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine. According to documents shared with Danish authorities, the transaction also settled pending lawsuits and eased pressure on former Baltika executives who had faced criminal charges as the dispute escalated.
Carlsberg’s position and due diligence
Carlsberg states it distinguishes strictly between pre‑sale and post‑sale events. The group says it conducted significant due diligence on both buyers and financing sources and notes that Danish authorities (Erhvervsstyrelsen) reviewed the plan before approval.
Management maintains that what may have occurred after closing lies outside Carlsberg’s control. The company has repeatedly described the 2023 takeover of Baltika as a “theft” and wrote the asset down to zero before the December 2024 agreement.
Sanctions ripple effects
In May 2025, VG Invest, its director Igor Guselnikov, and Baltika Breweries were added to Canada’s sanctions list, citing involvement in the confiscation and redistribution of foreign assets. In August 2025, Ukraine imposed sanctions on the same entities.
Gennady Timchenko has been under EU and US sanctions since 2014 (Crimea) and further measures followed in 2022. If FBK’s findings are accurate, compliance risks extend beyond Russia, potentially affecting European supply chains, licensing, and IP enforcement tied to Baltika brands.
A pattern in Russia’s corporate exits
The Baltika case echoes other Western departures in which locally presented buyers later appeared linked to Kremlin‑aligned business networks. Analysts have noted similar dynamics in sales or transfers involving Danone and energy holdings, where state decrees, discount pricing, and rapid ownership reshuffles combined to re‑socialize strategic assets into circles close to the Russian leadership.
What remains unclear
Key elements remain unverified in public records: the ultimate beneficial owner of VG Invest and Novaya Sistema; the full terms of the loans allegedly linking them to Ena Invest; and any post‑closing changes to governance or financing that could alter control. Carlsberg says it is not aware of oligarch involvement and has declined to speculate.
Timchenko and VG Invest have not publicly addressed the specific claims. The opacity of Russian registries and exemptions from disclosure continue to limit transparency.
