Jump to content

Talk:SkyWay Group/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Request for verifiable references of 'SkyWay Group' marketing techniques

In the future we should include a new heading on the evaluation of the marketing techniques used by this group of companies. These are some of the issues which have been suggested. Any references you may find would be appreciated. They will be translated, made accessible for analysis and eventually used in the article.

The SkyWay Group has no 'product' to sell in the way that 'herbalife' does. Companies like this which are involved in Multi-level management and pyramid schemes, can promote selling an actual product to someone (and encourage them to find friends and families to invest and further sell these products). The Skyway Group, however, has nothing concrete to sell. What they do have is an idea which is sold in the form of the 'SkyWay' technology. Using this concept they are able to make money. How do they do it? And how do they distribute these funds? Here are some ideas which should be included in a carefully worded description to verifiable sources:

Yunitskiy and his technology as marketing tools

Anatoly Yunitskiy invented the technology. He founded the companies. He appears to be the primary shareholder. He is present at all SkyWay events. Sometimes he is presented as a business-man. Sometimes as an engineer. Sometimes as a brilliant inventor. Sometimes as a wildly independent genius. Sometimes as a hero who has the answers for all world problems thanks to his SkyWay technology. He attends international events and speaks there. His name is on many contracts. They claim he did all sorts of things like work on united nations projects. He apparently received an international peace prize in Bratislave. Some of this are obvious fabrications (there is no such peace prize awarded to anyone else) and some so ridiculous they are amusing. But that is irrevelant here. Yunitskiy is without a doubt a complex construction designed to support the aggressive marketing of a business. Questions that need to be answered here and that we can still only speculate about include the following: How complicit is Yunitskiy himself in this complex marketing construction? Is he a figure-head or an instigator? Is he a wildly devious and clever marketeer? Or was his work co-opted by business interests and is his work being used by scammers? Or are these both true? Some people have suggested that the MLM investment scheme is unconnected to Yunitsky. This is obviously untrue and is often an attempt at obfuscation. His technology really does exist. He really does exist and seems involved in most of the companies in some way and his technology is the closest you get to the companies having 'something' to sell to clients. This is how they convince people to buy shares. The actual processes they apply to sell these shares are included as additional sub-headings below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sale of company shares/stocks

The companies are selling shares. In some places this is illegal. People from around the world are still being convinced to buy these shares. Where is it illegal?

References to "buying shares" show extensively in marketing materials related to SkyWay, however it is also said that they do not "sell shares". The first reason for this can be found in the investment memorandum:
https://skyway.capital/assets/5290e534/img/documents/invest_memorandum_en.pdf
Simply put, investors in SkyWay purchase rights to buy SkyWay shares at fixed price at some point in the future. What they have now are non-tradable stock options. The share certificates from ERSSH II Limited state the following:

- Thanks to user:Kmarinas86 for this information. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • It should be noted here that in order to legally sell shares of a company, you have to be recognized by a market authority in the country which you are selling them. Although the warnings from countries against the activities of these companies confirms this, it does not by means of exclusion legitimize the sale of shares anywhere else. The warnings are just an alarm bell. It appears that none of the SkyWay companies have ever received official permission to sell shares anywhere. Do you disagree? Please only argument this point with references to second party confirmations of instances where the sale of shares has been permitted by a marketing authority. All unsupported lofty claims about what you can get when you buy these shares will be immediately removed; there are enough of such claims already in the text above.

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sale of shares to everyday individuals

The companies somehow encourage sale of the shares to motivated individuals who become encouraged during motivational gatherings to part with their money. Such meetings were held in Belgium and people were convinced to part with their money after hearing complex motivational explanations about investment plans which they would eventually receive returns on if they waited long enough. How on earth do they get people to do this in foreign countries outside of Russia?

At the festival held in the EcoTechnoPark in 2018 there were investors at the event from all over the world, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand. These people were without exception everyday individuals who had been convinced to invest their money in the project. They were all unwavering in their conviction to the project despite being unqualified to know anything about it. This article from the popular Belarusian newsfeed 'TUT.BY'

https://42.tut.by/603396

Here's a quote on this particular aspect of funding from the "ONLINER.BY" commentary released August 2018:

  • "Money for everything is collected from ordinary people who, in return for their contributions, are promised either shares, or stakes in the company, and someday - wealth, happiness and a bright future for their grandchildren."
  • V. Zylev, advisor to the Russian Academy of Architecture & Construction Sciences is not sure when, if ever, simple gullible people will see their money again.
https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

The company does not hide this aspect of its marketing. It's not actually illegal. But receiving funding from everyday people for large-scale technological projects is extremely irregular. But how are the SkyWay Group making use of the internet to sell shares to investors?

Multi-level marketing

We know that the company adopts policies which involve investors being encouraged to find other investors so that they will receive return on their own investments. Anecdotal accounts demonstrate how dynamic individuals encourage groups of people, often friends and families, to encourage others to invest. How does this work?

Sale of Educational Services/Courses

To avoid some of the regulation restricting the sale of company shares, it has been suggested that these companies are attempting to sell educational courses. How do they do this?

International negotiations

These companies attempt to organize negotiations with international players. They manage to involve themselves in the signing of contracts and are always seen to be actively involved in negotiating. But they've never realized a project. Do they actually intend to? How do they profit from this?

Corruption

We know from verifiable sources that financial payments were made during the Lithuania scandal. Financial impropriety was also suggested in the Indian and Italian scandals. How does this receive expression in their business plan?

Tax havens

They make use of an unregulated financial system by having companies registered in tax havens like Saint-Lucia and the British Virigin Islands. How do they profit from this?

Use of investments

How do they make use of the money they receive from investors? How is it redistributed among investors and management? How much is actually returned to investors?

  • According to Pavel, who worked as an engineer on the SkyWay project in Belarus, 'gullible people' work for the company but these people may actually believe in the projects: "I got the impression that for the money of investors they try to create projects like the ones in their commercials... All to take more money from people." Often they only try to 'depict the work' rather than questioning the validity of the engineering concepts.

https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Crypto-currency

Recent postings have suggested that new forms of funding are encouraging investment in cryptocurrencies. A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions, control the creation of additional units, and verify the transfer of assets. This is still speculation, but it was suggested that recent efforts have included discussions of the cryptocurrencies once the pyramid model natural imploded and they need new forms of financing to prop up the MLM. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It so early to discuss it. There is even not too much information about it from Skyway related sources. They even don't have a white paper for their planned crypto currency. This is an official site of the ICO of their crypto currency but it wasn't updated since last year: [1]. Dron007 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Conclusions

It's important that any drawn conclusions be included from verifiable sources. Include any links you may have or ideas below. Please don't fill this talk page with information; provide a link to a source of your own talk page. Any ideas will be considered and sources analysed. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I suggest when there are more references collected, even anecdotal ones, we should start experimenting with this in the sandbox. It may never bear fruit, but when it can be more than speculation it should become a part of a complete description of the 'SkyWay Group'. There should probably be more information about Yunitskiy as well. In discussion threads there is some confusion about the extent of involvement of Yunitskiy in the SkyWay affair. Although I fear this is deliberate obfuscation by sock puppets - who on the one hand say the technology is unconnected to the crowdfunding efforts and therefore deserve ... more funding, and on the other argue vociferously for an intimate connection between the two - this needs to be clarified as it is one of the reasons that is being used to argue for the deletion of this article. There are so many unanswered questions posed on MLM discussion sites and what we really need is a financial crimes specialist to investigate this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposals for CONSTRUCTION content and references

After the section on "Safety and Evaluation" there was a description of the 'Construction' of the 'SkyWay Group' technology as it was constructed in Russia (Moscow) and is still apparently being constructed in Belarus. Unfortunately all of the references were to instagram posts, youtube films, maps, pdfs of images uploaded to commons and propaganda articles so we had to completely remove it.

But we do want to learn about the construction of the EcoTechnoPark in Marina Gorka (about 70km from Minsk) and possibly the deconstructed project in Moscow as well that was negatively assessed and taken apart. But only references that are verifiable can be considered. Being in existence is not reason enough to include it an article just because, well, Google maps says it exists and so do you. Someone has to have written about it objectively.

Please don't make proposals that include YouTube films, photos or contracts. Verifiable third-party links will be translated and assessed and new sections to the page will be included once there is consensus among users that the information is valid. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

New section on construction was removed because the following string theory article in a 'stringer' publication was unverifiable as far as I can see. Please make concise proposals which include third-party references which can be translated and assessed by informed users. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

http://stringer-news.com/publication.mhtml?Part=46&PubID=12796

I checked and translated most of the text of the 'stringer' article: it doesn't actually mean anything. The article addresses itself as an opinion column. The title translates to something like "clowns or modernizers?". It's filled with flowery language which talks about the joy of invention and the great Russian spirit fighting against the odds. And that despite everything Yunitksiy's 'string transport' has a chance of conquering the market. This doesn't turn up until later in the article. It doesn't actually try to prove or demonstrate anything in particular. Why anyone would use this as an academic reference remains a mystery to me. Are they just hoping that no one will actually read it? −Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

String transport→SkyWay (name change): introduction adjustments and fact-check

It seems now pretty sure that the name of the article will be changing to "SkyWay Group". The wording, especially in the first paragraph will have to be changed. It's important that every setence is correct and verifiably reference. I was sure to fact-check every claim with individual references. Any suggestions you may have would be welcome at the end of the article to avoid confusion about the references and to assess your suggesstions.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander

SkyWay Group refers to a wide range of companies established and owned by the Russian inventor Anatoly Yunitskiy.[1] These companies are registered under business names like "SkyWay Capital Ltd." [2] and "Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd."[3] in London, Minsk and the Virgin Islands.[4] The companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors; they make lofty claims about the potential of their light rail transportation system [1] called 'SkyWay' (also referred to by Kunitskiy as 'String Transport').[5] Potential investors are promised enormous returns on tax-free investments.[1] Unfortunately none of the Skyway group has ever realised a project [4] and various national banks have released warnings about financial irregularities.[2]
[changes by user:Zaxander—Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
A prototype of the technology promoted by the Skyway Group was assessed by the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering. They concluded that "the technology is filled with a large number of system defects" and that the system is "associated with great risk". In 2016, a Russian government panel that evaluated the technology called it, "innovative, but only in theory".[5]
Although in various countries proceedings were started to initiate SkyWay Group projects - including India, Italy, the United Arab Emirates[7] and Lithuania - no projects have been realised; Memorandum of Understanding contracts were apparently signed but projects in Lithuania and India have been stalled due to concerns about safety and viability of the technology [6] as well as financial irregularity.[5] The Italian government has banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay group company shares.[4]
The SkyWay Group is financing itself using suspicious marketing techniques [1] and crowdfunding.[4] However, financial regulators in multiple countries including Belgium, Estonia,[2] Germany [8], Greece] [9] Italy [4], Lithuania [2] and New Zealand [10] have issued warnings about the scheme and accused the promoters of not complying with legal requirements when seeking investment.[5] The FSMA (Belgium) warned that such financial schemes exhibit "the characteristics of a pyramid scheme".[2]
references
[1] https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/verslas/lietuvos-bankas-oro-traukinius-zadancio-a-junickio-veikloje-sukciavimo-pozymiai.d?id=65880462
[2] FSMA Belgium reference
[3] "«Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ldt.», «American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.», « African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. », «Australian&Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd » and, set purposely to Lithuania, «Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.» are a few to be mentioned." https://bnn-news.com/genuine-investment-project-boondoggle-scheme-lithuania-national-security-threat-119828
[4] "Sky Way, l'azienda del "tram volante" che non ha mai realizzato un progetto". letteraemme.it.
[5] http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/transport/?doc=96284
[6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/doubts-raised-over-belarus-company-credential-for-rs-250-crore-skyway-transport-project-in-dharamshala/articleshow/59568813.cms
[7] https://www.rta.ae/wps/portal/rta/ae/home/news-and-media/all-news/NewsDetails/mou-with-skyway-greentech-to-develop-sky-pod-network
[8]https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Verbrauchermitteilung/weitere/2018/vm_181108_first_skyway_invest_group.html
[9] https://economynews247.ibhs.gr/epixeiriseis/17219-epitropi-kefalaiagoras-choris-egkrisi-oi-diafimiseis-tis-skyway-invest-group
[10] https://www.fma.govt.nz/news-and-resources/warnings-and-alerts/skyway-capitalskyway-group/

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

SENTENCE: "The companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors..."

User Dron007 made a valid query about this sentence in the opening paragraph. I will discuss it here. Here is the link to the actual article I used:

https://www.lb.lt/en/news/bank-of-lithuania-warns-skyway-activities-in-lithuania-illegal

The Lithuanian Bank warning article (in English) states the following: "The Bank of Lithuania has recently noticed intensified activities of the SkyWay group, encouraging investing in this group’s project" and furthermore that "representatives keep issuing invitations, in various ways, to finance unclear projects, promising 'quick and easy benefits' ". It states clearly that "they have no permits to sale shares in Lithuania" and that the reader is warned because they "may lose their money". I suggest we change the sentence to "The companies encourage risky investment in unclear projects". I hope this sounds more neutral and is better representative of the material. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a phrase "Unfortunately none of the Skyway Group has ever realised a project outside of Belarus and various national banks have released warnings about financial irregularities." The problem with it is that it is 1) Not neutral and looks like a personal opinion. 2) You cannot proof absense of anything, right? So it is not possible to support this statement. "Financial irregularities" part is ok but it is repeated 2 sentences below: "As a result, financial regulators in many countries... have issued warnings...". The phrase "no projects have been realized" is also repeated so I think that sentence could be safely omitted.Dron007 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

After all changes we still don't have anything about essense of the technology. I added a link on Skyway_(disambiguation) page and I had to give very short text describing this article so I used "а group of companies claiming the invention of a new transport technology" (BTW please fix grammar if incorrect). We don't have even this short description in the preamble. There is nothing about rails or suspension railway or even transport. Reader nowing nothing about Skyway have to guess it from companys' names, or from categories. There should be some descriptive text about the area of work of these companies. Dron007 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dron007 (talk · contribs) I'll check the disambiguation link. I think it's right to include information about what it is the companies are promoting. At the moment it says only that they 'promote' this technology and nothing else. I'll see what I can do but I'm worried that I will make the situation even worse. At the moment, they are trying to have it all deleted. I wonder whose interest that would serve? Not the interest of people who want to have an objective view of collected data, in any case. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Dron007 (talk · contribs)The disambiguation link sounds great. I've included the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph. In this way, we mention Yunitskiy and his technology and we don't make unfounded suppositions about it either: "This technology was invented by Anatoly Yunitskiy and it is presented as a new type of light rail transportation system". Maybe 'elevated light right' would be even better? Please add something to support NOT deleting the article on the deletion request page. I know it's not perfect but silencing people isn't going to help anyone.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, this is nice for start. I think it should be extended more as the next question of any curious reader will be "how it differs from any other railway system or monorail?" I surely add my thoughts against deletion.Dron007 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The ONLINER.BY SkyWay Articles - Claims & Controversies

A number of articles were published on the internet by the popular and well-known Belarusian publisher ONLINER.BY about SkyWay after they interviewed Yunitskiy in 2016 and researched the claims he made about his technology and the testing facility he was building in Marjina Horka at the time. They were written by Constantin Sidorovich and made a series of bold statements about the inventor of SkyWay technology, the exaggerated claims made by the SkyWay Group about this technology, the questionable scientific validity of both this technology its new Belarusian testing facility, and the marketing techniques adopted by these companies to fund themselves. The most recent article is from 22 February 2019 but the original article from September 2016 viewable here [2] resulted in legal action being taken by Yunitskiy against ONLINER.BY. He was unsuccessful and ONLINER.BY kept updating their articles and publishing new facts. Arthur Van Burren recently translated and published one of the more recent articles on the Van Burrenblog. You can view his translation here:[3]. An unidentified 'Sino-English law firm' in Hong Kong is currently reviewing the contents of this and other postings critical of SkyWay. Summaries of the conclusions drawn in these articles and translations will follow with specific information about facts which could be used to update this article. Include your comments about the CONTENTS of these articles and possibly legal actions taken by Yunitskiy against Onliner.by or the Van Burrenblog below. You can address any specific concerns you have about the validity of the claims made in these articles and their translations here. Please include only valid criticism or commentary on the CONTENTS of these articles by demonstrating why in other verifiable sources and not your personal opinions or attacks at the writers or translators as these will be removed immediately.

5 September 2016 - "Elon Musk is nonsense - give me money instead..."

Илон Маск — чушь собачья, несите деньги мне. Белорус основал «компанию на $400 млрд» и строит под Минском «сверхскоростной» Sky Way
Elon Musk is hogwash - just give me the money. A Belarusian founded "a company worth $400 billion" and is building a "superfast" SkyWay near Minsk

A translation from the popular Belarusian newsfeed 'Onliner.by' can now be viewed at the Zaxander (talk · contribs) talk page. It is the first article on SkyWay that later resulted in legal action by Yunitskiy and his associates for libel. These legal proceedings were unsuccessful. This article doesn't have a lot of information about the EcoTechnoPark (it was still quite new when this article was published; they'd only started working on it a year before) - but it was published while they were still building it and is largely in reaction to their return to Belarus after the unsuccessful projects in Australia and Lithuania. But the more recent articles make more sense if you read this one first. Two of the other Onliner.by articles appear to be transcriptions of actual interviews some of which were made for this article. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Here follows a summary of the original SkyWay article Sidorovich wrote for the popular Belarusian newsfeed ONLINER.BY. Although Yunitskiy was unsuccessful in suing him for the contents of this very article, this doesn't necessarily mean that each and every conclusion he made was true. If you have real proof that the claims that were made in this article were untrue, please post them here. In the following summary, quotes are used from the article. But I encourage you to read the whole translation or consult the original before using it to change the article.

SUMMARY:

  • This article was written in reaction to the ‘Kairos Technologies’ pyramid scheme [4] which attracted gullible people to “high-tech technology projects”. SkyWay seemed very similar.
  • The technology of ‘string transport’ known as SkyWay dates back to the eighties. In general terms it refers to a railway system where the rails are elevated above the ground on concrete supports: “A string rail is a bundle of pre-stressed tensioned steel wires placed in a concrete-filled body.” It was invented by Anatoly Yunitskiy.
  • The main claims of Yunitskiy about his technology are as follows: “String transport is safer, more environmentally friendly, faster (emphasis is placed on speeds up to 500 km per hour) and is ten times cheaper than everything that exists.”
  • Yunitskiy complains about the underfinancing of his projects. But it is this aspect of his endeavours that “cause the most controversy and suspicion”: “Money is collected from ordinary people, in return, they receive ‘shares’ from Euroasian Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd, registered in the British Virgin Islands (about 40% of offshore companies in the world are based here).” Apparently if you pay a dollar for a ‘share’, “you are promised a profit of over 1000%” in the future.
  • According to Yunitskiy his company had been appraised as being worth 400 billion – approximately the same as Apple computers, despite there not being any real results when this article was written.
  • SkyWay appears to have two locations. An office in Minsk and the test site in Marjina Horka. At the offices “dozens of young people work” and there is also a workshop there. In 2015 SkyWay rented a 35-hectare plot near Marina Horka to test SkyWay technology. The test-site which is called EcoTechnoPark has a field of hundreds of apple trees. A tree is planted for every investor who donated at least a thousand dollars. According to Yunitskiy “80 thousand people from 78 countries invest in us” (mostly 100-300 dollars).
  • According to Yunitskiy, his projects have been plagued by unfortunate setbacks. He almost completes a project, competitors or governments intervene and he is chased out, and after that he chooses another country and he starts again. This happened first in Russia, where he worked with Lebed (the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory). In 2011 he went to Australia. After that Lithuania but they called him an international fraudster and arrested him.
  • Although Yunitskiy claimed he was treated unfairly in Lithuania, the Central Bank there accused him of selling "worthless shares” and the Prosecutor General’s Office started an investigation “into fraud, illegal economic, commercial, financial activities and the legalization of funds acquired by criminal means."
  • According to Yunitskiy Elon Musk (responsible for Tesla, SpaceX and Hyperloop) is a fraud and his work is utter nonsense whereas he himself has ready-made solutions “to all major world problems.”
  • Yunitskiy complains a lot about underfunding. And when you run out of money “you need to actively finance”. Yunitskiy decided to collect this money from private investors and crowdfunding as part of complex schemes. It is the pyramid structure of these investment schemes that creates the most controversy. This ‘referral system’ where investors receive a percentage of the money they get from other people they encourage to invest is well-known in the example of Kairos Technologies.
  • According to the economist Kovalkin this a significant way of extracting money from people. But products like Apple depended on a usable model which could afterwards attract investors to help send the product “to mass production at the factory”. In the case of SkyWay you need a working sample that meets all the “declared parameters” like speed, safety and economic viability.
  • The conclusion of this article is that although SkyWay could be a technological breakthrough, it looks like just “another fraudulent pyramid scheme”.

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

3 February 2017 - "The author of SkyWay took Onliner.by to court..."

Автор проекта SkyWay Юницкий подал в суд на Onliner.by и открестился от группы компаний SkyWay
The author of SkyWay Yunitskiy took Onliner.by to court and disowned the SkyWay Group"

A translation of this article still hasn't been published. It seems to document the fact that the case was going to trial and contains further elucidation about the SkyWay company. A transltion will follow. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is interesting because it's a clear documentation of Yunitskiy denying that he is connected to the SkyWay Group of companies in court. He claims on the one hand that the President of the SkyWay Group is just a 'virtual' position, and on the other that he has nothing to do with them. During the court prceedings, his business card is brought into the discussion by the defending council of Onliner.by: it clearly states that his email address is the one connected to the SkyWay companies. His answer to the defendant's question is that "he doesn't know why it's there". Onliner.by author Sidorivich who was taken to court by Yunitskiy for alleged false claims about the SkyWay Company Group, emphasizes the fact that he always used this email address to contact Yunitskiy. It's no wonder they threw this case out of court. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
A translation has now been made of this article. It contains a lot of confusing answers from Yunitskiy about how his '400 billion' intellectual property was shifted in ownership to his offshore companies. He refuses to provide a clear answer in this court transcript. Defense suggests that his refusal to answer this question relates to the fact that he lacked permission from the regulatory agencies to start the company he refuses to discuss (probably in Belarus), but he gives as a s reason he was a Russian citizen when this took place and he would only answer these questions in Russia. Yunitskiy demanded a full refutation and the removal of the preceding Onliner.by article from the internet, and also 200 thousand rubles as compensation. The results of the court case were still pending when this article was published. Although this translation is still unpublished anywhere, I can send anyone a copy curious enough to read it. A summary of the details will eventually follow. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this information from Onliner is that they are taking part in the trial and we need to look for another independent source. Otherwise we will have to refer to another side of the trial too and make own synthesis which is wrong.Dron007 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:According to Wikipedia court-case transcripts, like legislation, are primary sources. Secondary sources, which quote them, however are usable. If this is true, we could use the dialogue but not the opinions about the dialogue. The transcripts are actually of the defendant's lawyer, a witness (Sibiryakov) and a linguist but not Sidorovich himself who published the article. I'm not sure about how much of the transcripts are usable. This article also contains additional information but not so many verifiable sources as the other articles. The transcripts of the dialogue between Yunitskiy and the Onliner.by's defense certainly seem highly questionable. In any case, the court-case was rejected. And there's a lot of interesting comments on Yunitskiy's qualifications following the second court-case article. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:I think the question is: are these transcripts publicly available or were they transcried by Sidorovich himself? If they are just transcripts that Sidorovich made then they are not usable. But this is different if anyone can access this material, even if they have to apply for it in person. I'm not sure of Belarusian policy on court transcripts but if these are public documents then I imagine these sources are usable. Looking forward to advice on this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander:Yes, that's what I mean. It seems these materials are not publicly available.Dron007 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:So Sidorovich transcribed them himself and we can't verify his transcriptions with the original even if we travel to the courts ourselves and apply to see them there? That is not so good. Thanks for this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

8 June 2017 - "The court refused to file a complaint by Yunitskiy against Onliner.by"

Суд отказал академику РАЕН Юницкому в исковых претензиях к Onliner.by
The counrt refused to file a complaint against Onliner.by the RAEN academic Yunitskiy

There is still no translation of this article, but it appears to include transcriptions of the proceedings of the court-case. This is what the first paragraph says:

  • Today, the trial ended between SkyWay author Anatoly Yunitsky on the one hand, and Onliner.by, as well as a journalist who wrote the article “Elon Musk - bullshit..." [5 September 2016], on the other. The plaintiff was confident that this material contains information discrediting his “honor, dignity and business reputation.” The court found otherwise.

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A translation has been made of this article. The origins of the court transcripts remain unverified and are probably unusable. Anyone curious enough to read this translation, however, is welcome to request it on the Zaxander (talk · contribs) talk page. The outcome of the court case are verified, however, by other sources. This is a translation of what they have to say about this in the article:

  • Today, the court rejected all the claimant’s claims, concluding that the controversial article does not tarnish its “honor, dignity and business reputation”. Also, Anatoly Yunitskiy will incur costs associated with the cost of Onliner.by for legal services.
According to this article Yunitskiy is an academic of the RAEN. This is what Wikipedia has to say about RAEN (the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences): The Russian Academy of Natural Sciences does not have any association with the Russian Academy of Sciences and has come under criticism for the fact that many of its members do not have any scientific credentials and because some of its members peddle pseudoscience." Until we have confirmation of this, however, it remains a claim about Yunitskiy's qualifications. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Yunitskiy claims to have a PhD of Transport. One of the comments in this article claims that such a degree does not exist. Any confirmation on this? Note that Yunitskiy himself appears rather vague when talking about his qualifications. Sometimes they call him an engineer; sometimes a scientist; sometimes a doctor. Mostly, however, just an inventor. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

11 September 2017 - "I am leeching from pyramid schemes..."

«Паразитирую на финансовых пирамидах», «перспективы развития — виртуальные». Что происходит со SkyWay Юницкого
"I am leeching from financial pyramids", "development prospects are virtual" - What is happening to Yunitskiy's SkyWay?

This article was translated into German on the Burrenblog which can be viewed here:[5]. The title of thë page concerning this translation is "Is it the Fantasy Land of Dreamers and the Gullible?". A Summary of its contents follows with actual useable quotes from this article. We want to hear any criticism but only include verifiable counter-claims that are not from self-published sources and not baseless accusations and personal attacks as they will be removed.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments placed by Dron007 (talk · contribs)

@Zaxander: I have analyzed German translation and see that it has statements which don't exist in original Onliner article including answers from National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (4-page document) and answer from Belorussian State University of Transport (3-page document). For example there is no anything after "Notes:" (I used English translation of German blog article made with Google Translate). I mean this quote: "Note: Eco-Park is far removed from real-life conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds, nor does it have safety parameters in place.) Eco-Park is designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string at low speed and nothing else. Quasi a small recreational park for Skyway disciples without aha experience." Maybe they used another materials but we cannot rely on incorrect translation/synthesis. I also couldn't find anything about "not situated realistically far from the ground and is in the country and nowhere near any other buildings" neither in Onliner (original and German versions) nor in Italian article. Could you please give sources/quotes for these statements? Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander:You have mentioned that "The scientific facts in the articles suggest it would be physically impossible for them to get faster than 80km per hour, and that if they did they could vibrate and cause an accident. An accident is actually documented. And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour." I'll comment these statements one by one. 1) The statement in the documents says that the theoretical research done by scientists showed that is was possible to minimize the frequency of vibrations of 5 ton module only at 80 km/h speed using short distance between piers. At the same time there is a statement in 4-page document that declared speeds (500 km/h) are theoretically reachable but there are technical problems. That is not the same as "impossible". We probably need to do en exact translation of the origingal 3-page and 4-page documents not to quote them (primary source) but to check whether they were correctly used by the secondary sources. 2) Accident was not mentioned directly in any source but is implied in statements about max speed. What accident do you mean by "an accident is actually documented"? Is it the fact that I added some time ago when unibike hit the loader? It was removed later as not important. If so it is not connected in any way with the problems which appear in high speeds. It is more about overall safety of the system and low height of the railroad in EcoTechnoPark. I added it to show that despite the declared high safety standards there are obvious problems. 3) "And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour". Although it is a real fact during the EcoFest when there are many visitors in EcoTechnoPark there is no any evidence it is the maximum of speed ever reached. I haven't seen anything about this speed in any of the discussed articles.Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:The 'April Fool's Day' article from 18 September 2018 has more information about the EcoTechnoPark and reasons for questioning the science and the possible speeds reached. But I can't find a specific place either that refers to the distance of the tracks from the ground or the exact speed of the vehicles while passengers are in them. And these factors certainly don't add to the 'amusement park' aspect of the EcoTechnoPark. After all, roller-coasters (staple events at amusement parks) fly by at high apparent speeds and at dangerously precipice-like distances from the ground. The accident actually used to be part of the article but the only reference at the time was to a SkyWay website (so it was removed). I recently noticed that it was the 'April Fool's Day' article which also documented an accident. Hopefully having the contents of these articles side-by-side it'll be easier to fact-check such claims in the future. I didn't mean to create the impression that these were the only reasons why the EcoTechnoPark was considered an amusement park; these were the reasons I could directly recite without having the articles immediately in front of me to check. Luckily there are other people to fact-check such claims to make sure they aren't published prematurely. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander:So as we see the following is not quite correct at least for the discussed articles: "These articles document the fact that as a 'testing' site it doesn't really do a very good job and suggest that it is not really designed to perform this function." So what facts from articles can be included? Re-reading 4-page document I have to say that it is rather unspecific. It can be used both as positive and negative resolution depending on which statements are choosen. Maybe we can mention that scientists recommended to launch additional tests and scientific research and also perform an independent expertise. We can take facts about unrealistic promises e.g. about the road in Mogilev as there is a document about it. Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:I'll use these ideas to come up with an additional sentence for a description of testing with something like "scientists have recommended, however, that independent testing be peformed by accredited organisations" based on your contribution and my recent summary, although I'm not sure how to include the road in Mogiliev. Do you mean somewhere else in the article? The Mogiliev claims are included in the summary below. I really tried in my summary to not synthesize any new arguments and use actual quotes from the article for problematic claims. When you have a chance to read it let me know if there are any problems. The intention is to summarise the contents but it's always possible I misinterpreted the facts or skipped important information which makes the summary sound more negative than the original article is. I ask this especially considering you have checked the translation so recently. Thanks again for helping me with this. It is really hard to summarise a lot of commentary into a single sentence.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander:Yes, I mean that claim. That is typical for Skyway partners to inform potential investors about non-existing facts like this one, about Mogilev. As this one is well-documented it probably can be mentioned. Among other facts there is for example information about preorders with total value of $100 bln ready to be paid by some unknown investor after demonstration of the technology. Yunitskiy said it at a conference several years ago. In the early stages of fund raising they used Simex croudfunding platrom (created by Ruben Meylumyan mentioned above, known manager of MMM Ponzy and creator of his own Ponzy Scheme projects). On the Skyway page there was information about planned tracks between cities with total length of thousands km. It created feeling that these projects are approved by government and it just needs to perform a demonstration of the technology which was almost ready. Many years passed since then, still no orders. So Mogilev is typical. To be more specific here is an article [6] which has Yunitskiy's quote: "we have preorders for billions of dollars there (in India)". That could be a paid article but it is not evidently specified and doesn't matter in this context. Using such statements Skyway has been involving investors in their project.

Dron007 (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible addition to 'testing' heading describing the EcoTechnoPark:
  • ...Scientists in Belarus, however, have recommended that independent testing of this technology needs to be performed by accredited organisations.[Onliner.by reference]

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:I'll check out the reference to fabricated claims made by Yunitskiy in this article from 2017. The title translates to "The Ministry of Transport and Communications did not support the 'transport of the future' project' (it seens unlikely SkyWay would have paid anyone for this). Regarding the examples of the Mogiliev and Indian fabrications, we could conceivably add a sentence to the overview and the marketing on these dishonest and/or misleading practices. The Mogiliev example seems particularly egregious. This could, however, create discord and its important we get it exactly right. Here's a first suggestion at least for the overview. This can be expanded upon the marketing section.
OVERVIEW: The SkyWay Group is using business practices like crowdfunding and multi-level marketing. It has also been documented that they make misleading claims about their negotiations.[onliner/burren reference]. Many countries have warned the public about the activities of these companies.
Any suggestions on better wording appreciated.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks good to me. In the Onliner's article there is a direct link (still active) to the Skyway site where they say that they have got the order to design city road of string transport in Mogilev and that they had already received advance payment. I remembered they excuses though. They said later that they hadn't written about the city administration of Mogilev. They didn't say at all from whom this request was from. At the same time in the same article they have the phrase that administration of Mogilev had recently visited EcoTechnoPark making feeling that it was the administration who paid for the work. Dron007 (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Please note that this is only the proposal for a possible addition to the 'Marketing' heading. The best adjective I could think of was 'misleading' because the example used is of a fabrication. A fabrication is more than an 'unsupported' claim; but a blatant lie can still be considered misleading. Any other ideas for better wording appreciated. It should also be noted that these claims are fabricated at the office in Minsk by dedicated staff employed for this purpose who have a history in network marketing. SkyWay claim that lies are peddled in their name either by other companies or 'over-zealous referral participants' but the documented evidence proves otherwise. They all work at the same place and are employed by the same company. Counter-claims to this are from self-published company policies.
MARKETING: It has been documented that the SkyWay Group use misleading information about their technology to promote investment. They claimed, for example, that a SkyWay project “was supported by the authorities in Mogilev” (a city in Belarus) but actual documentation from the city prove this to be untrue.[Onliner.by reference]
-–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

SUMMARY :

  • Konstantin Sidorovich wrote this article. Arthur Van Burren posted a translation with additional commentary. The authenticity of the documentation used in the article has been positively verified by the issuing authorities in Belarus.
  • Yunitskiy attempted to sue Onliner.by for earlier articles but they lost the case. Nonetheless they kept an eye on this company.
  • SkyWay often uses promotional materials about itself on domestic media which are presented as facts.
  • They make lofty promises to ordinary people who they attempt to convince to become SkyWay “sponsors” (who they prefer to call “investors”).
  • Ruben Meylumyan (aka Ruben Fischer), Sergei Semenov, Mikhail Kirichecko and Sergei Sibiryakov are Belarusians involved in pyramid marketing on the internet and the creation of SkyWay “pseudo-videos”. Ruben himself was appointed the head of the department for attracting investment.
  • Vasily Pavlovsky is the Deputy Direcor of Biotechnology and Agricultural Engineering. He received a UN grant for SkyWay. Cooperation between the UN and SkyWay was short-lived and the grant had to be given up. No one knows what happened to the money.
  • The SkyWay news service loves to attract sponsors to invest more by commenting on “colossal deals with big business and government officials from different countries”. Particular claims made about SkyWay in India and the Belarusian city of Mogiliev are mentioned. According to the executive committee of Mogiliev these claims are entirely fabricated: “The resulting answer leaves no doubt that no string road will be built by SkyWay in Mogiliev…”
  • Scientific sources were consulted while writing this article, in particular the Belarusian State University of Transportation (BelGUT) and the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (NASB). Here follows a brief summary of their conclusions.
  • BelGUT: SkyWay “remains untested so far… At the moment, no track construction elements declared by SkyWay are certified…” Furthermore “the technology for creating pre-stressed reinforcement is not innovative” because it’s been used in the large-scale construction of beams for bridge spans for years.
  • NASB: Yunitskiy claims that his string transport will reach speeds of up to 500 km per hour, yet “theoretical research carried out by the scientists… could only be confirmed at speeds up to 80 km and not beyond.” A project study performed by Yunitskiy himself is rated as “insufficient by the scientists”. The NASB believes Yunitskiy’s team “should set up an on-site demonstration facility… as close to reality as possible on the basis of real conditions”. NASB representatives further add that the viability of string technologies is only testable “with the help of a pilot project involving state accredited bodies in the field of testing”.
  • According to the editors of this article, the EcoTechnoPark is “far removed from real-world conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds” and is “designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string [transport] at low speed and is nothing more than a small recreational park for SkyWay disciplines with no experience”. Furthermore, this test site lacks any official accreditation.
  • Financing of SkyWay projects involves the accumulation of funds to a complex network of offshore companies such as GTI Inc. and ERSSH Ltd. registered in the British Virgin Islands. This fundraising involves “collecting cash from citizens across the globe through a variety of tools” such as crowdfunding, the sale of ‘certificates’ allegedly to “the right to shares” for SkyWay Group companies and “recruiting new investors, thereby encouraging commission payments to intermediaries.”
  • Yunitskiy and other representatives of the company have claimed that by investing money, “investors receive shares in the company” and that they “have the right to own some of the technology”. The legal fund of limited companies cannot, however, be divided into shares but into bearer prescriptions and cannot be sold to anyone (see Wikipedia article Limited company). They are, in fact, “no more than a bunch of worthless notes”. Although the only instances of this technology have appeared in Belarus, shares to the Belarusian SkyWay company ZAO String Technologies are not sold by anyone and investors “have no rights to the developments that arise in the territory of Belarus, as the investors acquire the certificates of other companies”. Furthermore “it is forbidden among the citizens of Belarus to sell such shares.”
1)"The legal fund of limited companies cannot, however, be divided into shares but into bearer prescriptions and cannot be sold to anyone (see Wikipedia article Limited company)." - not true. The procedure the company uses is officially called "transferring" shares, not selling. This procedure is not unusual and it is legal for any ltd company. [7], [8]. 2) The company is transferring shares of the root company, which owns all the others, including the one that deals with construction in Belarus. Therefore, investors are co-owners of all projects and all property owned by the company. See their investment memorandum [9] page 11. 3) "They are, in fact, “no more than a bunch of worthless notes” - this is only someone's opinion, from a legal point of view all investors are co-owners of all companies in SkyWay group. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:The user Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs) will probably be able to confirm this suspicion. But it is still ultimately only what is claimed in the article. It's for us to decide whether it's true or not. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
See the following article for further confirmation on the potential value of SkyWay company shares: [10] Here's a quotation from this article: "Swedbank Chief Economist Nerijus Mačiulis, having become familiar with the investment model, said that the 'shares' offered to residents of Lithuania and other countries are just worthless paperwork. His allegations were confirmed by the Bank of Lithuania, stating that 'no documents from the United Kingdom Financial Market Authority or any other competent authority of a Member State of the European Union have been issued that would entitle the public to offer shares in Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd in Lithuania'."
@Andrew-Postelniak:SkyWay is has not applied has not applied for the legally required prospectus to sell their shares. The ahares of options or educational packages they are selling you, however, have no value because their company's assets are all made-up. $400 billion intellectual? Please spin me another one. These are more lofty promises that don't actually mean anything. You apparently get a piece of paper signed by Yunitskiy. It may seem to mean something; and if you don't need your money maybe you'd like to on believing it despite that facts listed above stating that the company connected to the technology have nothing to do with the Shell companies like ERHSS you actually get 'stock option certificates' of some kind for.. I can't start stop your from believing in unicorns. I may doubt the possibility that unicorns will suddenly start existing just if you keep believing, but that's not my problem.
@Zaxander: "...and if you don't need your money maybe you'd like to on believing...", "I can't start stop your from believing in unicorns. I may doubt the possibility that unicorns will suddenly start existing just if you keep believing, but that's not my problem." - and this is the one who writes about "personal attacks" and "to comment only content". You continue to violate the rules of Wikipedia and comment on the author, not the content WP:BLACKMAIL. All of your "facts" is just your personal opinion, NOT confirmed by any real facts. And as you said, "please keep your personal opinions to yourself". By the way, why didn't you sign this paragraph? I see in the history that this is you who wrote this stuff, so no need to hide. I am no longer going to respond to such personal insults, and if they are repeated, I will contact the administrators who should explain to you about the inadmissibility of such comments. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:I didn't realize you had actually invested money in SkyWay as I wasn't referring to 'you' in particular but in general to people. I'm sorry that you misunderstood my language use as being personal when it clearly wasn't intended like that, but if you have invested money in this company yourself (which I couldn't possibly know anything about) and you took offence, then I'm sorry, but maybe you should think twice before posting personal information which would clearly make any opinions you make seem biased. You've already accused me of working for the competitors and being corrupt so what next? I'm just a volunteer in Belgium with no business interests whatsoever. I hope, in any case, that you don't have SkyWay shares and I really hope if you do that you make money on them in the future. That would be the best outcome for everyone; I may doubt doubt it from the extensive research I've done on this subject. The article below "I invested $1600..." tells the story of Olga who actually managed to get her initial investment back. No one should give up hope. It just seems to me that these shares are worthless and illegal as they have no permission to sell them anywhere. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:It has also been documented in this article that the SkyWay Group uses dishonest practices to promote investment. They employ staff to post misleading claims about projects that will never be built such as the entirely fictional string road in Mogiliev. These staff members were involved in network marketing in the past which have since proved fraudulent. This is not just an opinion - it is clearly stated in this article. You can disagree with that but you have yet to actually come up with any new sources to backup your objections. I look forward to reviewing any real verifiable references on people who have actually made money from SkyWay. Primary sources and vague policy guidelines about possible future outcomes are obviously unusable. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It's important to note here the difference between a Public limited company (PLC) and a Private Limited company (abbreviated to 'Limited' or 'LTD'). Although every country defines these terms in slightly different ways, generally a PLC can sell its shares on a stock exchange to anyone, whereas the shares of a Limited company are generally "sold to close friends and others and that can only be done if all the shareholders agree". See this link for a discussion of this issue: [11] This is what they mean in this article when they say that it is irregular for a Limited company to offer its shares to anyone on the open market. If they were selling their shares on the open market via a stock exchange, they would not be a Limited company but a PLC. But they haven't applied anywhere to legally sell their shares anywhere. This suggests that the problem with this company is not only that this company is offering their shares to anyone on the open market and are thus misnaming themselves a 'limited company', but they have not applied for the permission anywhere to be a PLC either. I hope this makes this point clearer. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • An accounting and consultancy firm in Moscow estimated the value of Yunitskiy’s intellectual property to be $400 billion. If you look at the original documentation, this sum is made up of assets in more than 100 countries. According to the attorney Sergei Zikratsky, “considering that the string transport does not actually exist at the moment, the actual value of these intangibles is zero”.
  • The court’s ruling in favour of ONLINER.BY greatly upset SkyWay who published insults and threats all across the internet.
  • The Burrenblog translation includes an analysis of the contents of the article. Here follows a summary of his findings: “If, according to available original documents, scientists of the National Academy of Sciences consider the Skyway project to be impractical and that further research with new data is necessary… if ominous people are involved connected to Ponzi-Schemes… and if Skyway representatives are not afraid to use other means to silence critics, then Skyway is as transparent as a dead man.” He further confirms that the company is worth exactly $0.00.
How can the company be worth "exactly $0.00" if it owns at least one computer or one chair that obviously costs more than $0.00? And if you sell all the already built vehicles in EcoTechnoPark (theoretically even for scrap), it will also be $ 0.00? Again, this statement is obviously not true. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:Arthur Van Burren is referring to the collective value of the shares that are sold; the shares are not worth anything. That doesn't mean they don't have any money. They obviously do. The shares they sell are worth about as much as the paper they're printed on, at least according to Sidorovich and Van Burren. I'll dheck however to make sure this is exactly what he claims. Thanks for this observation.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:This is the claim made in the German article in the additional annotations after the actual translation: "Wie der russische Artikel schon anmerkte ist die ganze Firma exakt 0,00 US $ Wert" which translates to "As already noted in the Russian article, the whole business is worth exactly $0.00 US." -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The point being made here is that if this company went bankrupt and all its assets were sold off, none of the 'shareholders' would have any right to compensation because their shares were not sold via an officially regulated stock exchange like most PLCs sell shares. It doesn't matter if they have assets and they are worth anything if their shares aren't sold in a way that can be regulated. On buying shares in this company, all you have is SkyWay's word that you will make money and their shares have value which they based on an impossibly inflated figure of 400 billion which is to say the least unrealistic. Believing you will make money is like believing in unicorns. I can tell you they don't exist but I can't stop you from believing in them. But your faith and what they tell you is all you've got. They haven't applied anywhere to legally sell their shares and they have no legal obligation to pay anyone anything. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

18 September 2018 - "Is it an April Fool's Day Joke?"

«Это прикол на День дураков?» Что происходит со SkyWay Юницкого
"Is it an April Fool's Day Joke?" What is happening to Yunitskiy's SkyWay"

No translation is currently available for this article but it has nonetheless been translated. It contains a lot of information about the EcoTechnoPark as it had been documented prior this article's publication but it basically confirms a lot of the claims made in previous articles. It actually makes a lot more sense if you are familiar with the other articles and I'm happy to send this English translation to anyone curious enough to read it –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

22 February 2019 - "I invested 6,600 dollars in SkyWay..."

Вложила в SkyWay около $6600. Ищем на карте мира ржавые струны Юницкого
I invested 6,600 dollars in SkyWay. We are looking for rusty Yunitskiy strings on the world map

You can view an English translation of the article here:[12]. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC) This article tells, among other things, the valiant story of the lady who actually managed to eventually get the money back she initially invested in SkyWay. This is the first and only time I've actually read something about someone actually getting returns even if it is only the initial investment. It should be noted here that this person didn't make any additional money, but after a lot of complaints to official organisations, SkyWay was finally convinced to return what she had invested. So you shouldn't give up hope if you've invested money and are unhappy with your investment. Maybe if you cause enough trouble too they will also be willing to return your money to stop you from causing them more misery. This lady had to shake a lot of trees to get results. And I still haven't read a story about anyone actually making money, which is sort of surprising for a self-confessed MLM company. Usually the first thing you hear at sales meetings is about the people there who recount tales of how much money they were making. I haven't even read stories that SkyWay made-up. Lots and lots of outlandish promises, however.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay business management and marketing practices

The SkyWay group article needs another section after the introduction which discusses in a little more detail the actual techniques used by the SkyWay companies to fund their projects. There are already lots of descriptions of them in the references we have now, particularly the Lithuanian and Italian article which is mentioned above and the complete translation of which can found at the user:Zaxander talk page..

  • [1] negotiation and planning - where MoU are signed; no technology has been actually built anwhere
  • [2] Crowdfunding - sales made usually through selling shares via the internet.
  • [3] Other forms of marketing - stocks are sold by getting a groups of enthusiastic everyday people to buy empty assets which they are promised to get lofty returns sometime in the future. In fact in a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme they can only get money if they find other investors, which seems to be clearly the way SkyWay companies works. It is certainly the business model they adopt.
  • [4]

Many of these questions can be answered with the verifiable references we already have. But we are left with a couple of unresolved questions which could be described in a conclusion. For example: Where does the money actually go? They haven't built anything yet. Do they actually ever intend to build anything? All or most of the money is used to pay management and then pay the investors (if they manage to find other investors). Sometimes they say the intention is to use the money on the EcoTechPark in Belarus but we need verifiable references to prove this. From the Indian and Lithuanian example, corruption has taken place where government officials are paid to start negotiations (which perhaps are never intended to take place). If they make it appear like they are making arrangements, clients would more easily part with their money. It seems from the Lithuanian example that they paid out bribes to get the governments of different to start negotiating with them. I don't actually think it matters – as long as it appears they are doing something. Of course at the moment these are all suppositions based on what it appears from the information we already have. Now we just need to collect what we have together and find new references which can help us describe this aspect of the SkyWay group. Include any ideas or links below to verifiable references Introduction Negotiation and financial management Crowdfunding Marketing techniques Conclusion

Include any references you can find or ideas about changing these titles or including different ones.

'Comment' “Empty assets” is incorrect and unjustified claim violating NPOV WP policy. Total cost, number of shares and their nominal value were defined by the intellectual property assessment realized by certified intellectual property evaluator Hold Invest Audit Consulting Company with No.0-905/2 dd 20/05/2013 in compliance with International Valuation Standards https://hi-audit.ru/ Other incorrect statement is about Ponzi / Pyramid scheme and getting money from other investors finding only. Partnership program is additional and optional introduced just to encourage the crowdinvesting of the technology innovation start up. There can be none verifiable source defeating this fact. Nor tenable are assertions that nothing have been built. On EcoFest 2018 https://ikbesteedhetbeter.nl/skyway-nieuwsblog/item/27-ecofest-2018-rapport-algemeen-ontwerper-uitvinder-skyway-dr-anatoly-yunitskiy investors could take a ride on already well-functionning transport models in EcoTechnoPark test polygon in Belarus and that were presented at Innotrans international transport exhibition in Berlin https://naked-science.ru/article/concept/kompaniya-iz-belarusi-predstavila. https://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/suburban/skyway-technologies/pressreleases/high-speed-skyway-premiere-innotrans/ New research and test site is currently building in UAE.PVO777 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVO777 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

These comments were made when we didn't know much about the EcoTechnoPark (because there are very few published verifiable sources) but we were trying to collect information on the marketing techniques adopted by this group of companies. Although these comments are outdated by recent discussions, most of the things being claimed are still true. The only moving models are still the prototypes in Belarusian fields. The 'ikbesteedhetbeter' reference is a self-published, self-referencing, self-aggrandizing SkyWay site. The instances of the company exhibiting itself at trade fairs are of static, immobile models of the vehicles and nothing has been built to this day at the Sharjah site in the United Arab Emirates. Claims about SkyWay offering empty assets are unfortunately true for the people who went to the trouble of investing money in SkyWay. In no country have they legally applied for the required prospectus to sell shares. I fear that SkyWay shares are actually worth less than the paper they are printed on: nothing. Who knows: maybe if you believe hard enough in unicorns they will start spontaneously existing? I may doubt it, but I can hardly stop your from believing in them.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
And just to be clear: the talk page is designed to check claims for credibility, verifiability notability and neutral point of view. Things can be checked here before they become part of the article. None of the included links, however, are verifiable and all of the claims do not actually question anything that has not been verifiably claimed in the article.
Please why are you insisting on “empty assets” and some other “true” statements without any link to reliable proven fact giving? Wikipedia is not of a place of “fears”, “warning” , “doubts” and “believes”. WP:COPO include WP:NPOV and WP:V, The only moving models are still the prototypes in Belarusian fields only because the stretch of string rail has been still built in Maryiva Gorka for the moment. How do you imagine the models to be shown in move anywhere else? As for share selling – the company officially declares to use convertible loan without selling smth. And finally: there are many other coverages pointing to active project development in UAE 1 2 3 4 and others.. George Marshal (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
All of these links are to static displays of the technology in Dubai. None of the claims actually make any sense. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Your recent reaction is just confirming non-substantiation of your a priori negative statements as well as of the article in question and is important reason for its deletion. The approach demonstrates initially disreputable intention of the article author together with a couple of ready-to-attack “commentators” who began just from finding few doubter (in the absence of evidentiary) sources and from inflating the suspicions till a kind of “voice of truth” without having looked into things. This suggests a work of a group of committed people completing their adverse publicity mission. If I was involved with SkyWay project I’d sue these “truth-seekers” for company image endamagement.
Having no more arguments you’re trying to ground your critics just on blaming the company for self publicity and on your own assumptionPVO777 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC).
No sorry; this talk page and the article itself contains multiple secondary sources of actual instances of the fraudulent practices of this company. These are not opinions. They are documented facts. Warnings have been released about these practices by the regulatory agencies of a large number of countries. Yunitskiy was kicked out of Lithuania and he was unsuccessful at suing the Lithuanian government for lost money. His company has been unsuccessful in suing other people such as the Onliner.by journalists. The company is documented employing people with a history in internet marketing to post false claims about project in India and Mogiliev (Belarus). Please stop posting information to this talk page that you cannot support with verifiable references. I checked all of the ones you did include, and they were either self-published, involved promotional events or made outright false claims about the company. It's important to backup claims you make with verifiable sources. You haven't provided us with any.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't confuse warnings with proven facts. I saw none of the last. All the “criticism” is built on few warnings and multiple repeated “scam”, “ponzi” and “fraud” troll like claims. Btw several independent articles in favor of project have been cited above. PVO777 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
An extended amount of documented articles exist discussing legal action brought by or against the SkyWay Group [13], dishonest pyramid marketing techniques in the Belarusian central location [14] and questionable funding tactics adopted in international operations [15]. These are just a few of the documented articles containing evidence actually used in the article. These exist in addition to the warnings from financial regulatory agencies which are far too numerous to list. The 'ikbesteedhetbeter' link is to a self-published SkyWay promotional site in Dutch [16]. The second [17] and third [18] sites are press releases documenting the InnoTrans exhibition to which the SkyWay group presented static models of their technology. Press releases don't document anything about the technology and the event itself was a static marketing exercise. These links are neither independent nor do they contain any useful verifiable information that is not self-promotional.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
But even the most negative ones confirm the existing of transport models and cannot cite any proof of the technology inefficiency. Only doubts related to investment procedure bureaucracy and fears of partnership program. That cannot be a ground for WP article blaming the project to be fraud. There is none fraud evidence. George Marshal (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

SPA George Marshal who didn't exist until today and has made only two directed attacks at this webpage has not supported any of his flowery accusations with verifiable references to support them. Please stop posting at inappropriate old discussions that are no longer extent unverified information which doesn't mean anything. Please participate in current discussions that actually mean something and become a registered user so asministrators can check if you of PVO777 is a sock puppet.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zaxander , composer, artist and writer, whose education, occupation, interests and competences were far cry from transport technologies and technologies at all as well from economics, finance, investments, whose account since the last year suddenly began to be very actively used to troll SkyWay project 1 , judging by number and frequency of SkyWay related “contributions” seeming to have become your new full time job started from User_talk:Zaxander#The_Italian_SkyWay_scandal_article_-_a_comprehensive_translation Scandal article translation, please stop to Hoax and let other people to add their contributions based on obvious facts. --George Marshal (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I actually started contributing by requesting that scientific experts question the content which at the time only referenced the SkyWay promotion sites with unsupported self-referencing pseudo-science; all of my concerns are included in the discussion below. People have been making claims and accusations since then that they cannot support. These need to be checked to ensure that pseudo-science isn't returned to the article presented as fact. Anyone is obviously welcome to improve the article by providing facts that can be checked with verifiable references; but baseless accusations don't really help anyone. Actual references and ideas for improvement do. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Attention has to be paid to the fact that SkyWay have a staff of at least four dedicated network marketers working for their company at the central Belarusian offices in Minsk who have a history of posting misleading claims. You can read about them here: [19]. The interests of legitimate contributors to this page serve the purpose of representing verified published sources on given subjects. I have no reason to believe that anyone who is willing to identify themselves and who posts here is doing otherwise. But people who make groundless attacks without actually providing valid counter-claims or in fact any references that are not to self-published sources are bound to look suspicious. Anyone would be willing to consider legitimate research on the SkyWay company or the technology. I can only repeat requests for valid information. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
You’re even contradicting to yourself by mentioning that baseless accusations don't really help anyone and I agree absolutely with you at this point. But unfornutately the recent edition of the article as well as all your contributions are powdered by such baseless accusations being far from a kind of so called self promoting attenuation being obvious WP:G10 Btw your “7” link remaining not opening brings to a wordpress blog that is in direct contradiction with WP:NOR--George Marshal (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
So which accusations are made in the article that are baseless? You still haven't provided any actual links to backup your claims. Just copying Wikipedia accusations and imagining that by showing you know what they are will actually make them mean something without actually providing any arguments or links so we can check them is to put it lightly unhelpful. Maybe you should read the whole talk page and contribute to a more recent discussion by checking and reading all the existing references.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The link is also to a German translation of a verified published article in a popular and well-known Belarusian newsfeed article 'Oliner.by' dated 11 September 2017 entitled "I leech from pyramid schemes". A summary is included of its contents below in the sub-heading on the ONLINER.BY articles: claims and controversies and links are included to both the article and the translation, You can see the original article here:[20]. The Belarusian scientific commentary has been verified by multiple sources and the article has been translated into German and English. You can inform yourself about them by actually reading the contents of this talk page. Please stop making uninformed claims without checking the references you are commenting on. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Any accusations made in such articles are baseless because first of all accusations are the responsibility of investigative authorities and courts and can be made on the grounds of proven facts only. They can in no way be made by a priori negatively lighted puff pieces in online yellow publications whose editors release them contrary to principles of journalism. Presumption of innocence in view I find inappropriate to require any excusable articles citing to “satisfy” this hoax. --George Marshal (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Advice request for Dharamsala project: is it really 'abandoned'

Recent changes to article structure have resulted in creation of 'abandoned projects' and 'future projects' headings. This may create problems. India used to belong to an 'unrealized projects' category. These headings were changed by user:Britishfinance to make clear the difference between projects like the one in the United Arab Emirates which are still in planning and the rest which have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely. This was a good faith change to improve the article, but unfortunately the Dharamsala project has now ended up under a heading entitled 'abandoned projects'. We have 2 verifiable articles on India/SkyWay negotiations from 2017: [21] and [22]. Neither of them seem to say that the project has been 'abandoned'. They do question its validity and the Economic Times article is highly crtical. The Norwegian article, however, suggests that this project is still planned in 2020. So has it been abandoned? Can we find another reference which specifically refers to this project being stopped or something? I propose we do the following to remedy this problem:

  • Until we have confirmation otherwise suggesting this Dharamsala project has been cancelled we move India to 'Future projects';
  • We follow the Norwegian model and rename the section 'planned projects' not 'future projects'. Planned projects happen in the future but 'future projects' could mean a lot of things.
  • We rename "abandoned" as something less negative like "cancelled" or "postponed"

Alternatively, you could also put them all back in a single category "unrealized projects" but I can see the point of the differentiating the projects that are still planned and the ones that have been cancelled. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The former suggestion seems to make sense to me. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
These changes have been introduced. Any suggestions are welcome to alternative better names for 'postponed projects' and 'planned projects'. Please note that the Norwegian 'SkyWay' article says specifically that the Dharamsala project is planned in 2020. The two verifiable references don't claim this. They do say that the project will be realized 'in three years'; this seems an insufficiently verified reason for actually stating 2020 until we have a verified source which discusses their exact arrangements. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
the project in India is inactive now (there are no active negotiations, construction etc.), so it is ok to call it "Postponed". The project in the UAE is active or "planned" in the meaning that it can be implemented in the future. However, "planned" can also mean that something was planned but was not implemented afterwards. It is true for India but not for the UAE. If you put projects in India and the UAE in one section, there may be the impression that some active work/negotiations are underway in India to implement the project in the future, although this is not the case.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:I agree but the two references to the Indian affair don't actually state that the project has been postponed. The Norwegian article actually says the project is planned for 2020! We need more verifiable references that states exactly what happened. Is it really postponed? Who postponed it? Publish them here if you find any and we can update the article later. You happy with 'planned projects'? Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
definition of "postpone" in Cambridge Dictionary: "to delay an event and plan or decide that it should happen at a later date or time". Is the project in India active now? If not, then it is postponed. Or you can create and a new section - "Cancelled projects", and include there Australia, Lithuania, and Indonesia. "Postponed projects" - India, and "Planned projects" - the UAE.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:That sounds like a good idea to me that could fix ambiguity. If you want to make this change, it has consensus with me. If they ever cancel (or continue) the Indian project in the future we can always move it to another heading. This seems far better. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind such a classification (canceled, postponed and planned projects), but the current classification also suits me.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:I also changed the wording of the background to beter reflect this. Check my changes and let me know what you think.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not have enough time this week to check this article regularly, but I will review it from time to time. I still think that the article should be reviewed by other more experienced contributors, and check for neutrality word combinations like these ones: "these companies have been accused by regulators and other media" - the media is not a court to accuse someone; the whole "Marketing" section ("...SkyWay attempts to sell the shares...", "Although SkyWay has exhibited.. they are yet to realize an actual project" etc. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks. I agree. Hopefully we'll fix these problems soon. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay on Wikipedia - Czech, Hungarian & Norwegian

You can still find Czech and Norwegian language Wikipedia articles on ‘SkyWay’. The Hungarian article, mentioned above, was deleted on 9 August 2018 and the reason for it being removed was 'doubtful legitimate use'. The Czech language version seems really terrible. In structure it is sort of similar to what we used to have before November 2018. What makes it terrible is the fact that there are absolutely no references at all to any source material, verified or unverified as far as I could tell. It seems after looking in its history that it was started in April 2018. There have been about 10 changes to it in its 10 month history and the first posting is very similar to what it is now. We certainly don't want to emulate that one and I hope they get some sense and take it down soon. You can see it here:

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyWay

The Norwegian SkyWay, however, is much better clearer and unambiguous in its display and language use. You can see it here:

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyWay

What's good about it? Take a look. It's short, concise and has a great list of references. I should note here that it uses regulatory warnings - a lot of the same ones as in the English article - as verifiable references. Maybe the rules are different in Norway but we’ve been roasted for doing this in the recent deletion request.

The Norwegians actually started working on it in September 2017. The article has changed a lot since then. This was the opening paragraph:

"SkyWay Capital (also called Yunitskiy String Transport, Rail Sky Way and RSW Systems) is a finance concept which has as its face the British company Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. The model is a combination of public finance and network marketing."

At this time the article was clearly about a specific business. The article was probably actually called ‘SkyWay Capital’ then. The article today is now completely different. It’s more about the technology. Although this may seem problematic, nonetheless the new article is short, concise and looks well researched with a great list of references some of which I’ve already included above.

The thing that does unite these articles (even the Hungarian one which has been removed) is that they are all called simply ‘SkyWay’. Maybe we should also consider simplifying the name of this article from ‘SkyWay Group’ to ‘SkyWay’ since we're having problems with the fact that very few references actually use terms like the ‘SkyWay Group’ to refer to these companies. We’d be able to include links to the foreign articles as well. The English article, after all, already touches on a variety of concepts – the group of companies, its marketing of the skyway technology, assessment and testing of this technology as well as Yutniskiy’s involvement. Would all these things be better summed up with simple use of ‘SkyWay’ rather than ‘SkyWay Group’ which suggests only a plural of companies? Maybe just ‘SkyWay’ would do this better? Just putting the idea out there to see what others think. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • HOW ARE THE NORWEGIAN AND ENGLISH ARTICLES DIFFERENT? I translated whole sections of the Norwegian article. Below is list of the Norwegian headings and a summary of their contents which helps to explain why the English and the Norwegian articles are so different. SKYWAY in Norwegian structures the article and classifies the information in a different way and according to different categories. Here's how they do it:
KONSEPT ('concept'): The technology as an idea of an elevated transportation system is proposed in a few sentences.
UTTESTING ('testing'): A few concise sentences describe proposed test sites. It starts with the deconstructed test-site Oziory (Moscow area) in 2001 (I've requested their resource for this so we can include it too). This is followed by a brief description of the proposed test-site in Lithuania which was cancelled in 2014. They finish with a brief description on the construction of the EcoTechnoPark in Belarus without actually naming it.
PLANLAGTE PROSJEKTER ('planned projects'): This starts with a brief description of the projects planned in India and Indonesia. Here they are quoting an article which discusses arrangments in made in Jakarta at the 'Universitas Indonesia'; they don't mention Jorong. They don't mention the United Arab Emirates either. They also mention a test project planned at university in Melbourne, Australia, but don't mention the fact that it was cancelled. I imagine however that this is because their article is out-of-date but nonetheless we have to verify our Indonesian source and to ask why it differs to what the Norwegians claim.
SKYWAY CAPITAL : This section is on the activities of the fundraiser company who sell the shares of specific companies. More recent research suggests that the information in the Norwegian article is incomplete although it should be said here that it' claims are of specific relation to activities in Norway.
I've come to the conclusion that although the two articles are different this can be largely explained by the fact that these differences are related to country specific factors and the fact that their article is now out-of-date. I suggest, however, that we update our reference to the project at Flinders University in Melbourned and check the Indonesian reference.

Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed reduction of the 'Regulatory Warnings' to a single paragraph

It has been pointed out a number of times that the 'Regulatory Warnings' section doesn't need to have individual headings for each country. The Norwegian article - although now out-of-date, does present the warnings in this way. I propose the following text. Please include your suggestions for further additions or reductions below :

Regulatory warnings
Many national banks and regulatory agencies have released warnings that companies from the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell shares in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. In 2014 an official statement was released by the Bank of Lithuania which warned investors that unidentified individuals invited Lithuanian residents to invest in "next-generation string transport" by acquiring on-line shares of the private limited company without a prospectus approved by a competent authority.[1] Vaidas Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision Division of the Bank of Lithuania Supervision Authority made clear that this information would be disseminated widely so that “so that it is known in all countries that this company is engaged in illegal activities”.[2] Countries that have distributed this warning include Italy, Belgium and Norway. Since then warnings adjusted to the specific activities of SkyWay companies reported on in individual countries have been released in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Belgium, Italy, New Zealand, Germany, Greece and Slovakia.In December 2016, the Czech National Bank released a warning stating that a SkyWay Group company "Euroasian Rail Skyway Holding" was operating in the Czech Republic without a prospectus required by Czech law.[3]. In April 2017 the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority (EFSA) released a warning stating that the "First Skyway Invest Group Ltd" started offering its shares to the public without legal authorization to do so.[4] In September 2017, the Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) issued a warning concerning Skyway Capital who were offering investment to the public without a prospectus approved by the FSMA, as required by Belgian law. The FSMA further stated that "the scheme proposed by SkyWay Capital exhibits the characteristics of a pyramid scheme".[5] In January 2018 the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (the Italian Companies and Exchange Commission - CONSOB) – banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay shares in Italy.[6]In July 2018 the Financial Markets Authority (New Zealand) released a warning stating that the Skyway Group "are not registered as a financial service provider in New Zealand and is therefore not permitted to provide financial services to New Zealand residents". The FMA further warned that the SkyWay Group "could be involved in a scam".[7] In November 2018 the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority of Germany (BaFin) warned that the "First Skyway Group Limited" company lacked a sales prospectus for their shares.[8] The Hellenic Capital Market Commission in Greece (HCMC) released a warning in the same month about various companies within the SkyWay group.[9]In January 2019, the National Bank of Slovakia released a warning stating The most recent warning from the Bank of Slovakia states "that neither it nor any other supervisory authority of a European member state had approved a prospectus for the legal sale of SkyWay Group company shares".[10]

-changes 14 March 2019 in an effort to reduce the text in length=Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander:in this form, it is not a reduction, but simply merging of the current text of the section into one paragraph. In addition, information about Vaidas Cibas has been added, so here is even more text comparing to the current version. My suggestion remains the same: move the text from the section "Overview" and extend it slightly, like this:
"During 2014-2019, the regulatory organisations and national banks in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy,[3] Lithuania,[1] New Zealand[15] and Slovakia[16] have warned the public that companies from the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell stocks (or shares) in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares".
I also think that the detailed listing of the names of regulatory organizations in different countries makes no sense, and simply increases the text of the article. The meaning of the warnings is the same - financial regulators have forbidden to sell shares on their territory or warned about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:I agree with you. Unfortunately if you look in detail at the warnings which I have done it isn't so easy to summarise them in a single sentence. The Bank of Lithuania was the first regulatory agency which released a warning. I thought it was important to mention the fact that the head of this agency had particularly stated in a verifiable reference that he would distribute this warning so other countries knew about the illegal activity. They sent out this warning to many countries and it has been published word for word by places like Norway (previously unmentioned) and Italy. After this, however, the same countries released ADDITIONAL warnings about specificities relating to specific companies and individuals canvassing for them. Each warning is different and some of them have specifics that need to be mentioned such as the FMA and FSMA. I really see what you're saying, but if we are going to reduce the text we have to be aware of the these specificities. We can always reduce it later. The Norwegian article does this and it doesn't include information about half of the warnings we have access to today. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: My suggestion remains the same. Yes, the text of these DIFFERENT warnings (Lithuania + other counties) is different but the meaning of the warnings is the same (as I wrote about it earlier). But I think we need to wait for what other contributors say about this. They may agree with you. I am also very tired today to continue this discussion, I suggest waiting for other comments.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for your input. Don't worry I think we need more consensus on this too. I think the problem is that some of these companies warn about different things (like the Greek warning which specifies a number of different companies and the individual - Greek people - who run them - this is not mentioned yet) but that's just what I think. Take your time there's no hurry and absolutely no pressure on you. And remember that I do agree with you; I want to reduce the text as well I just want to do it carefully and gradually so the possible variations between warnings are respected. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The regulatory warnings summary proposed today is considerably shorter. Note that Caibas has not been quoted in the current revision of the article. This seems to make a bit more sense of the regulatory warnings without putting unnecessary emphasis on them as is the case at present. Looking forward to anyone's responses to this. Note also that today this whole article was replaced by a stream of unindented, almost unpunctuated and completely unverified propaganda in terrible English which was fortunately directly removed by a bot:[23]. Check here or look in the history to see this recent attempt to radically change this article's content without regard to objectivity, truth let alone consensus among users. =Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2019 :DRAFT 2 - 15 March 2019
Regulatory warnings
Many national banks and regulatory agencies have warned the public that the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell shares in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. It Started after investigation in Lithuania In 2014 when the Bank of Lithuania released an official statement warning investors that unidentified individuals invited Lithuanian residents to invest in "next-generation string transport" by acquiring on-line shares of the private limited company which was selling them without a prospectus approved by a competent authority.[1] Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision Division of the Bank of Lithuania Supervision Authority made clear that this information would be widely distributed “so that it is known in all countries that this company is engaged in illegal activities”.[2] Countries that have distributed this warning include Italy, [11] Belgium[5] and Norway.[12] Since then warnings adjusted to the specific activities of SkyWay companies in individual countries have been released in the Czech Republic,[3] Estonia,[4] Belgium, Italy,[13] New Zealand, [7] Germany, [8] and Greece.[9] The most recent warning from the National Bank of Slovakia states "that neither it nor any other supervisory authority of a European member state had approved a prospectus for the legal sale of SkyWay Group company shares".[10](UTC)


–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference lbltwarning was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference lietuvosbankas was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference CNB2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b "Information on First SkyWay Invest Group LTD" (PDF). EFSA website. Retrieved 16 January 2019.
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference fsma2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Warnings". www.consob.it.
  7. ^ a b "Skyway Capital/Skyway Group". Financial Markets Authority (New Zealand). Retrieved 16 February 2019.
  8. ^ a b First Skyway Invest Group Ltd: Anhaltspunkte für fehlenden Verkaufsprospekt BaFin
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference GreekWarning was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NBS2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ http://www.consob.it/web/consob-and-its-activities/warnings/documenti/english/entutela/other/2014/enct20140929.htm?hkeywords=skyway&docid=7&page=0&hits=8&nav=false
  12. ^ https://www.finanstilsynet.no/en/investor-alerts/?q=skyway&l=en
  13. ^ "Warnings". www.consob.it.

What you need to do is find an independent secondary source that sums up the history of the warnings. You cannot use the agency that actually gave the warning as that would be original research. For instance, if the National Bank of Slovakia issued a press release with a warning, that would not be secondary nor would it be independent. We need a secondary source such as a news publication that wrote about the warning issued by the bank. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:Thanks yes this is the intention. Hopefully this problem will be fixed soon.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@CNMall41:I removed the direct quote from primary source. We already have secondary references to LBC, FSMA, FMA, Consob, EFSN & HNCN sources. The Norwegian article uses a BehindMLM site as a secondary source for Greek (HNCN) and German (BaFin) warnings, but I fear this is not really a verifiable source. So still missing good secondary references for CNB (Czech), SNB (Slovakia), BaFin (Germany) and Bank of Slovenia warnings. I propose we keep these notices until we have the secondary references, but waiting your advice on this. It's easy to remove these primary sources if necessary. I got the impression from reading the WP Guidelines on primary and secondary sources that it would be okay to use the press releases if a secondary source has been used previously to legitimize the primary source. Since the regulatory warnings are mentioned first in the 'Overview' I suggest we use the secondary sources here and the primary sources in the 'regulatory warnings' section if it has been previously sourced secondarily. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I also think the sentence "Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision..." is excessive. You can simply say, without losing meaning, that other countries have joined this warning. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I'll take a look at this and try to word it better. It just has to say that they distributed this warning really. Thanks for your input. I look forward to hear what you and CNMall41 think about the neutral point-of-view now. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added my suggestions regarding the sections "Marketing" and "Overview" in the "Advocacy and NPOV needs to stop"Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No one seems to want to answer the basic question about sourcing. What reliable secondary sources do you want to use for the regulatory warnings? That is where it starts. Wikipedia doesn't care about what you or I think should be written. It cares about what can be verified through the sources. Currently, I see primary sources which constitutes original research which is not acceptable. Let's just take the following: "The SkyWay Group is financing itself with crowdfunding[3] and other marketing techniques that have drawn the attention of international financial regulators in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy,[3] Lithuania,[9] New Zealand[15] and Slovakia.[16]" Who says they are financed through crowdfunding? That's not what the reference says. It says that the founder's website says that it has used crowdfunding. It also says they have placed ads to publicly sell shares (which is typical for a company). The reference doesn't say that it has "drawn the attention of international financial regulators." This was added and is WP:SYNTH. It may have, but the reference doesn't say that. Then, the references for each country listed are to the actual warnings. These are primary and also SYNTH. We cannot say they received warnings by using the actual warnings. We need a reliable secondary source which says so. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:There has been a request put out days ago for secondary references to these primary sources. I listed in detail the sources that already have secondary references (the FMA, LBC, FSMA, Consob, Greek, Greek and German (BehindMLM)) above. Some of these are already secondarily sourced. The FSMA reference which is secondarily sourced mentions Lithuania and Estonia. We don't have secondary references for CNS, SNB and Bank of Slovenia, or Norway). There is a whole section above to pool the secondary references to the primary sources. The section on regulatory warnings has been reduced to remove emphasis from this section. Sorry if it's not going fast enough for you. It's not going to help being impatient about the speed this is handled. The Norwegian article which is generally viewed positively used almost completely these primary references (and the BehindMLM). If you think we shouldn't reference the primary sources, take them out. I don't know, however, how other uses will react to this who see these references as a step up from direct primary sources. It's not like they are images from commons of primary sources like legislation or copies of contracts. They are mostly press releases from internationally recognized regulatory agencies. I agree it's a problem but you're the only one who is talking about it. The problematic W:Synth is another issue which needs to be handled. It seems to me that stating that 'many regulatory agencies have warned the public about the activities of SkyWay' is, however, unproblematic because there are secondary sources which state this. But if you can state this better, please do. I tried to collect references on the marketing techniques. They seem to be using many different marketing techniques but I could only find verifiable references that refer to the MLM techniques and crowdfunding. It shouldn't however sound like these are the only marketing techniques used (and it may well at present). They also place ads and the public has been warned about these ads (see Economy247 reference to the Greek HNBC warning). Maybe this needs to be mentioned as well. If you can say this better you are obviously welcome to make these changes. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@CNMall41:There is nothing in your post which suggests you are actually being impatient at all; sorry for this. These are valid concerns but we are trying to address them. I'll try to do this in a consequent fashion later today if I can. I thank you for these helpful suggestions. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

PROPOSED CHANGES TO OVERVIEW: The secondary link you can view here [24] starts with the following text "New Zealand’s FMA Adds Skyway Capital to Warning List. Regulators in Belgium, Lithuania and Estonia have also warned about the activities of the company and its associates." Another secondary reference in Greek discusses in detail the Greek SkyWay warning: [25] The wording is presently -

  • The SkyWay Group is financing itself with crowdfunding[3] and other marketing techniques that have drawn the attention of international financial regulators in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy,[3] Lithuania,[9] New Zealand[15] and Slovakia.[16]

In light of this verifiable secondary reference I suggest we change the text to:

  • The Skyway Group is financing itself with is using marketing techniques such as crowdfunding[Italian reference] and Multi-level Marketing [BehindMLM reference]. Many countries including Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and New Zealand have warned the public about the activities of the company and its associates[financial magnates reference][Economy247 reference][Italian reference].

This is just a proposal and any suggestions would be welcome. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

An update replaces 'financing itself with' with simply 'is using'. Italy has also been added to the list of countries. In addition to describing Crowdfunding, the Italian reference actually includes information about the CONSOB warnings.––Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The Norwegian Wikipedia article for 'SkyWay' also uses the following reference from BehindMLM to refer to the Greek and German warnings: [26] So Germany could be added to the list of countries as well if this reference is usable. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@CNMall41:I waited a day for any response and then I applied the changes based on comments by CNMall41. I felt that it was worth applying them ASAP because of very real problems in the text (the Italian reference indeed doesn't say that they are 'financing themselves' using crowdfunding in so many words; or that this in particular has attracted the attention of financial regulators). The references are now sourced to secondary references. The Czech Republic and Slovakia were removed. Any further help or ideas appreciated. It should also be noted here that crowdfunding and MLM may be considered by some controversial, they aren't actually illegal. SkyWay Group isn't adverse to discuss these techniques openly on their websites. They may use other techniques as well but I haven't been able to find any verifiable sources which actually discusses them. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's a secondary reference to the Bank of Slovakia warning from BehindMLM: [27] –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Zaxander, Please refer to WP:DEADLINE. Wikipedia is a work in progress, not a race. I left a message on your talk page to address your comments. I will respond to any content questions here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed reduction of Cancelled/Postponed/Planned projects to a single heading

The Norwegian Wikipedia article on 'SkyWay' which is discussed above list all international projects under a single heading 'Planned projects'. Perhaps following a similar model but calling it 'international projects' or simply 'projects' is a good idea? The following questions need to be asked:

Is it really necessary to use individual headings for each country?
Is it really necessary to distinguish cancelled projects from postponed ones?

In other words, if this information is included in the text anyway is it really necessary to emphasise it by having a separate heading? The Norwegians didn't think so. Note that it would also be possible to remove either the countries or the three 'project' headings. As it stands, the English SkyWay Group is still really different to the Norwegian SkyWay article which has been used as an example of an efficient article by other users. At present, it's the current designation of different projects and the division into so many countries that make the English article so different. These have been removed in the regulatory warnings section already and maybe this should also be applied to the 'projects'. What are the Wikipedia guidelines on issues like this? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander: Not sure about the Wikipedia guidelines, but I think it’s necessary to somehow separate all the unsuccessful past projects and current ones (which are in progress). You can, for example, create one heading "Projects", and then highlight in bold "Cancelled projects" (or "Unrealized projects" - Australia, India, Lithuania and Indonesia) and "Current projects" (or "Active Projects" - The United Arab Emirates) - as individual countries are highlighted now.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion is to keep things from looking like a list per WP:PROSE. It currently looks like a brochure. A single heading of projects which summarizes both would be sufficient IMHO. It could likely be a paragraph (assuming a reference is available to support) that says they have done projects internationally with completed projects in X,Y, and Z. Then a paragraph that says they also have projects that have been cancelled in locations that include A,B, and C. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
So something like this :
Projects
Company started negotiations in country W, X and Y. These projects were later postponed.
These are the verifiable details for W (reference). These are the details for X (reference). These are the details for Y (reference).
The company also started negotiating with country Z.
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • PROPOSAL for reduction and better wording of the international projects. Any advice on this would be appreciated. There is no hurry to change the text as it is, so take your time to check the text and the references. Note that there is a glaring mistake at present. The only reference to the Australian project was the Italian "letteraemme" article. It uses the SkyWay website for this date which is unreliable. More recent references suggest that project at Flinders University in South Australia was proposed and cancelled far more recently. Unfortunately an article entitle "Flinders SkyWay Train Left Hanging" viewable here [28] requires a subscription. Can anyone else gain access to this text? The reference we do have which is included below states that negotiations began in 2016. A proposed text follows:
Projects
The SkyWay Group started negotiating with countries like Lithuania,[1] Australia,[2] India,[3] Italy[4] and Indonesia.[5] These projects were later cancelled or postponed before construction began. The most recent planned project is in the United Arab Emirates.
In 2014 the SkyWay Group planned to build its first test site in Lithuania, but this project was cancelled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud.[1][6] A test site of the SkyWay Group technologyAnother project was planned at Flinders University in South Australia in 2016[2] but a dispute between Yunitskiy and his partners resulted in its cancellation this was later postponed.[citation needed] In May 2017 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the minister of Urban Development of the Northern Indian state Himachal Pradesh with one of the SkyWay Group companies. In July 2017 the Economic Times reported that the government was criticised for negotiating "with a company with no operational projects anywhere in the world" and doubts were raised over the safety and viability of the project.[3] A Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the University of Indonesia in West Java to build on-campus ‘sky trains’.[7] Plans were also made in Jorong, Kalimantan. Members of the public complained about the suspicious sale of investment products and negotiations were finally cancelled in 2018.[5]
In February 2019 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) of Dubai with the Skyway Greentech Company to build "Sky Pods" there.[8]

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The project planned at Flinders University in South Australia in 2016 was postponed due to lack of funding, and not due to a quarrel between Yunitsky and his partners. There was another planned project in 2010 (in another region of Australia), and it was canceled due to a dispute. I also think that the sentence "To date, however, they have not yet realized a project outside Belarus" is more appropriate for the "Projects" section that for the "Marketing". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:The intention of the sentence 'to date they have not yet realized a project' in marketing was to explain that the possibility of making money in the company is dependent on the success of the technology. The Slovenian reference says that the success of this technology is not very likely because it's only sign of success is what they show in Belarusian fields. This means that the small investors will (probably) never get their money back. I'll try to reword this mentioning exactly what the reference says and removing the comment on 'no project outside Belarus'. It may mean I have to remove the sentence as well about the technological exhibitions in Singapore and Berlin, but I'll try to keep it. Do you have a suggestion how this could be better explained? Also, do you have a reference for the Australian dispute in 2010? 2010 is years before the Lithuania scandal in 2014! Or more particular the reasons for the stagnation of financing in 2016? Why was the project postponed? The reference I read said that it was postponed because SkyWay took their business to Saudi Arabia (in 2018). I couldn't confirm this with an actual reliable reference, however.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's probably not necessary to mention the negotiations in Australia in 2010 if they are only referred to on the SkyWay site and the Italian article. There are a lot of references to the project in Adelaide, however. The project in 2016 was thanks to Rod Hook, the representative of SkyWay in Australia who used to work for the Australian government. Was he involved in 2010 as well? Who actually had the disagreements with Yunitskiy? Also can anyone find a reference where it definitively states that the project in India was postponed? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:I changed the wording to better reflect the actual Slovenian reference. It now says "At the moment, however, all SkyWay has are 'the prototypes running in Belarusian fields'." It's probably unnecessary to begin a section on 'projects' with a sentence like 'SkyWay is yet to realize an actual project'. Besides 'these projects were later cancelled or postponed' says this anyway without actually making a negative broad statement about the company. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The reference from The Advertiser (Adelaide) entitled 'Flinders SkyWay Train Left Hanging' definitely suggests that this project has been postponed saying this project was "unlikely to get off the ground" in July 2018. Unfortunately I still can't open it and I can't find a similar citation anywhere else. This is what you can read of the article: "Much-hyped SkyWay plan off the rails... IT WAS spruiked as the futuristic mode of transport that would shake up Australia’s rail industry. But SkyWay — the elevated, driverless train championed by former State Transport Department boss Rod Hook — appears unlikely to get off the ground." [29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: I don't have any other articles about the project at Flinders University except for those you mentioned. Rod Hook has nothing in common with the project in 2010. Therefore, if there are no articles about the 2010 project, it is probably better not to mention this at all. And if to be completely accurate, the group of companies was formed in 2013, therefore this 2010 project has no legal relation to the group. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
regarding the "Marketing" section (my suggestion):
  • The success of this company depends on its product - the SkyWay technology - which, according to Siol.net, "is far from commercialization". At the moment, all SkyWay has are "the prototypes running at the Belarusian test site".[siol.net reference]
The SkyWay Group has also exhibited this technology at trade fairs like the 3rd Singapore International Transport Congress and Exhibition (SITCE) and InnoTrans 2018 in Berlin. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:IMHO the problem with this is the exhibition of the technology at SITCE and InnoTrans is no longer necessary with your new wording. You only have reason to include the examples of the technological fairs here to demonstrate the marketing. If you want to use this wording, we can just cut out the sentence on the technological fairs entirely as it no longer serves any purpose in demonstrating the marketing (IMHO). I've included possible adjustments to your text. Let me know what you think. If you think this works better, please apply it; but remove the references to the technological fairs. I'm happy to do it if you'd prefer me to. Perhaps we could get the advice of @CNMall41: on wording this or including information about these exhibitions somewhere else in the article if not here. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
My hope is that you are able to reach a consensus on the content between everyone who is involved. My original reasoning for coming here was a request at the WikiProject Companies page. If you want help with wording, I will be happy to do so but that would still only be my opinion based on the guidelines and policies and would need consensus. I am not, nor is anyone on Wikipedia, an ultimate judge or jury on content. That is not how consensus works. If you let me know I will work through some of it this week. I have been traveling all over for work this past couple of weeks and have not had much time to spend here. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: I still think that the information about exhibitions must be included in the article. If you do not want to include in the "Marketing" section, maybe it can be included in the "Testing" section? Demonstration of prototypes at trade shows is also a kind of "testing". It's like scientists "test" their scientific findings at conferences, discussing them with others. Apart from that, information about exhibitions can be used as a description for images (which is discussed below).Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:Trade fairs and exhibitions of static models are far more comparable to 'advertising' than actual 'testing' I think. It would certainly be a good reason for including it in marketing but none of the references I've read actually talk about the trade fairs as a tools of advertising in SkyWay arsenal. It is true that the 'testing' section is incredibly short with only one sentence on the Belarusian prototype. We are still searching for verifiable references on the other major test-site which actually used moving vehicles in Ozyory, Moscow (with no answers yet). I'm actually fine with leaving the reference to the trade fairs where it is but I think it couldn't hurt to get a third opinion on this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Černiauskas, Šarūnas. "Lietuvos bankas: "oro traukinius" žadančio A. Junickio veikloje – sukčiavimo požymiai". DELFI. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
  2. ^ a b https://www.fiveaa.com.au/shows/rowey-bicks/the-plan-to-bring-driverless-sky-trains-to-adelaide
  3. ^ a b Venugopal, Vasudha (13 July 2017). "Doubts raised over Belarus company credential for Rs 250-crore skyway transport project in Dharamshala". The Economic Times. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference letteraemme was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b "Investasi Mandek, PT Skyway Teknologies Indonesia Umumkan Pembekuan". 30 September 2018.
  6. ^ "A genuine investment project? A boondoggle? A scheme? Lithuania: a national security threat first". Baltic News Network - News from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. 2014-09-25. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
  7. ^ Khumaini, Anwar. "Gandeng SkyWay Indonesia, UI akan bangun 'Kereta Langit'". merdeka.com.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference RTA2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

SkyWay in Court

Through the years SkyWay has been embroiled in legal scandals. Legal actions have been taken against the company but the most striking thing is the way this company uses legal threats to intimidate critics. There are a large number of verifiable references which attest to this. At the moment, these legal actions are barely mentioned. The regulatory warnings are an entirely different aspect of this and have to do with financial regulation and not legal actions in court. The Prosecutor's Office in Lithuania started an investigation into illegal activities. Yunistkiy and company were arrested and forced out of Lithuania. The investigation took years because Yunitskiy had escaped into Russia and was difficult to interview. They decided they couldn't prosecute him for being a pyramid scheme but they didn't go back on an any of their decisions. Later Yunitskiy and company were unsuccessful in suing the Lithuanian government for lost money. They also sued Onliner.by which resulted in a court-case as described in detail above. There are also the attempts made by individual investors to contact the courts to get their money back. Seeing there are already so many warnings from so many different countries it seems more likely that the future will bring more of these. But the company uses legal threats as well to intimidate critics. All of the Burrenblog SkyWay posts have legal actions being brought against them by a 'Sino-English' law firm in Hong Kong. Many verified references discuss the threats received against them from lawyers working for the SkyWay company. If there is consensus that this is a valid area of discussion then we can collate the most important verified references describing legal action instigated by or against SkyWay here. This section can be streamlined to only create the most essential aspects but all sources should be introduced here and verified for relevance. I suggest this heading be called something like 'Legal proceedings' or 'Legal action' (please suggest better ideas). Sub-headings need to be introduced below for the following discussions to collect new and examine existing references. [1] Lithuania investigation, [2] Legal action against ONLINER.BY, [3] Legal action against the Lithuanian government, [4] legal action against other critics (Burrenblog), [5] Attempts for investors to proceed against SkyWay to get their money back, [5] legal threats. Include your feelings about this subject below and any new headings you think should be included (or removed as insignificant). I will only open this discussion further if there is consensus that this is a worthwhile area of investigation. I think it is but you may well not. It seems to me at present that this area is now almost completely absent especially since the Lithuanian scandal is now mentioned only briefly since the project sections has been reduced to a few sentences.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC) -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we need to add this section to the article. My arguments:
1) "Lithuania investigation and legal action against the Lithuanian government". This is mentioned in the "Negotiations". If you have other reliable information about further actions on this project, then it can be added in that section.
2) "Legal action against ONLINER.BY". Is it important? I don't think so. ONLINER.BY articles are already mentioned and cited in the article. I mean, what is the purpose to write something like this: "The company filed a lawsuit against journalists, but the court rejected the claim." If the court satisfied the company's claim, then these ONLINER.BY articles would have been excluded from the article. I could be wrong, but it seems there is still a trial going on there, and the company appealed the previous decision... In this case, you need to describe both sides of the conflict, and this can lead to Synthesis of published material - WP:SYNTH.
3) "Attempts for investors to proceed against SkyWay to get their money back". Firstly, there was only one investor who asked money back. The article states that woman was given back all her investments, and there was no court - the parties simply terminated the share purchase agreement by mutual agreement.
4) "Legal action against other critics (Burrenblog), legal threats". Is there any court decision on these issues? If not, then nothing to talk about. If the company is really threatening someone, then let those people file a lawsuit, and if the court makes any decision on these “legal threats”, then this discussion can be continued. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately you can't really include the court-related details of the SkyWay Lithuania scandal in the negotiations section because it doesn't concern negotiations but specific legal actions after the negotiations were stopped and criminal investigations started. There were negotiations, then these negotiations were stopped and legal actions were taken. The investigation by the prosecutor's office was protracted and had nothing to do with any negotiations which stopped after Yunitskiy was arrested, his assets seized and he was forced out of Lithuania. The question is: does it need discussion at all. I think it does but others disagree. Until we have more verifiable references and opinions on this matter this should be considered a work in progress - post any new verifiable references on court cases and your opinions about this subject and we can always reassess it at a later date, certainly in light of the Onliner.by court-case. It's been suggested that this may still be ongoing. Does anyone know anything, for example, about the 'Sino-English legal firm in Hong Kong' which has taken legal action against the Burrenblog? We actually have no proof that it is the SkyWay company. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The following text is IMHO an accurate description of the Lithuanian legal proceedings instigated by the prosecutor's office in 2014. This includes the December 2018 dismissal of a damages claim brought against the Lithuanian government by Yunitskiy and his wife. You cannot include this text in a heading discussing company negotiations. Not including them is an inaccurate representation of published verifiable references:
Litigation
The Prosector General’s Office of Lithuania suspected the SkyWay Group of being involved in “fraud and unlawful commercial activity” and started proceedings against them.[1] In October 2014 the Financial Crime Investigation Service opened a pre-trial investigation based on information from the Bank of Lithuania that SkyWay companies owned by Yunitskiy were attempting to sell shares without the necessary permits, but closed the probe in May 2017 because of a lack of sufficient evidence.[2]
SkyWay and its shareholders started proceedings against the Lithuanian government because of the damage done to their business by the lengthy investigation. Anatoly Yunitskiy and Nadezhda KosarevaThey claimed that the investigation which lasted for two years and seven months “paralyzed the company’s operations and tarnished the ‘good name and reputation’ of the CEO”. In December 2018, however, The Vilnius regional court dismissed this claim ruling that “there were sufficient grounds for opening the pre-trail investigation and that it took longer than expected because the authorities had difficulty questioning Yunitskiy”.[2] -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
These paragraphs were carefully constructed after rereading all the verifiable references currently used to refer to the Lithuanian scandal including the regulatory warnings, but only two references were deemed necessary as they contain all the information repeated in the other articles. Firstly I used the Delfi article viewable here: [30] (translation from Lithuanian viewable on the Zaxander (talk · contribs) talk page and [2] the more recent Baltic Course article viewable here: [31] which is fortunately in English. I suggest that it would be inappropriate to include this text in the 'negotiations' heading, but that it would also be misleading to not include it at all. A new heading 'legal proceedings' could solve these problems and create a space for discussing the other legal actions that have been brought by or against the SkyWay company when we have more verifiable references. But maybe you think there is too much information in these paragraphs. Or maybe I skipped an important fact. Include your thoughts and suggestions below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Please also note you could extend the 'negotitiations' heading to include other important facts about the actual negotiating phase that took place in Lithuania before the project was cancelled in 2014. This includes the agreement to pre-allocate land in the Siauliau province and the 360,000 euros paid by SkyWay to the city. But these are issues separate to the court proceedings that were taken after a recommendation was made by Cibas of the Bank of Lithuania to the prosecutor's office. Such an addition to the negotiations description are, however, unrelated to legal proceedings which were started because of the illegal sale of shares in Lithuania on the internet. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the Wikipedia articles documenting both existing and dissolved companies refer to the documented legal actions brought against the companies. Problem is there is no reliable or consistent way of referring to these court cases. These articles have headings which vary as follows: 'lawsuits', 'court-cases', 'litigation', 'legal problems'. Some of the articles specifically list the legal problem in the title, i.e. 'FTC legal problems' or 'SEC Bribery Lawsuit'. The article YTB International has a heading for lawsuits which discusses a number of different legal cases brought against the company. Investigations which didn't include actual court-cases were also mentioned. The article MonaVie has a section called 'litigation' about the different court-cases against this company. The Vector Marketing article includes every court-case that was lodged against this company under the title 'lawsuits'. There is certainly precedent for including this information if it is discussed in verifiable references. It should also be noted that many of these articles include information about the court-cases not directly related to the business such as the Arbonne International article which includes information about an unfair dismissal hearing that took place. I don't see how the Onliner.by controversy is any less significant. The article on Young Living also has a section called 'litigation' which includes a discussion of the investigation; XanGo uses a litigation heading as well. I suggest this is a possible title for this heading. Please include any other suggestions below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The article on Market America includes claims and counter-claims proposed by the company in a section called 'legal actions and lawsuits'. The article on Mary Kay lists all legal action as individual 'court-cases'. The SeneGence article calls them 'legal challenges'. The only place I saw the court-cases listed in the same place as the regulatory warnings is in the Amway North America article which includes the 'litigation' and investigation by the regulatory agency FTC under the more general heading of 'controversies'.
The SkyWay website includes a whole webpage dedicated to how SkyWay protects its business investment in court. It discusses the court-case in Lithuania, although it conveniently leaves out the fact that their claims against the Lithuanian government were dismissed. They also mention court-cases in Russia, Australia and Austria. How much of this is actually true is arguable: [32].
other users (including me) disagree with you that this section should be added to the article. So this is exclusively your initiative. In addition, information on legal proceedings in Lithuania has already been added to the "Negotiations" section. I do not see any reasons for the duplication. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there used to be a description of the legal proceedings in what is now referred to as the 'negotiations' heading. This has been removed, however, for good reason. You can't mention the litigation in the negotiations section because the court-cases in Lithuania have nothing to do with the Lithuania scandal in Siauliai. I reacted to this and I updated the Lithuania negotations text accordingly. I went to the considerable effort of checking all the verifiable references. The 'negotiations' heading has been extended to included actual information relating to the details of what happened in Siauliai. The negotiations involved what is now known as the 'lithuania scandal'; they were complex and involved the pre-allocation of land by the mayor of Siauliai, the municapility's bank account being enriched by 1,000,000 litas by SkyWay and the signing of an investment agreement with this company without checking the company's credit, the Ministry of Defence or the national land department first. This was scandalous and the negotiations were cancelled at the end of 2014. Then in addition to that there was the investigation of the company by the Bank of Lithuania for the sale of illegal shares via the internet, the opening of the pre-trial investigation, the arrest of Yunitskiy and the seizing of his assets, him escaping Lithuania, the eventual decision that there was not enough evidence to try them for being a pyramid scheme, the attempt of Yunitskiy and his wife to sue the Lithuanian government for the long investigation and the dismissal of this case because the government found that their investigations were justified and that it only took so long to finish it because Yunitskiy had fled the country. What you are suggesting is that the Lithuania 'scandal' be included with this entirely different matter of the two separate aspects of litigation which actually occurred at a different time and in a different place to the negotiation phase in Siauliai. This is just wrong. You can argument for the mentioning the court-cases at all, however, but you have not done this yet. I demonstrated that other Wikipedia articles on companies devote considerable space to the discussion of all the details of companies who were involved in any type of litigation, much less significant than the legal proceedings discussed here. This seems more than significant to the SkyWay company. I considered, however, the lack of third-party references to the Onliner.by court-case. Although the many examples of all legal matters which actually reached the courts being mentioned in relation to other companies, until they're mentioned by another verifiable source there are not valid reasons for including them among the litigation. I fear however that it is only a matter of time before these verifiable links appear and I feel that the Onliner.by court-case only adds to this companies notability. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is actual potential for information repetition however, but not between litigation and negotiations but with litigation and the regulatory warnings heading. The Bank of Lithuania [1] recommended that the Prosecutor's Office start a pre-trial investigation to determine how this company could be prosecuted for fraudulent activity and around the same time [2] released the first regulatory warning which was then shared internationally to ensure that everyone would know about the potential criminal activities of this company. But the only commonality is the fact that Bank of Lithuania did these two things. They are still separate acts. And they both have absolutely nothing to do with the original Siauliai scandal.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
i.e. the Bank of Lithuania didn't tell the Mayor of Siauliai to cancel his contract with SkyWay because of their investigations, warnings or observations. The Prime Minister of Lithuania did this based on an independent investigation into Yunitskiy's credentials. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
...I know it's confusing but it has to be understood that the Bank of Lithuania wasn't even investigating the Siauliai affair. Their advice to the office of the prosecutor and their regulatory warnings were based on the illegal sales of shares via the internet and the questionable way the company financed itself. The approximate commonality of time and place is incidental to two entirely separate affairs: one involved with the scandal in Siauliai and the other with what happened in the Lithuanian courts for entirely different reasons.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I also disagree that the inclusion of this section questions the neutrality of the article. After all, the first case decided that they lacked enough evidence to prosecute Yunitskiy and it states this clearly and unambiguously. The second paragraph merely states that the their damages case was dismissed and explains why. It makes no judgment on these legal decisions and it hardly contains language that is inflammatory or suggests that either the Lithuanian Government or Yunitskiy/SkyWay could have been wrong. Just that the court made these decisions as clearly stated in verifiable references. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It is obvious to me that a canceled project in Lithuania is described in great detail in different sections of the article, which can hardly be called a neutral point of view. Emphasizing only critical information is not a neutral point of view - this has already been discussed many times here and there is no point in repeating. You are the only user who believes that it is necessary. Besides, other contributors might not have time to check this page every day, so please wait at least one week for the responses of other contributors before adding new paragraphs to the article. Finally, it is very difficult to follow this endless text that is added every day to the talk page. Wikipedia recommends avoiding an excessively long talk page discussion WP:TEXTWALL. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read the text that your input has influenced before making these accusations. There were entirely different instances, one that took place in Siauliai and one that took place at a different time and place in the Lithuanian courts. You seem intent on not recognizing this. Until yesterday there was a single sentence describing the Lithuania scandal. How can you say that this was "described in great detail". The only reason there is any description at all is because I extended based on research of the verifiable references. The only reason there is a lot of text is because of exact and precise research about a complex topic. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"Emphasizing only critical information is not a neutral point of view" - Yes it is, when the subject is a known Ponzi scam. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --83.218.138.8 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
According to the Belgian regulatory agency SkyWay shows aspects of a pyramid scheme but the Lithuanian government was actually unsuccessful in prosecuting them for this. I really appreciate this comment but the intention is to present a balanced perspective on verifiable published sources. Unfortunately none of them suggest that SkyWay is specifically and only a Ponzi scheme; the reality is far more complex. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed text including information about the court-cases which are currently not mentioned in the article. These are facts relating to two instances of litigation which are mentioned in verifiable references and which there exist clear precedent for inclusion based on the court cases of other companies.

I think that all problems related to the project in Lithuania should be described in one section. These events are one logical chain. Planned project - suspicions from the Lithuanian authorities - cancellation of the project - further investigation - closure of the case because of lack of evidence. If other users vote that the section "Litigation" should be created, then all problems in Lithuania should be in this section, including the text regarding this issue from the section "Negotiations". As I have already said, I see no reason to describe the problems related to the same project in different sections of the article. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Readers of the article should understand the logical chain of events in Lithuania in order to draw their own conclusions. And if information about problems with the project in Lithuania will be in different sections, you might think that these events (negotiations with the mayor Siauliai, criticism of the mayor by other authorities, cancellation of the project, etc.) are not related to each other, but this is not true. It is necessary to describe in one section how it all began and how it all ended - all suspicions were removed. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree but you could be right. You could help here by finding a reference that suggests that the investigation by the Prosecutor General's office involved the Siauliai scandal. But SkyWay didn't do anything wrong in Siauliai! The scandal revolved around the mayor who was criticized for his involvement; it was him who made the mistakes here. They investigated SkyWay for something different: the illegal sale of shares to Lithuanian citizens. That didn't happen in Siauliai - it happened on the internet and was probably initiated in Minsk. The regulatory warning and every reference I've read suggest that they only investigated the illegal sale of shares. And it didn't end with all suspicion being removed. It ended with the Lithuanian government not finding enough evidence to prosecute Yunitskiy and him unsuccessfully suing the Lithuanian government in 2018 for damages. Post your proof below and I'll double-check the references to help you prove a causal connection between the events that would justify including them under the same heading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The possible causal links between the two affairs are included above in italics. Now we just have to find references which prove this is true (listing them consecutively is clearly insufficient as it would imply WP:synth). –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This article concerns the Prosecutor General's office investigation that occurred after the recommendation from the Bank of Lithuania:[33]. At the time of the article they were still trying to interview Yunitskiy. There is nothing, however, that suggests that they were investigating anything resulting from the Siauliai scandal. I can publish the translation of this article on request and can send a copy to anyone curious enough to read it.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This article published by the official news portal of Lithuania DEFLI in December 2014 describes in detail the FNTT investigation of SkyWay:[34]. It describes how the authorities attempted to seize the computers of SkyWay. Translation of this article may prove a connection. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This article has been translated. The FNTT investigated the company Railway SkyWay Systems Ltd. There is no suggestion that this investigation had anything to do with the Siauliai scandal. If you include information about negotiations that resulted in suspicion being drawn to the mayor of Siauliai under the same heading as the actual investigation by the FNTT into RSS you will be misleading the public. If you include them in separate headings, readers will "draw the conclusion" anyway that the Lithuania scandal is connected to the investigation that remain entirely different. I am genuinely interested to see the verified links that suggest that these two cases are inextricably linked. They could certainly enrich this investigation. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The Rail SkyWay Systems offices were not in the Siauliai municipality; they were in Vilnius. Vilnius is in South Lithuania; Siauliai municipality is in North Lithuania. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where their office was. Obviously, they cannot build a test site directly in Vilnius. Therefore, they were going to build it in Siauliai - there was a space for the construction. Honestly, I don’t have time to search and translate many sources, but I found few articles on their official website and on independent resources that tell the whole story in Lithuania (there is even a video with Unitsky and English subtitles):[35], [36], [37], [38]. And please stop your accusations that I supposedly work for the company - if that was the case, I would spend much more time on this discussion. I also hope that you are not engaged in a black PR campaign against the company. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is what is written in the first article [39] (independent source) - Google Translate from Russian - "The investigation was conducted in connection with the activities of the company SkyWay Systems Ltd, which in Siauliai planned to establish a test site for the String Transport technology. However, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Lithuania suspected Unitsky of fraud and illegal commercial activities. He came to the attention of law enforcement agencies after investigations conducted by the Central Bank of Lithuania. They thought that the distribution of shares of the UK-registered Euroasian Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd is a financial pyramid.... They could not prove that SkyWay is illegal. Pre-trial investigation of Anatoly Yunitsky’s activities was terminated in Lithuania." Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for these references. I've translated the links that are not specifically SkyWay sites (I'll check them later) but I imagine they say the same thing. They basically tell the same story as all the other articles: That the SkyWay company was investigated for the illegal sale of shares to the public by the BoL and the PGO. The quote you include above says this as well. It says specifically that the PGO "suspected Unitskiy of financial fraud and illegal commercial activities" and details about the RSS investigations. It doesn't mention the Siauliai scandal (negotiations with SkyWay and the signing of the contract with the Mayor of Siauliai municipality; he was criticized for what he did for different reasons and was finally instructed by the Prime Minisiter to cancel the investment agreement with Yunitskiy's company for reasons of national security that were unrelated to the PGO investigation). Your sources unfortunately do not mention this scandal at all, just that the project that was planned there was cancelled. They do confirm the fact that the court cases resulting from the investigation of RSS for financial fraud; but we knew that already. With the current references you could justify creating a whole new heading entitled specifically "The Lithuanian Controversy" (i.e. it can't be called 'litigation') which mentions first the negotiation in Siauliai, then the entirely separate investigations by the BoL and PGO in different paragraphs of the international SkyWay enterprise. Suggestion above; please make your own changes to it when you have the chance (there is no hurry). -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for your contribution. You don't have to translate anything if you don't want to or you don't have time. Just include the links. I haven't accused you of anything, by the way and it actually doesn't matter. You are prepared to legitimate yourself and you generally provide careful and well thought out comments and that's good enough for me. That is already much better than a lot of recent contributors. I'm prepared to look at anything if you think it's important. Don't forget that the only reason there is a description of the EcoTechnoPark and the exhibitions of this technology at trade fairs is because I went to the considerable effort of finding verifiable references about them. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Negotiations
...DuringIn 2014 negotiationsbetween the SkyWay Group and the municipality of Siauliai in Lithuania an investment agreement was signed, a piece of land was pre-allocated to build a SkyWay test facility and a large sum of money was transferred to the municipality's bank accounts. The mayor of Siauliai was later criticized for negotiating with the SkyWay Group[1] and at the end of 2014 he was instructed to cancel the project caused a controversy and the planned project was cancelled.[2]...
The Lithuanian Controversy
During negotiations in 2014 between the SkyWay Group and the municipality of Siauliai in Lithuania an investment agreement was signed, a piece of land was pre-allocated to build a SkyWay test facility and money was transferred to the municipality's bank accounts. The mayor of Siauliai was later criticized for negotiating with the SkyWay Group[1] and at the end of 2014 he was instructed to cancel the project.[3][4]
In October 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Lithuania suspected the SkyWay Group of being involved in “fraud and unlawful commercial activity” based on information from the Bank of Lithuania[3]. Although the Financial Crime Investigation Service started a pre-trial investigation it was finally closed in May 2017 because of a lack of sufficient evidence.[5]
SkyWay and its shareholders started proceedings against the Lithuanian government in August 2018[6] because of the damage done to their business. The Vilnius regional court dismissed this claim in December 2018 ruling that “there were sufficient grounds for opening the pre-trial investigation".and that it took longer than expected because the authorities had difficulty questioning Yunitskiy”.[5]

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC) -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Please note that this is just the proposal for an addition to the article. This is only one possible solution to describe the Lithuanian affair and is an alternative to a new heading litigation. You may have a better idea. Suggest your edits to it by making changes to the actual text or including suggestions below. Here, the court-cases are included with the description of the Siauliai scandal which would be removed from the 'negotiation' heading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you may exclude "...and that it took longer than expected because the authorities had difficulty questioning Yunitskiy". One more remark: during the last weeks, I had enough free time to regularly edit this article, but I want to say that from next week I will be busy with my work for some time. It doesn't mean anything, and I don't ask you anything, I am just saying this to let you know that I will not actively participate in the discussion on this page for some time. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I checked the four references you included above. It seems that these texts also confirm the content of the proposed text on the Lithuanian controversy. Thanks for these references and keep posting them if you think they could help the content. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Text now includes proposed reduction of 'negotiations' text. Include your own advice and suggestions. The inclusion of such a heading is possible if you refer first to the fact that the original Siauliai negotiations caused a 'controversy' in Lithuania. This controversy involved political, financial and legal conflicts and the details of this complex controversy would then have an individual heading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Sutartis dėl Styginio transporto skandalo centre". www.snaujienos.lt. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
  2. ^ "A genuine investment project? A boondoggle? A scheme? Lithuania: a national security threat first". Baltic News Network - News from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. 2014-09-25. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
  3. ^ a b Černiauskas, Šarūnas. "Lietuvos bankas: "oro traukinius" žadančio A. Junickio veikloje – sukčiavimo požymiai". DELFI. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
  4. ^ "A genuine investment project? A boondoggle? A scheme? Lithuania: a national security threat first". Baltic News Network - News from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. 2014-09-25. Retrieved 2017-03-01.
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference tbc2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ https://42.tut.by/605613

SkyWay Group located in Minsk

The SkyWay Group may have a wide number of shell companies registered in places like London and the British Virgin Islands, but verifiable references suggest that the central offices are in Minsk at the following address:

SkyWay Technologies Co., Prospekt Dzerzhinskogo 104к, Minsk 220089, Belarus
ЗАО «Струнные технологии», г. Минск, пр. Дзержинского, 104к2. 220116, Республика Беларусь

Although this office complex is mentioned in various verifiable references, this centralized location is not mentioned in either the opening paragraph or the overview. IMHO it's important to state this as a central location from which the SkyWay Group is directed. Here is a quote from a verifiable Russian reference on the location of the major Belarusian company actually registered in Belarus:[40]

  • Офис ЗАО «Струнные технологии» занимает несколько этажей в одном из минских бизнес-центров.
The office of the CJSC "String Technologies" occupies several floors in one of the Minsk business centres.

Note that this is the name of the SkyWay company actually registered in Belarus. A CJSC is a 'Closed Joint-Stock Company' which is a dated Russian term used to refer to a company which can sell to a maximum of 50 investors. This centralized location should be mentioned in the opening paragraph or somewhere in the overview. Note that registration in places like London and the British Virgin Islands doesn't mean anything more than a business name and a PO box. The point here is that it needs to be clear where this company is operated from. Please don't suggest that this is negative information about the company; if you disagree explain why with verifiable references. This is only a suggestion based on the wide number of verifiable references I've read and is dependent on advice and approval from other users. Other possible wording includes "with a central location in Belarus", "directed from Belarus" or "located in Belarus". If you disagree please provide verifiable recent references which suggest that this company is operated from a location somewhere else. Also other references which suggest that this company is where Yunitskiy works. The original Sidorovich Onliner.by article suggests that there is a central office in Minsk([41]), another that there is an office and a workshop in Minsk where the pyramid-marketers work ([42]):

  • SkyWay Group is a term used to refer to a group of companies centralized in Belarus but registered under business names including "Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.", "First SkyWay Invest Group Limited" and "Global Transport Investment Inc." in places like the British Virgin Islands, London and Minsk.

-Zachar (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

SKYWAY Group Company Infobox

There are lots of different places you can add extra information to this template by editing this heading. We obviously have to get this right before posting it to the article. Please add to this template or include suggestions below. Thanks on the beforehand for your help. –Zachar (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding Limited, First SkyWay Invest Group Limited, Global Transport Investment Inc., SkyWay Capital Ltd.
SkyWay, SkyWay Capital
Native name
ЗАО «Струнные технологии»
Company typePrivate
IndustryInfrastructure Technology, multi-level marketing
FounderAnatoly Eduardovich Yunitskiy
Headquarters
Minsk
,
Belarus
Subsidiaries
  • Euroasian Rail SkyWay Systems Holding I-III Ltd. (British Virgin Islands)
  • Euroasian Rail SkyWay Systems Holding Ltd. (London)
  • First SkyWay Invest Group Ltd. (London)
  • Global Transport Investments Inc. (British Virgin Islands)
  • SkyWay Capital Inc. (Saint-Lucia)
  • Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd. (British Virgin Islands)
Websitehttp://rsw-systems.com/
Please note this ISIN is for one of the ERHSS Ltd. companies in the Virgin Islands. It probably should only be added to infobox if this can be specified: VGG322291094.

The Lithuanian Controversy

So this looks like something that was opened and closed without any type of outcome. And it is significant enough to create a separate heading despite WP:CRITS? Seems very insignificant yet it is worded in a way to make it seem like the company is always in trouble. Reads more like WP:ADVOCACY than WP:NPOV.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This solution was suggested as an alternative to the introduction of a 'litigation' category. The intention was definitely not to create the impression the company is permanently in trouble! There was a scandal in Siauliai which didn't actually involve the company doing anything wrong. Please note that until recent changes at the beginning of April, the only description of the Lithuanian controversy was as follows: "In 2014 the SkyWay Group planned a test site in Lithuania, but this project was cancelled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud." This had to be replaced because it's wrong. The negotiations were cancelled at the end of 2014 because of a specific instruction from the Prime Minister of Lithuania that resulted from a report on national security issues. These are the facts as noted in the verified references already included in the article:
  • The mayor of the Siauliai municipality negotiated with the SkyWay group in 2014. An investment agreement was signed, 1,000,000 litas was transferred to the municipality's bank account and about 30 hectares of land was pre-allocated for a SkyWay test facility.
  • Various politicians objected to these negotiations and the mayor was later criticized for not consulting the Ministry of Defence or the National Land Department, and for accepting money from a company without checking the company's credentials. There were particular concerns about the security risk as Russia was considered a genuine threat.
  • After receiving a security report on the company, the Prime Minister of Lithuania finally instructed the mayor to halt his negotiations. It became known as the 'Siauliai scandal' and was widely discussed in local news. As a result, new legislation was drafted that made it less easy for politicians to enter negotiations without prior consultation.
  • Meanwhile the Bank of Lithuania noticed that the 'Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd.' company was illegally selling shares to Lithuanian citizens via the internet. As a result they issued a regulatory warning and shared it widely. They also advised the prosecutor general's office to start a pre-trial investigation into this company's activities.
  • As a result, the assets of Yunitskiy and his company were seized as the prosecutor attempted to build a case, and Yunitskiy fled the country never to return. The investigation lasted for two years and seven months but they finally decided that they did not have enough evidence to prosecute Yunitskiy. They didn't, however, exonerate Yunitskiy and the Bank of Lithuania actually rereleased their regulatory warning about this company.
  • The SkyWay Group (i.e. Yunitskiy and his wife) sued the Lithuanian government for 750 million euros in September 2018 for lost income because of the damage to the company caused by the long investigation. In December 2018 the Lithuanian courts dismissed this case because they found that they had sufficient reasons to start an investigation and that it had taken so long because they were unable to interview Yunitskiy.
If you have suggestions about how these facts could be better represented in the article than they already are, please propose them here or make the appropriate changes yourself to the article. Moreover if you think any of these facts are wrong or have been incorrectly extrapolated from the references, please publish your concerns with references supporting your counter-claims here so that no future mistakes are made. –Zachar (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Zachar (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears that when they decided to cancel the project in Siauliai, they had two major reasons that influenced their decision. The first was that the Prime-Minister of Lithuania had made changes to legislation as a result of their negotiations and the second a report from "the relevant law enforcement agencies". It doesn't mention the Bank of Lithuania warning which led to the Prosecutor General's investigation. See the original article here: [43]. You can read a translation here: [44].

List of companies belonging to the 'SkyWay Group'

There seem to be so many companies which belong to the SkyWay Group. The waters are muddied by the companies themselves being registered in difficult to pin-down tax havens such as the Virgin Islands. Whoever runs them is good at obfuscating the truth and confusing the matter by providing multiple conflicting accounts.

The idea is to include a complete list with the following information as it pertains to each entry: company name (place of registration) year of registration, year of dissolution, primary share-holder/owner & company director, e.g. Industrial Plastics Ltd. (Zanzibar) 1993-2012, I. Madork - Y. Gota. Include a separate reference if the company is registered with the same name in a different location.

  • American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
  • African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
  • Australian & Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London), 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
  • Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2015
  • Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding II Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2016
  • Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding III Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2018
  • Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2018, A. Yunitskiy
  • First SkyWay Invest Group Ltd. (London) 2015, A. Kudriashov
  • Global Transport Investments Inc. (British Virgin Islands), 2015
  • Global Transport Investments Inc. (London) 1992-
  • PT Skyway Teknologies Indonesia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (Lithuania)
  • Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (the Virgin Islands)
  • RSW Investment Group Ltd. (The Virgin Islands)
  • Sky Way Capital Inc. (Saint Lucia) 2018
  • SkyWay Capital Investment Co.
  • SkyWay Capital Ltd. (Minsk)
  • SkyWay Greentech Company
  • SkyWay Invest Group (Minsk) A. Hovratov
  • SkyWay Systems Ltd.
  • SkyWay Technologies Co. (Minsk) 2015
  • СТРУННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ ЗАО / CJSC String Technologies (Belarus) 2015

The actual article about the Skyway Group can only contain verifiable references. There are, however, many copies of official documents which, although unusable in the article, can help us build this list. Please help us keep this list up-to-date. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 06:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I think this is too much information so with your permission I'll summarise it and then possibly at the end include it in a single table. Is there any information you think I should include in each reference? What do people need to know about the companies? With your permission, however, I'll remove all the information that does not pertain to the companies (such as commentary and websites).Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

LIST UPDATED with new information, extra companies and locations added. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

EXTENDED AND UPDATED LIST OF COMPANIES included in German here: [45]. It's a very expansive list of companies involved with the SkyWay Group in some way. It includes names of the companies, when they were registered, who founded and directs them and whether they are still extant. I'll eventually expand the list above with these names if no one else wants to do it. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
How this list can be confirmed? What is its purpose? Instead of just description of string transport technology that would be more appropriate for WP, you mention a list of companies that doesn’t match even to the information from criticism source 1100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Marshal (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the SkyWay companies and not the technology. SkyWay Group is a name used to refer to the many companies in the SkyWay conglomerate many of which are registered in offshore locations and which are united in the fact that they promote the technology of Anatoly Yunitskiy and are largely owned and directed by him. The Burrenblog article shows that this list is outdated and incomplete. You are perfectly welcome to create an article about the technology if you think there are enough verifiable references which specifically address these issues. I fear that there are not enough references to justify this technology's notability and this explains why the subject of this article was changed, but you can always try and request the help of verified users to find these references
It seems this article was named Unitsky String transport, wasn’t it? It would be most appropriate for WP to describe just this innovation instead of blaming the companies raising finances for its development based just on warnings of some regulators published after incomplete look at the details. Please provide any evidence of Anatoliy Yunitskiy ownership of these foundations located in offshore. As for Burrenblog it cannot be considered as reliable source WP:BLOGS. Also please provide verifiable source for every listed company existing confirmation --George Marshal (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The article was just called 'String transport' not 'Unitskiy String Transport'. This title was changed as it was concluded that there weren't enough verifiable references on Yunitskiy's technology to justify an article but there were a growing amount of published, verified articles on the activities of the company worldwide. Please create a new heading for any specific complaints you have about the contents of the article. There has been sufficient proof in the verified references that Anatoly Yunitskiy is founder, director and primary share-holder of many of the companies in the SkyWay Group as well as the inventor of the technology - this is no longer a disputed fact because it has been verified by so many sources.Zachar (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting claims about MSUoRE assessment and test project in Ozery (Moscow area)

Different sources make various claims about the MSUoRE releasing assessments of SkyWay technology. They also claim that there was a test project in Ozery, a Moscow suburb, that was constructed and later taken apart. Some claim assessments were made in 2008 and 2016. Others claim 2007 and 2018. Some claim that contracts were signed between MSUoRE and SkyWay in 2017 although we have no idea why and to what end. We still have no verifiable references to these events. Please don't include YouTube films, uploaded images to commons, maps, primary sources like legislation or copies of contracts because we can't use them. At the moment, there is no actual information about the test site at all; only about the assessment. When we have verifiable descriptions of the deconstructed Moscow test site, I propose we create a new heading for 'Technology Assessment' which includes information about the assessment as opposed to the 'Test sites' in Ozery and Marjina Horka. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • This is a google translation of what the Norwegian article says about the Ozery project. They even have a photo of it. Note that I haven't been able work out yet what they are actually using to verify this. Otherwise they don't discuss any actual testing projects.
"Testing of SkyWay in Oziory- The first full-scale test installation was established in 2001 in the Russian city of Oziory with funds allocated by the politician Aleksandr Lebed. This installation was shut down and deconstructed after a few years."

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • An issue was brought up the user Andrew Postelniak concerning the assessment of SkyWay by MSUoRE, the year this took place and the decisions they made. Any comments are welcome :

The conclusion about the assessment of the technology by Moscow State University of Railway Engineering from 2008 is already outdated.

In early 2018, the technology underwent new expertise, and this time a positive conclusion was given. Here is a link from the official site of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering (in Russian):

[46]

They write: “The company "SkyWay" received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport. Certificates are issued for a unibus model U4-210 and a unibike model U4-621, which can be seen at the test site of transport - EcoTechnoPark. Today, string transport is a de facto separate type of transport, so certification was carried out to comply with the requirements of the regulatory documents of urban electric transport: Unibus U4-210 Certificate PDF, Unibike U4-621 PDF Certificate...

...SkyWay signed an agreement on comprehensive cooperation with the institution “Moscow State University of Railway Engineering”. A positive conclusion was made by the university on the work“ Preliminary Evaluation of the Development Prospects and the Field of Use of Innovative String-Rail Transport of SkyWay Rack Type".

Consider adding information about this assessment to the article, and delete or minify information about the old assessment from 2008. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The problem is this: will the positive assessment in 2018 actually result in new collaborations between Russia or the MSUoRE in the future? A negative assessment can be used as an argument for not applying a technology. This is referred to as a reason in secondary sources for non-implementation. But a positive assessment has to result in some type of proposal for actual implementation somewhere. Or it has to be used by a secondary source as the basis for either actual projects or at least the proposal of such projects. There also has to be secondary referral to original documentation. An agreement of comprehensive cooperation is great. But what are they going to do about it? There is a now a request to find actual proposals of possible collaboration or implementation of these assessments because the assessment itself is unusable as a claim in itself, or failing this references to a secondary source which describes some actual implications for this positive assessment.

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

More references on this matter:

[47] and [48] (section "Струны под сертификатом" in the second link)

They write: "The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies in the design, development, and implementation of string transport in the transport infrastructure. The agreement is long-term, it is related not only to extensive scientific and technical cooperation but also to analytical and socio-cultural activities. It will be especially interesting for graduates and young professionals who have graduated from MSUoRE, because their career horizons will expand in the near future."

I didn't find other links so far. The university is a governmental institution, so I think the main idea of this assessment is not that they will implement some commercial project(s) together but that the technology is technically feasible and is not "unsafe" anymore as it used to be in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Ozyory (Moscow region) test site is described in the onliner.by article viewable here [49]. I suggest we update the testing heading to include a brief description of this site something like the following:

  • In 2001 a prototype of a SkyWay track was constructed in Ozyory (Moscow region). but only A truck "with iron wheels" was tested on this track and it was later deconstructed.[onliner.by reference]

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is ok but it is better to remove "but only" as it supposes that there were bigger plans and they were not fully implemented. By Yunitskiy's word he is fully satisfied with that work.Dron007 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:Thanks - I've updated the text. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should add statements like "the test site was later deconstructed due to lack of funding" [50] without any reference to the reliable sources.Dron007 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed this sentence from the article. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I got a message from one of the main contributors to the Norwegian Wikipedia SkyWay article yesterday. He told me that it was hard to find verifiable references for the Ozyory site. I think he used the accompanying text to the Wikipedia commons images. According to the person who shared this image the site was taken apart in 2008 for scrap. There might be more information on the other phtoso. I imagine, however, that these texts are not really verifiable sources. The Onliner.by article discusses funding from the Russian government (Lebed). –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think there is general consensus over the fact that this site was later deconstructed. We don't need to know why especially if we don't mention the original funding by Lebed and the Russian government. I support returning the fact that 'This site was later deconstructed' but advice appreciated in this regard.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The original Onliner.by article viewable here [51] does indeed mention that the site was deconstructed. The actual wording is "Then in Russia the first testing ground was demolished."
This link has recent photos of what is still in existence at the Ozyory deconstructed test-site.[52]

The conclusion about the assessment of the technology by Moscow State University of Railway Engineering from 2008 is already outdated.

In early 2018, the technology underwent new expertise, and this time a positive conclusion was given. Here is a link from the official site of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering (in Russian):

[53]

They write: “The company "SkyWay" received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport. Certificates are issued for a unibus model U4-210 and a unibike model U4-621, which can be seen at the test site of transport - EcoTechnoPark. Today, string transport is a de facto separate type of transport, so certification was carried out to comply with the requirements of the regulatory documents of urban electric transport: Unibus U4-210 Certificate PDF, Unibike U4-621 PDF Certificate...

...SkyWay signed an agreement on comprehensive cooperation with the institution “Moscow State University of Railway Engineering”. A positive conclusion was made by the university on the work“ Preliminary Evaluation of the Development Prospects and the Field of Use of Innovative String-Rail Transport of SkyWay Rack Type".

Consider adding information about this assessment to the article, and delete or minify information about the old assessment from 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this source is that it is not an original material of MSUoRE but copy of an article from the "Transport of Russia" newspaper. It is dated Jan 2018 and in Dec 2017 there was a promoted material in the Skyway-related site: [54] (Russian) [55] (English) which is almost identical to this article including wordings like "As a reminder... the Expert Council under the Ministry of transport of the Russian Federation acknowledged SkyWay string technology as innovative." It looks like a Churnalism and I don't think we can use this material as it is just a copy of company's press-release.Dron007 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
We would need an independent secondary source to tell us the significance of the certification, but it looks to me like a routine step in the product development process that simply confirms that the vehicles meets certain regulatory requirements. We shouldn't treat this as a government endorsement or as a sign that the overall concept is workable or practical.
The nature of the agreement with the university is unclear, and again we would need secondary sources to tell us what it really means. We shouldn't treat this as a "reversal" of the university's position. It may be the case that the negative assessment still stands, and the university has agreed to work with Skyway to develop a concept that is more than just a novel idea. We just don't know. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Two secondary sources: [56] and [57] (section "Струны под сертификатом" in the second link). It is clearly stated that "The company SkyWay received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport." Did they issue the certificates if the technology was unsafe? No, they've changed their mind after the assessment, which is not unusual, since 10 years have passed, and the technology has been improved over this time. They write: "The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies in the design, development, and implementation of string transport in the transport infrastructure. The agreement is long-term, it is related not only to extensive scientific and technical cooperation but also to analytical and socio-cultural activities. It will be especially interesting for graduates and young professionals who have graduated from MSUoRE, because their career horizons will expand in the near future." The university is a governmental institution, so I think the main idea of this assessment is not that they will implement some commercial project(s) together but that the technology is technically feasible and is not "unsafe" anymore as it used to be in 2008. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately any decision made by a university, a regulatory agency or a government doesn't mean anything if it hasn't resulted in the application of this technology. What happens to the career horizons of young professionals is especially irrelevant. Discussions of possible future collaboration doesn't mean anything either if it hasn't resulted in any real proposals of future collaboration. A decision today doesn't negate the results of previous negative assessments either which are still true for actual decisions about the implementation of this technology. Maybe it will mean something in the future. But these references do not give any indication that they mean anything now. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
When someone has commented in a verifiable article on how this MSUoRE policy decision has resulted in actual application of this technology or at least to a proposal of implementation, we could change the article text. Until then it remains conjecture. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
you contradict yourself: if a positive assessment made by the university "...doesn't mean anything if it hasn't resulted in the application of this technology", then why is the negative assessment made by the same institution is emphasized in the article? If the positive assessment is unimportant and the technology can be assessed only when it is implemented somewhere, then why is the negative assessment included in the "Technology" section? This is what I have already said: the article is far away from being neutral, and if there was another negative assessment of the technology, I am sure it would be included in the article without hesitation. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I can see what your frustration is. Please make a suggestion how you propose we could word this better. A negative assessment is quoted because it was used as the basis for secondary sources and the choice to not implement the project in the past. You're right it is far easier to say that something resulted in a negative choice. Unfortunately this is the only verifiable realization of this (negative) decision. The positive assessment still doesn't mean anything until you're able to prove that thanks to this claim being made, something has happened that someone has documented. If you think we could word the 'negative assessment in a way that reflects better reality and this can be backed up with a verifiable reference, please include your suggestion below that someone other than me can assess. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, the 'technology' section is the result of a recent change by another user. It used to be called 'Assessment' and before that 'Safety & evaluation'. I didn't object to the name change because if it's called 'technology' we can change the content to include more about the technology when we have more verifiable references. I actually think 'Evaluation' would be a better title than 'Technology' but this new choice does offer more scope in the future. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a valid observation that so much specific information about only the (negative) assessment is now included in a heading which broadly describes the technology. This is misleading. Maybe someone (else) could change it to 'Evaluation' or something until we have enough valid content. It can always be changed in the future when the contents actually reflects the technology and not just its assessment in Russia. This is a very real problem I think. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for verifiable sources on EcoTechno Park, Belarus

REQUEST FOR VERIFIABLE SOURCE on the Belarusian EcoTechno Park which demonstrates the technology. Please only included sources which are published by a third party. Photos, YouTube films, brochures, contracts are interesting but cannot be used.

I think that information about their demonstration center - Ecotechno Park - should be added to the article. This is a real physical place in Belarus with many tracks and prototypes of their vehicles.

This place is even indicated on Google maps, and it has 1000+ photos and 100+ reviews: 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D0%AD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA+SkyWay/@53.49831,28.0968547,15.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46d9f4e64c40cfed:0x750e0048caf4b365!8m2!3d53.5006277!4d28.1007551?hl=en  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.197.219.110 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I think it should be mentioned too and I appreciate you bringing it up here before changing the article. Unfortunately there is no verifiable source currently referenced that actually discusses it in more than an anecdotal way. Believe me, we would like to mention it. It has been talked about in the past but we were forced to remove it not because we didn't want to but because the references were really, really bad. Thanks for the google link but we actually can't use it even if we find a verifiable link. it has to be a reference to a reliable source which actually talks about it. I understand your frustration. The second problem is that the verifiable references cannot simply say that 'someone claims to have invented this place'. It has to actually be a personal documentation of someone who has visited it and provides objective commentary on it; better still that they have performed academically verifiable tests. First or third-party witness accounts, no matter how objective they sound, are not in themselves useable. Posting links maps, photos, brochures and articles from sources who praise it (and are not published in academically recognized sources or by government institutions) in the article is against Wikipedia rules and I appreciate you not doing it. Thanks again –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I found this link. It is a third-party assessment from 2017. At that time they were still trying to get funding for the entire project which was in a 35 hectare property about 70km from Minsk. At the time of writing, they'd only been able to build a small section of it. :::http://belarusfeed.com/transport-of-the-future-video-shows-high-speed-string-vehicle-tested-in-belarus/

I think there should be sections about 1) the essense of the proposed technology and 2) current results. Otherwise the article is quite meaningless. The phrase "the companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors" doesn't look neutral. They raise money for some work, having some ideas. They have some results (models, techno park). Let's provide enough sources for reader to judge if the results meet the expectations. But simply removing both will confuse readers. Dron007 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC) To show what I mean, here are articles in Onliner, popular Belorussian resource (unfortunately they are in Russian only):

Onliner is very sceptical about the technology. Yunitsky even had initiated court process against it after one of the previous articles (there is a link in the latest one). But still you can find short description of the technology as Yunitsky sees it and current state of affairs in techno park in Maryina Gorka visited by journalists. So some information could be taken from these articles after proper translation. Dron007 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 - Excellent work. I'll check them, translate them when I can. I'll post the results on my talk page and included a summary here. I changed the name of this section to Request for verifiable sources on the 'EcoTechnoPark' in Belarus because the other articles changes have been addressed since the name change. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007 Now that I think about it, the article is actually now about the companies and not the technology; you'd have to be able to explain the financial connections with the SkyWay group of companies. And there is even less clear (verifiable) information about this. So actually you have to ask if the meaning of the article makes more or less sense with information about the EcoTechnoPark. Maybe we'd have to consider creating a separate article about the EcoTechnoPark. But I don't think that'd be really worth the trouble. Remember - you can set up a carnival attraction that travels faster and further on a monorail in a couple of days. There are already people who can design and implement things like this. Just go to Disneyland or in fact any attraction park to see very impressive examples of small scale transportation systems that in any case look more impressive than what you see with the slow-moving possibly passengerless vehicles that could only fit a few people in them. It's interesting however how these people have been able to construct a large-scale international business around it which is still getting people interested in investing money. You can't help admiring them even if you don't agree with what they're doing.
@Dron007 I think the sentence "they make lofty claims..." is more problematic than "they make money by promoting the sale of shares". But both sentences are completely backed up in the translated verifiable articles. I was very careful about this. But I will double-check them both with the references and try to make sure it sounds more neutral. And it seems not a problem to suggest that a company makes money by promoting and selling shares! Don't most companies do this? The problem that needs to be emphasized (and is still not mentioned but is backed up in the references) is that they sell shares DESPITE not having permission to do so in many countries. Thanks for your advice. I appreciate you bringing these issues up here. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is about the company but this company managed to interest investors and officials of some countries so it is easy to predict the questions of any reader: Why? What does this company "invented"? Any results? And there is nothing about it in the article. I also think that if the company which is declared as innovative already has a product (even as a concept) it worth adding its photo to the article even self-promoted one in case it looks the same as photos provided by mass-media. I don't think that EcoTechnoPark (or techno park in Shara) demands a separate article at this moment: not enough materials and probably low importance. But it worth mentioning. Comparing this transport with Disneyland we are making our own investigations and conclusions and we risk getting too deep into the technical details. As it was mentioned once here, Wiki is not a forum. Let's just provide sources of the required information and allow people to make their own judgements.Dron007 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the phrase "they make money by promoting the sale of shares" is that it creates illusion that it is the only thing that this company does. Especially with the fact we skipping any information about the products. I cannot agree that "most companies makes money by promoting and selling shares". They usually use money from selling shares as investments to create a product selling which they will make money. So in my opinion phrase above implies "it is a scam" but we don't have such facts yet. Yes, it needs to mention the absense of permissions to sell shares in some countries. We also could mention that some Skyway companies evade this limitation selling "educational services/courses" instead but it is harder to find good sources for that.Dron007 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is one more source on EcoTechnoPark in Maryina Horka:
* https://42.tut.by/603396
It is another popular belorussian site. The journalist visited techno park. The article looks quite neutral. We can use short description of "technology" from there and maybe the fact that there are moving vehicles in EcoTechnoPark.Dron007 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007 - Thank you for the links and you valid comments about the writing. It's important to only include verifiable statements that do not suggest partisanship. And it's only with someone else helping you that you can create something reliable. I didn't mean to offend with my comment about the comparison with an amusement park; I just wanted to point out that this technology in the context of a short-length monorail-type transport system is not really very remarkable which probably explains why there is so little actual critical commentary on it. Needless to say I will triple-check the sentence on the sale of shares and make it sound more neutral (if someone hasn't already changed it). You will notice that the title of the first section has changed from "Safety & evaluation" to "Evaluation of the SkyWay technology". Because it doesn't specifically mention 'safety' anymore we could probably introduce a sub-heading for the EcoTechnoPark. After all, if this park is useful for anything, it's evaluation of this technology. All we need is some actual research. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007 - I checked my reference and I changed my sentence accordingly. I described my change at the end of the next section on 'fact-checking'. The new sentence sounds even more critical but it does more accurately represent what the reference actually says. My intention was not to suggest that this was the only thing the company did to make money. But you are right to suggest that the sentence I wrote gave this impression and I'm grateful you shared your opinion with me. I hope the change is more fair to the material and you don't consider it misleading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander Thank you, I think it sounds much better and neutral now. Even they site informs investors about risky investments.Dron007 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)'
@Dron007 The pleasure is mine. It really helps to know that someone is listening to you and it actually means a lot more if you have confirmation for what you do. I translated the 'TYT.BY' article. It's really very interesting and has lots of photos. Because it's not scientific research - and it's an anecdotal description - it's hard to use it on its own. But it is fascinating to read nonetheless and I agree that enough convincing, third-party commentary has to be worth considering. I will publish the translation after I've improved it on my Talk Page and invite some other people to read it. It makes me curious to read the 'Onliner' articles and I hope that with these articles we can do something with this material. I'm afraid that you have to ask yourself: among all these everyday people who are convinced to part with their money, why are there no scientists who provide critical commentary? It seems that the scientific world remains breathtakingly silent on a subject which has received so much (questionable) financing. What do you think? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

- I have translated 3 links from well known Belarusian online feeds concerning the EcoTechnoPark about 70km from Minsk. It will take me a while to clean these translations up so that they make sense. They contain a lot of colloquialisms and spoken language. The are filled with unverifiable photos and opinions. So they are very interesting and are filled with facts but, as you'd expect, no reference to scientific research or in fact informed commentary. Still, I will include them on my the user:Zaxander talk page when I've finished. In the meantime I suggest a subheading be created in 'Evaluation of the SkyWay technoloy' section and that we use the following text which reflects the current verifiable material on this park:

  • "In the EcoTechnoPark about 70km from Minsk, the SkyWay Group has constructed a site where ‘SkyWay’ technology is demonstrated. There is unfortunately still no verifiable scientific evaluation of this site."
It is good for start. On some Onliner's articles there were references to scientific evaluations (e.g. video of prof. Vladimir Zylev) but there is contradictory information. Professors of the same Institute of Transport give opposite conclusions. Dron007 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Information we need as soon as possible: when was this park actually established? The 'Belarus feed' article suggests that 'last year' they started working on it. It was published two years ago. There must already be at least one reliable source that clearly states when they started working on this site? Others say they are still working on it. Others that it is rusty and falling apart. But there must be some consensus on when it actually started. It seems pretty flimsy to introduce an idea without being able to give a definite idea of when it was started. But I did it anyway because there is so much material on this place. It's just hard to find clear information. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
According to their site the work was started in August 2015 [58]. More of less independant 3rd party sources (local news site) are dated by October 2015 [59]. They created different types of roads, built guest house, pond, fishing places, garden, even place to grow watermelons. So there is no moment when it was finished, they still build new constructions there. It is said in Tut.By article dated June 2017 [60] that they are "finishing building the test site". By the way it is another good article which has a lot of useful information from sceptical/neutral journalist. Dron007 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007 Thank you. It's great to have a date and a reference we can use. I've added this to the description and changed it so that it confirms the fact that they started working on it at this time rather than 'have constructed' it because it seems from many sources that they have not finished it yet. I will check out the 'TUT.BY' reference. I think there are at least 3 'ONLINER.BY' articles (but I have only translated 2). I love the watermelon patch! –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
There are at least 8 Onliner articles tagged Skyway: https://tech.onliner.by/tag/skyway Dron007 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007 The ONLINER.BY article "Is it an April Fools Day joke?" from August 2018 is really interesting. I will clean up the translation and post this one on my talk page eventually. It attempts to answer many of the questions I pose below about how the company actually works - the promotion of profits above technology but also the unwavering belief of many people who do work for the company (and are not necessarily scientists). Thanks again for this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
It will be very useful. There are few English materials. Dron007 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:Oh - My three translations of ONLINER.BY and TUT.BY articles were absolutely awful. Google translate is unfortunately not good at translating anecdotal Russian sources (and my Russian is far worse than Google). Sorry about making this promise to publish these translations but they're just not good enough. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
That's okay. For our purpose we need only basic understanding of the article and translation of quotes if we are going to use them.Dron007 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:There are many photos of the technology at EcoTechnoPark but I can't find one in a really good source. Some of them are really good photos in the 'ONLINER.BY' and 'TUT.BY' articles but it would be better to use one in a more verifiable source. If we are to include an image, I think it should be one from this park because it shows actual moving vehicles. There's no point in illustrating stationary vehicles at a fair, university or a governmental summit. The Ozery site has also been deconstructed and I can't find any verifiable links to it anyway. Can you find a good, clear photo in a reliable source? If you can I think we should include it as soon as possible. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander:The first event came to my mind that was covered by many reliable sources with photos is an incident with unibus: [61][62][63][64][65]. Of course that wouldn't be right to use such photos. Unfortunately most photos of good quality are from press releases and other promoted materials or advertisements of the company like these: [66][67].Dron007 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:You came to the same conclusion I did: we can't use an image just yet - we'll just have to keep an eye out. Any image which shows moving vehicle without observers taking photos or accidents would probably do.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:One of the ONLINER.BY articles on SkyWay and the EcoTechnoPark has been translated into German and shared on the Burrenblog, a recognized German access point for collecting legal information on questionable business ventures: [68] This makes it a secondary source that means no one can doubt that it is simply anecdotal. There's also an article there on the crypto-currency. Thanks for the new Italian reference! –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander:Great. If it is not a personal blog but a reliable resource we can use it.Dron007 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a quote from the Borrenblog German translation of the Russian Onliner.by text: "EcoTechnoPark is far removed from real-world conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds or safety parameters... Finally, EcoTechnoPark is ... nothing more than a small recreational park for Skyway disciples with experience."–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a quote from a translation of the tut.by article you can view here: [69] "There are only three tracks here - one for heavy transport unibuses with a maximum capacity of 48 people, the second, the fastest, for 14-seater unibuses (“minibuses”), another one — the highest with sagging spans — for 6-seater unicars." -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Below is the proposal for an extension to the text on the EcoTechnoPark based on the two references listed above:

Testing
In October 2015 the SkyWay Group started constructing a test site to demonstrate 'SkyWay' technology. It is situated in Marjina Horka (about 70km from Minsk) and is called the EcoTechnoPark.[MH province reference]. In August 2018 there were three tracks demonstrating prototypes at this site. One is for heavy transport vehicles a vehicle with a maximum capacity of 48 people. The second track is for 14-seater vehicles and the third, 6-seater vehicles.[tut.by reference] Critics of the EcoTechnoPark have commented on the fact UnfortunatelyCurrently it is still impossible to draw scientific conclusions about the maximum speed or safety parameters from these prototypes because "it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds".[onliner.by reference].

adjusments made to improve the EcoTechnoPark text extension –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Any suggestions or advice on this text appreciated. The length of this text as it is now obviously has to be extended. A single image can also be included. But I suggest that copious descriptions of the technology is misleading because surprisingly little has been published since they started developing this site in 2015. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander:Looks good for me but this is Yunitskiy's phrase (probably not exact quote but the meaning is the same): "it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds". So "critics of the EcoTechnoPark have commented on the fact" part is not required. Not sure about the number of tracks as it could be obsolete information. But that is good for start. Dron007 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: 1)"There are three tracks currently in use at this site". This information can be inaccurate since the process of the construction is ongoing and they may have built more tracks since that publication. So I propose to replace "three" with "several" in this sentence. 2) They do not have "heavy transport vehicles". The correct name is "unibus" or a "multi-seat urban vehicle" (but not "heavy"). 3) In the last sentence, it is propably better to use "...on the fact that it is impossible to estimate the maximum speed of these prototypes because tracks are not long enough to achieve high speeds". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, in August 2018 when tut.by attended the EcoTechnoFair there were 3 tracks and this is what the reference says. If a newer reference states that there are new tracks that have been built maybe we should replace this with new information. But if they haven't, you could safely say in "in August 2018 there were 3 tracks in operation". -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion is "Currently, it is impossible to estimate the maximum speed of these prototypes because tracks are not long enough to achieve high speeds" (without any "unfortunately", "however" and similar emotional words). Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Current proposed EcoTechnoPark text:

Let me know when there is consensus so I can post it. We can always change it later when we have more references.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to be accurate in quoting. There is no "it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds" quote in the original source [72]. It has the following phrase instead: «By Yunitskiy, due to a negative attitude from Belorussian scientists and government they still haven't got 21-km plot to carry out speed tests even though they "got 16 permissions"». So we cannot make our own synthesis insisting that it is a fact. It is just an opinion of the inventor which may be criticized. There is also another context of mentioning safety measurements. It is in another source [73] and it is given as Yunitskiy's qoute: "At the moment there is no any Skyway element which was certified, which doesn't allow us make even any preliminary assessment of safety". Saying honestly I doubt that Yunitskiy said exactly that but that is what we have in the article and we have to avoid synthesis. This article is quite old (2017) and there were some certifications after that. It is a separate big issue as there was a lot of criticism about what exactly was certified and whether it proofs anything. Dron007 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:Thanks for your advice; that's probably what you get for using the translation of a translation! For the moment we can include the information we do know about the three tracks described from the EcoTechnoFest in August 2018 at tut.by. In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions about additional information based on the verifiable references of EcoTechnoPark, post it here. I'll make the translations I have accessible as well.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Translation of ONLINER.BY article from 5 September 2016

A translation from the popular Belarusian newsfeed 'Onliner.by' can now be viewed at the @Zaxander: talk page. It is the first article on SkyWay that later resulted in legal action by Yunitskiy and his associates for libel. These legal proceedings were unsuccessful. Since this original article, at least three more publications on SkyWay have followed. The most recent publication has recently been translated into German. This article doesn't have a lot of information about the EcoTechnoPark (it was still quite new when this article was published; they'd only started working on it a year before) - but it was published while they were still building it and is largely in reaction to their return to Belarus after the unsuccessful projects in Australia and Lithuania. But the more recent articles make more sense if you read this one first. Two of the other Onliner.by articles appear to be transcriptions of actual interviews some of which were made for this article. You can view the original here: [74]

Илон Маск — чушь собачья, несите деньги мне. Белорус основал «компанию на $400 млрд» и строит под Минском «сверхскоростной» Sky Way
5 September 2016
Elon Musk is nonsense – give me the money instead. A Belarusian founded “a company worth $400 billion” and is building a “superfast” SkyWay near Minsk

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The recent Italian article viewable here: [75] suggests that the EcoTechnoPark is "just a theme park ('un parco tematico')" and the German translation of the Onliner.by article viewable here [76] suggests that the EcoTechnoPark "is designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string [technology] at low speed and is nothing more than a small scale park for Skyway disciples with no experience". Suggestion for an addition to the description of the EcoTechnoPark testing facility:

  • ...It has been suggested, however, that the EcoTechnoPark is little more than a "theme park" [Italian ref] unfit for high-speed testing, being described as a low speed "small-scale park for SkyWay disciples" [onliner.by reference]

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  • [alternatively]...It has been suggested, however, that the EcoTechnoPark is more amusement park than testing facility. Onliner.by, for example, describes it as a low speed "small-scale park for SkyWay disciples" and MilanoToday as a "theme park".
IMHO enough verifiable sources comment on the fact that the EcoTechnoPark is more an amusement park than a testing facility and the description needs to be balanced with this criticism (especially considering it being included under a heading for 'testing'). Please include your criticism and suggestions below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we need to add this phrase. How could Onliner know that EcoTechnoPark wasn't used as a testing facility? They should monitor it 24/7 to be sure which I doubt they did. At the same time there were videos showing specialist from sertification center inside vehicles. Theme/amusement parks suppose to allow anyone to use park amusement for money. EcoTechnoPark doesn't work in this mode except one day per year when there is an Eco Fest. Dron007 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:They don't suggest that it's never used as a testing facility; just that because it can't perform at high speeds, is not situated realistically far from the ground and is in the country and nowhere near any other buildings, that it could not realistically produce real-life parameters necessary for testing especially considering the length of the tracks which restrict the speed which the vehicles can reach, at least in August 2018 with the three tracks and vehicles present. The articles I read emphasize the fact that the 'testing' site cannot reproduce the conditions necessary for testing. Yunitskiy himself states emphatically that the length of the tracks make it impossible for the vehicles to achieve a high speed. The scientific facts in the articles suggest it would be physically impossible for them to get faster than 80km per hour, and that if they did they could vibrate and cause an accident. An accident is actually documented. And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour. These articles document the fact that as a 'testing' site it doesn't really do a very good job and suggest that it is not really designed to perform this function. But I've never been there, so I can only recite the facts that are told to me in these articles. The recent German translation which emphasizes the validity of the scientific documentation in the original Onliner.by article caused me to go back and pay more attention to them. But this problem remains: when you only have three sentences, a fourth sentence that is critical in any way is going to sound unintentionally biased and would no doubt prove to be reductive rather than informative and I can certainly see potential problems. Are there any facts in the article you think should be included? -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: all these reasonings like "is not situated realistically far from the ground", "it could not realistically produce real-life parameters necessary for testing", "the articles I read emphasize the fact that the 'testing' site cannot reproduce the conditions necessary for testing" - nothing more than your original research WP:NOR. Secondly, they are journalists, not scientists, so they cannot state any "scientific facts", they can only express the view (just like you). The fact that during visits of journalists vehicles drove at low speed can be explained by considerations of the safety of visitors. In my opinion, the "Testing" and "Evaluation" sections do not need to be modified until new articles appear (new articles are not a translation of two years old articles into other languages). I also think that such proposals about an "amusement park", in my opinion, only alienate the article from the neutral point of view and not vice versa. Please remember that there is a whole section "Advocacy and NPOV needs to stop", and this discussion should move in that direction. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:The German translation suggests that the extensive scientific credentials of the article are very good. They seem very well informed to me. The good thing about the Onliner.by is that they combine discussion of the 'science' by reputable Belarusian organisations with detailed descriptions of the business model of a company that employs people to create misleading and dishonest propaganda. Maybe you don't think these journalists are any good. The German Van Burren blog, however, disagrees with you. Even if none of the Onliner article makes it to the article, I think it's important that people get the chance to read what these journalists had to say on the talk page. You can't discount them just because they are 'two years old'. These articles were considered important enough in January of this year to translate by a reputable German blogger who comments on the legal aspects of illegal financial scams. I'm going to publish the complete translations of these articles with a summary of main points and useable quotes from the article here. Anyone is then free to use or ignore them as they feel fit. But I agree, it's hard to extend a text which is only a few sentences long without sounding partisan and 'amusement park' may sound unintentionally negative. this is nonetheless what many references say. I also look forward to new articles but discounting verified sources from the past which contain scientific information which is confirmed by third-parties and translators is not very helpful. We can only use existing articles, not fantasize about ones that may appear in the future. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:@Dron007:Thanks for helping me with this by the way. I really appreciate your opinions and I certainly listen to them. I'll continue to translate and summarise the sources I have and publish the information here for assessment. If you have ideas for information you think should be included, please post it here for discussion. Let me know if I can help and keep up the good work checking my suggestions.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: It is obvious that the blogger "who comments on the legal aspects of illegal financial scams" (this is your words, not mine) is not an expert in assessing speed, safety and other technical characteristics of vehicles. In addition, your hints that someone here allegedly creates "misleading and dishonest propaganda" are just amusing for me. There is not a word of propaganda in the article. I personally think that it is much more likely that some of the company's ill-wishers hire people who devote all their time (even on weekends) to translating and analyzing only critical articles about the company and its technology. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:It doesn't help anyone to suggest that people are corrupt or are wasting their time doing translations of material they find. If you think I should be spending my time on other material, you could help by finding and recommending other sources. The article, by the way, goes into detailed discussion of three staff members who have a history of working for pyramid marketing and who make money from 'pyramid schemes'. They are responsible for the webinars and film material used in SkyWay publicity. I'm just retelling what is in the article. If you think this is wrong, criticize the source material because there is something wrong with it. Don't shoot the messenger; read the message or provide your own alternative messages. Tell me what's wrong with it. The German translator who posted this article is obviously not a science expert. He delegates this task to the Belarusian experts quoted in the article. You can read it here in German,[77]. But if you think there's something wrong with the article, criticize it and not how I spend my weekends. Real criticism can be valuable and helpful. Suggesting I'm corrupt and critizing how I spend my weekends doesn't really achieve anything.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: As I said, and I repeat, all these arguments have nothing to do with the proposal to include "amusement park" in the article. I am not going to continue this discussion, everything is the same, we agree to disagree. But for the future, before offering to add such controversial "scientific facts" to the article, please avoid your original research WP:NOR and synthesis WP:NOTSYNTH - "where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew-Postelniak:Agree to disagree? I don't think so. I agree with most of your criticism. That's why I post to the talk page; to make suggestions and help improve the page. I post things here in good faith to argument on whether or not they could be valid changes. You, however, attacked the source material without actually addressing it, and worse still you made entirely unfounded claims about corruption and how I spend my weekends. Please keep your personal opinions to yourself. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: I have analyzed German translation and see that it has statements which don't exist in original Onliner article including answers from National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (4-page document) and answer from Belorussian State University of Transport (3-page document). For example there is no anything after "Notes:" (I used English translation of German blog article made with Google Translate). I mean this quote: "Note: Eco-Park is far removed from real-life conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds, nor does it have safety parameters in place.) Eco-Park is designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string at low speed and nothing else. Quasi a small recreational park for Skyway disciples without aha experience." Maybe they used another materials but we cannot rely on incorrect translation/synthesis. I also couldn't find anything about "not situated realistically far from the ground and is in the country and nowhere near any other buildings" neither in Onliner (original and German versions) nor in Italian article. Could you please give sources/quotes for these statements? Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander:You have mentioned that "The scientific facts in the articles suggest it would be physically impossible for them to get faster than 80km per hour, and that if they did they could vibrate and cause an accident. An accident is actually documented. And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour." I'll comment these statements one by one. 1) The statement in the documents says that the theoretical research done by scientists showed that is was possible to minimize the frequency of vibrations of 5 ton module only at 80 km/h speed using short distance between piers. At the same time there is a statement in 4-page document that declared speeds (500 km/h) are theoretically reachable but there are technical problems. That is not the same as "impossible". We probably need to do en exact translation of the origingal 3-page and 4-page documents not to quote them (primary source) but to check whether they were correctly used by the secondary sources. 2) Accident was not mentioned directly in any source but is implied in statements about max speed. What accident do you mean by "an accident is actually documented"? Is it the fact that I added some time ago when unibike hit the loader? It was removed later as not important. If so it is not connected in any way with the problems which appear in high speeds. It is more about overall safety of the system and low height of the railroad in EcoTechnoPark. I added it to show that despite the declared high safety standards there are obvious problems. 3) "And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour". Although it is a real fact during the EcoFest when there are many visitors in EcoTechnoPark there is no any evidence it is the maximum of speed ever reached. I haven't seen anything about this speed in any of the discussed articles.Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander:So as we see the following is not quite correct at least for the discussed articles: "These articles document the fact that as a 'testing' site it doesn't really do a very good job and suggest that it is not really designed to perform this function." So what facts from articles can be included? Re-reading 4-page document I have to say that it is rather unspecific. It can be used both as positive and negative resolution depending on which statements are choosen. Maybe we can mention that scientists recommended to launch additional tests and scientific research and also perform an independent expertise. We can take facts about unrealistic promises e.g. about the road in Mogilev as there is a document about it. Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dron007:Thanks for these interesting comments. I'll copy them to the new discussion below on each ONLINER.BY article and the translations. We can specify there also the difference between the original and the translation. At the end there are a number of additional comments and I summed these up in a summary which I will publish in a few minutes. I will also publish the complete translation. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

For anyone's interest, here is a translation into English of the Onliner.by article from 22 February 2019: "I invested 6,600 dollars in SkyWay...". You can view it here:[78] The original Russian article is viewable here: [79] A summary of the German translation will follow.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As the ONLINER.BY articles are not only about the EcoTechnoPark but introduce facts pertinent to the complex investment apparatus adopted by SkyWay in its marketing, I suggest a new heading be created specifically for these articles, their translation and possibly legal actions taken by Yunitskiy against Onliner.by or the Burrenblog. You can address any specific concerns you have about the validity of the claims made in these articles and their translations here. Please include only valid criticism or commentary on the CONTENTS of these articles and the facts within not your personal opinions about the translators possible reason for including them or the time they spend on translating them.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:I noticed in the discussion above that the you think that the 'reader' could be curious about the technology. I've been trying to address this concern for awhile. Seeing that there is absolutely no real description of what SkyWay actually is, I went to the verified references. All of them provide some sort of description of SkyWay, i.e. driverless vehicles driving on sleeperless tracks consisting of pre-strained cables extended between concrete pylons. Going back to the original Sidorovich/Onliner article which provides commentary on the technology, I extracted the following from the text and added it to the overview. As there is no heading that describes the actual technology, it could be also added to the 'evaluation' heading but it's probably better here. This text would make a lot more sense to the 'curious reader' with an illustration. I look forward to hear your opinion on this. –Zachar (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • ...Yunitskiy's technology often referred to as 'String Transport' involves the movement of driverless vehicles on sleeperless tracks elevated above the ground on concrete supports. The 'string' refers to the bundle of prestressed tensioned steel wires placed in a concrete-filled body.[onliner2016]...
I think that's exactly what is required. Dron007 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Connection between the engineer Yunitsky and the SkyWay company group

Here is some information from a Russian source on the real connection between Yunitsky, the SkyWay group of companies and the different forms of theory used to defend the financing techniques they use. I found it on a site discussing the way this crowdfunding works. It concludes that it is a pyramid scheme. The problem is, however, that it appears that there are some companies that are not directed by Yunitsky himself such as 'SkyWay Capital' and this is confusing. There are users who are suggesting that the SkyWay finding has nothing to do with the scientific theory which is valid in an of itself and is deserving of ... more funding. This is a link to the page which includes a description of the financial techniques and a complex discussion by economists of the problematic and illegal nature of the way these companies attempt to get funding: https://behindmlm.com/mlm-reviews/skyway-capital-review-russian-transport-funding-22-daily-rois/

On this page I found a source who describes the complex history of Yunitsky and his schemes which date back more than fourty years. Some of it is anecdotal but links to real sources are included:

"Sorry for my English just want to share info from Russian Internet collected by many people in forum topic having hundreds of pages: mmgp.ru/showthread.php?t=247224&page=108. Maybe you don’t have access to many materials about Yunitsky and his company, maybe they are not translated to English but there a lot of them in Russian. I have to say that it would be very risky to have business with this company. Here are some facts. Yunitsky works on this idea almost 40 years and still don’t have working prototype (only slow and unstable one). They gather money for this project using MLM system which looks like Ponzi scheme: while company doesn’t earn money there are people who already raise money on it inviting other people. That’s why there is so much spam and lie about potential profit of this company. Yunitsky had some conflict with his previous partners and there are some judicial proceedings related to it. Skyway company tried to work with Lithuanian government but they interrupted it suspecting Yunitsky in fraud. Here you can read about it: http://bnn-news.com/genuine-investment-project-boondoggle-scheme-lithuania-national-security-threat-119828. There were testing area in Ozerki several years ago but there was also some conflict and the work was terminated. Yunitsky is known to ask money for his projects from governments, municipalities, politics but he still doesn’t show working system ready for usage. At the same time in one of his business plans he set his salary as about 12 thousands dollars per month (not bad!). He now gathers money from people promising them taking part in his intellectual property which was valued in 400 billions dollars. I can continue, there are many facts of lie, many doubtful engeneering ideas, but it is hard for me to explain it in English. I have to say that I am pretty sure that his project is unrealistic, unprofitable and maybe even danger for potential passengers. There is no certification for this transport, there were no tests in real life. They are just looking for places where they will be able to test this project. Hope you would think carefully before having any contracts with this man and his company. Here you can read investor’s memorandum and see offshore scheme: files.z-domansky.eu/200000342-1e6161f5d8/Memorandum EN.pdf

So Anatoly is not just guilty by association. He directs these companies that use crowdfunding and other dubious sources of funding. Any additional companies that do not use his name but profit from the same technology are the ones guilty by association, but we have no proof these companies are not involved with Yunitsky as well.

Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

What confusing is in that a General designer is not an owner or manager of investment foundation that acts as a third party contactor? It is quite logical and normal in business and it looks like baby talk or like nagging to find any problem there. The transport is developed by “String Technologies” having nothing to do with investment foundations whom Yunitskiy has transferred his intellectual property right for evaluation and investment raising 181
And what’s fraud in MLM? There are many successful companies using this approach that are on the market during more than 50 years selling just health, beauty, and home care products with billions sale volumes. So why to find unrealistic to have just 100 times more for a global transport solution to spam Wikipedia by multiple refers to the same troll blog post? Blogs are not reliable sources nor are forum conversations like the one cited above with repeated and repeated claims about risks. SkyWay doesn’t exclude the risk that is normal and appropriate for any venture start up as well as for any business in general. But the venture risk cannot be a ground for only-warning selection contributed as WP article about the project. As it is actually this is pure WP:Hoax that must be deleted or completely reedited.--George Marshal (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Baby talk or nagging? That's new! Yes there are MLM companies that sell beauty and health care products (like Amway and Herbalife) but SkyWay is different: it has no product, just an idea which is [1] not at all new (Yunitskiy invented it fourty years ago) and [2] the scientific community has rejected as unviable and unsafe. Please state which 'troll Blog' posts you mean that are being continuously referred to in the article. Please note that the YouTube film here shows Kudryashov, the director of SkyWay Capital with a shady history in network marketing, in the same film as Yunitskiy. Zachar (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That's the thing that SkyWay is different as it is not an MLM company. It is transport innovation. Having arisen 40 years ago it remained unique “just an idea” until recently. Now the working Unibus U4-210 122 , Unibus U4-220 220 , Unibike U4-621 621 transport models are certified or are passing approval tests and are going to become the real SkyWay products in distinct from their potential technology competitors 15. Generally the article should be named “String technologies” and contain detailed description of the history, nutshell, principles, application, challenges etc. and refer to its author’s and third party sources as well as related documents issued during all the 40 years. No matter will it be globally implemented or not the technology have been invented, designed, officially recognized and registered, currently exists and is being continued to be developed that was and is confirmed by hundreds of official and reliable sources http://yunitskiy.com/ . Foundations can be mentioned as an additional paragraph dedicated to last years financing of the technology development and implementation attempts. But again: it’s completely wrong and irrelevant for WP to call the SkyWay technology “SkyWay Group” and associate its author with MLM that is used as an additional promotion trick even not by him but bu another financial contractors as SkyWay Capital and other foudaions mentioned by you at every step are.--George Marshal (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the complex set of SkyWay companies registered in tax havens but operated from a central location in Belarus. You are welcome to create a different article on the technology if you think that there are enough scientifically verified resources suggesting that this technology is notable and verifiable. Zachar (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The articles included above are to self-published resources on Yunitskiy's websites. You want to change the article back to exactly how it was when it consisted only of links to YouTube films and self-published pseudoscience articles self-published by SkyWay? Wikipedia is designed to represent verified published articles and not unverified, uncertified pseudoscience. Please note that George's last posting actually shows Yunitskiy and Kudryashov of SkyWay Capital in the same film and that Yunitskiy has employed pyramid marketers like him for years to promote his untested technology.Zachar (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes have resulted in the total removal of Yunitskiy's name from the opening paragraph. ANATOLY YUNITSKIY, however, is mentioned in almost every verifiable source. He attends all SkyWay events. He invented the technology. According to verifiable sources he is the business-man who founded the company and owns the shares. He is pictured in all international photos which involved the signing of contracts. If a verifiable source does not mention him personally, it doesn't mention anyone else either. It seems fairly unambiguous to assume that Yunitskiy is very much involved in some way with all SkyWay projects. Furthermore, it is misleading to not include his name in any description of either his companies or his technology. I suggest the opening paragraph begin with the words "The SkyWay Group refers to a group of companies associated with the inventor Anatoly Yunitskiy". If you disagree, please explain why below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Finally there can be a little bit of consensus signs on that Anatoliy Yunitskiy’s name cannot be separated from SkyWay as he’s author of the technology who continue to be its Chief designer and developer. While on the other hand it’s fundamentally wrong to associate SkyWay with investment foundations. First of all SkyWay is a mode of transport even though non implemented yet however wit already certified models that is confirmed by Lithuanian (again!!) reliable publication 75301
The title of the article in Lithuanian makes the following bold claim: "[SkyWay Technology] is already deployed by the United Arab Emirates". It's just not true: they haven't built anything in Sharjah far less Dubai; they just talk about it a lot. The second paragraph? This technology is apparently "record-breaking" AND "ground-breaking" despite it not having been built anywhere or tested by officially accredited organizations. Paragraph three? The EcoTechnoPark is actually 'certifying' the technology it demonstrates despite the Belarusian scientific community refusing it official recognition as a scientific organization. There is absolutely no way they can certify their own technology. Zachar (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Then this is innovative technology start up with design bureaus, production assets, teams of scientists, engineers and constructors 302 And somewhere at the end we could mention that its financing was undertaken by few exclusively created investment foundations using crowdfunding and MLM. However they are not a face of SkyWay, they are tools used for the technology building.--George Marshal (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This YouTube film's title actually translates to "Path to IPO (Initial Public Offering)". This is referring to the path that SkyWay says it is on for the day it will be "go public" and start selling its shares on the open-market. Since this technology is untested and uncertified by officially recognized scientific organisations (and that it is entirely impossible for it to certify its own technology) it is highly unlikely this company will ever offer its shares anywhere ever. The information they tell you about its investment products which it is using to sell 'Convertible Notes' to an unsuspecting public, is information they make up themselves. Despite what they tell you 'Convertible Loan Notes' are registered securities and SkyWay has not obtained the necessary prospectus to sell any investment products anywhere. They have no actual obligation to transfer your CLNs into shares when they "go public". What do you have to convince you otherwise? Sleekly produced and marketed films made by network marketers and people like George who tell you that these films are somehow proof that this company will one day legally offer its shares and all those small scale investors who lent them money will become millionaires. Zachar (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
"They have no actual obligation to transfer your CLNs into shares when they "go public". What do you have to convince you otherwise? " Every investment comes with Convesrtible note Agrement Agreement and Requirement od security shqres --George Marshal (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Convertible bonds are registered securities that require a prospectus. No SkyWay company has published a prospectus in any of the countries in which it is active. CLNs are also not 'sold' to the general public. Read this article for more information about reasons to question the claims that SkyWay makes about its 'Pre-IPO investment products' which it offers as convertible loan notes: [80]
"Investment in SkyWay Capital is an investment in a pre-IPO of SkyWay. SkyWay Capital is not quoted in any country as of today. You must know that you are taken a lot of risk in investing in any company doing the pre-IPO offering."
-Zachar (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with that, unless sources clearly discuss the association. What we know is that the "Skyway Group is promoting a technology by Anatoly Yunitskiy".--DreamLinker (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yunitskiy writes that he is a president of Skyway group of compantie on his personal sites [81][82] and it is written in official site of RSW Systems[83], there is his signature on such-called "certificate of shares".Dron007 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe we should rely on good news websites, instead of the company's website or his personal website.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Let's look here[84]. It is said about "company and its shareholders Anatoly Yunicky and Nadezhda Kosareva", and referring to the Bank of Lithuania: "Rail Skyway Systems had distributed shares of Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd., a UK-registered firm headed and owned by Yunicky". So he (with his wife) is definitely the owner of the company, not just an engineer.Dron007 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is another source: [85]. "Junicki’s commercial schemes, according to several Lithuanian prominent analysts, like Swedbank economist Nerijus Mačiulis, are simply elaborate scams dazzling possible investors with supposedly lucrative profit from holding stake in an array of London-based, ostensibly large-scale asset companies. «Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ldt.», «American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.», « African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. », «Australian&Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd » and, set purposely to Lithuania, «Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.» are a few to be mentioned. All these companies’ declared capital reportedly stands at a whopping 235.1 billion British pounds, which would put Junicki, holding a 10-percent stake, on the Forbes’ 10 world richest men list."Dron007 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Almost every single verifiable resource already mentioned specifically refers to Yunitskiy. If they don't mention him they don't mention anyone else either. In most references, Yunitskiy is mentioned in every paragraph. I've checked all the references. It is misleading to not include him in the first paragraph. I've included this as a separate heading below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Updating Marketing

In light of recent references the marketing heading needs to be updated. It should included more background information that makes sense of how the offshore SkyWay empire started, why Yunitskiy chose this form of self-financing and how these companies market their products. It also needs to contain documentation about the products being marketed, particularly the EPIs (which were banned in Italy in February 2018) and the crypto-currencies SkyWay has recently started marketing. We need all the help we can get on this. Please note that this is just a proposal; make your own changes or add any suggestions below:

Recent references have also documented the SkyWay Group using other marketing techniques like telemarketing and television advertising. The text needs to be updated to include this. Zachar (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Offshore companies
According to Business Insider Italia, the negative assessment in Russia in 2008 led Anatoly Yunitskiy to start self-financing his projects. This led to the creation of offshore SkyWay companies which were responsible for the marketing of various investment products.[1]
The SkyWay Group's major offshore location is in the British Virgin Islands, a tax-haven.[2] The SkyWay Group claim that the company registered here ("Global Transport Investment Inc.") owns the intellectual property of SkyWay which it values at more than four hundred billion dollars ($400,867,433,000).[3] They also own and control other shell companies like "Sky Way Invest Group Limited" ('SWIG') and "SkyWay Capital Ltd." which function primarily as fundraisers.[4]. These companies are registered in another offshore location, Saint Lucia.[1]
Marketing
In addition to demonstration models at the EcoTechnoPark in Belarus, the company has exhibited its technology at trade fairs like the 3rd Singapore International Transport Congress and Exhibition (SITCE)[5] and InnoTrans 2018 in Berlin.[6] The SkyWay Group markets itself primarily by promoting investment in its technology to small investors.
The SkyWay Group have been seeking potential investors all over the world using various forms of marketing such as crowdfunding,[7] telemarketing[8] and multi-level marketing where investors are promised remuneration for convincing other people to attend SkyWay sales meetings.[4][9] Motivated sales meetings have been documented in countries like Nigeria,[10] Norway,[11] Slovenia [4] and Vietnam.[12]
SkyWay Group companies like "SkyWay Capital Ltd."[13] offer "astronomical" returns on investment.[4] Companies that are engaged in attracting investment, however, have not received permission to sell shares in the countries in which they are active. They also disclaim any liability if investors lose their money.[4] Financial regulatory agencies have warned that these companies show the characteristics of a pyramid scheme[14] and that they could be involved in a scam.[15]
To circumvent these regulatory warnings, the company "Sky Way Invest Group Limited" started marketing 'Educational Investment Packages' (EIPs)[16] to help customers "learn while they earn".[17] CONSOB, the Italian financial regulatory agency, banned the sale and advertisement of these investment products in February 2018 because it turned out customers unwittingly received gift certificates for company shares.[18]
Early in 2019 the SkyWay Group started marketing cryptocurrencies in the form of SkyWay Tokens and CryptoUnits. They claim that this new investment product is based on the value of real assets and that it will generate monthly dividends.[19][20] These claims have been disputed.[21][22]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference BII2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://rsw-systems.com/contacts
  3. ^ https://skyway.capital/about
  4. ^ a b c d e Tomšič, Matic. "Kdo so Rusi, ki lovke stegujejo po slovenskem denarju". siol.net.
  5. ^ "Gateless gantries, suspended trams among public transport innovations on show at World Cities Summit". Channel NewsAsia.
  6. ^ "Новые варианты рельсового транспорта". www.ng.ru.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference letteraemme was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ https://gid.volga.news/article/437987.html
  9. ^ "SkyWay Capital Review: Russian transport funding 22% daily ROIs?". behindmlm.com.
  10. ^ https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/05/sky-technology-reduce-gridlock-nigeria-seeks-local-investors/
  11. ^ Hviterussisk luftslott selges mot nordmenn, Finansavisen, 17. november 2017
  12. ^ https://vietnamnet.vn/vn/cong-nghe/tin-cong-nghe/tau-dien-chay-tren-ray-day-giai-phap-moi-cho-giao-thong-viet-nam-528607.html
  13. ^ Černiauskas, Šarūnas. "Transporto revoliuciją žadantis rusas Šiauliams mauna kvailio kepurę". DELFI.
  14. ^ "New Zealand's FMA Adds Skyway Capital to Warning List - Finance Magnates". Finance Magnates - Financial and business news. 12 July 2018.
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference NZwarning was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ https://swig-group.com/en/education/
  17. ^ http://eventsofmycity.com/wellington/event/6917/skyway-invest-group-opportunity-and-regional-conference-palmerston-north.
  18. ^ https://it.businessinsider.com/attaccati-al-tram-dal-pirellone-a-catania-gli-italiani-che-hanno-abboccato-alla-fantomatica-monorotaia-da-500-kmh-di-skyway/?ref=fbpr&fbclid=IwAR28QYbl6klU0rkQ99lgjoPB95sXAOsHHZZSJPshF6l-DRaTadBzj_0-h2c
  19. ^ https://www.swigaptraining.com/we-are-happy-to-introduce-start-of-the-cryptounit-program-via-skywayinvestgroup-com/
  20. ^ http://www.skywaycommunity.com/media--news.html
  21. ^ https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/suspect-skyway-capital-investment-fraud-in-the-making-as-new-cryptounits-tokens-introduced/
  22. ^ https://behindmlm.com/companies/skyway/skyway-capital-continues-investment-fraud-with-tokens-cryptounits/
1) information about the legal structure of the company has no relation to marketing. If you want to describe all this in detail, then create a separate section for this.
This was introduced to help understand how the marketing works. Maybe an additional heading like 'Offshore' would better sum up this topic. It seems that this is a valid discussion as the SkyWay Group is made up of so many companies which are based in offshore locations.
2) the first two sentences about "funding for SkyWay projects became more difficult" and "misunderstood genius" are speculations. In general, I suggest removing the first paragraph.
Check the recent Italian article. Here the Sparaciari (Business Insider italia) explains why Yunitskiy was led to create offshore locations. It helps make sense of why he was led to do this. But maybe Sparaciari is wrong or maybe this could be better worded. This is, however, the most recent and well-argumented explanation I have read about why the SkyWay Group registered companies there because they couldn't get funding after the negative assessment in Russia. I have read other explanations: that they have companies in offshore unregulated locations to white-wash and launder illegally obtained funds in tax-havens. This Sparaciari explanation seems far less controversial.Zachar (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
3) the “Criticism” section is needed to collect all criticism that some journalists regularly publish about the company. If you are constantly monitoring it, then this section is for you. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a good idea. We could create a heading here where people can argue for the possible inclusion of published criticism. Zachar (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
You could also argue for including the paragraph "It has been documented that the SkyWay Group post misleading information..." would better belong under a 'criticism' heading because this is what this is: a collection of criticism of SkyWay published by journalists. Zachar (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a typo in "intellectual property of SkyWay which it values at more than four billion dollars." It should be "400 billion" or more precisely $400,867,433,000. Dron007 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Please show any official statement just of SkyWay Group companies offering and /or promsing any more or less defined return. Partners webinars and promo activities are just their “creativity” and seems to have nothing to do with official policy of the company. SkyWay has even published Image Regulations in the user account:
“Dear partners of SkyWay Group, the current development stage requires particular attention to every SkyWay related publication content. …
SkyWay Group warns that in case of partner’s continuous neglect of the recommendations below partnership with him can be stopped (i.e. his SW account can be blocked)…
Recommendation violations are:
… Promises of unrealistic earnings, like: invest 100 USD and get million shares, or Invest now and you will get profit in one month, promise of passive income or invest 100 USD and ensure your retirement: you will live on dividends, get 1000% profit etc….” 1234
that confirms the "astronomical returns offers" be wrong. --George Marshal (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The fact that on some websites and on some films SkyWay promote 'astronomical' returns of investment up to 'a thousands times', and then in the small print divest themselves from these promises, means only one thing: that they are STILL deliberately misleading the public in their internet advertising. Multiple verified references state that SkyWay offer enormous returns. This is from one of the SkyWay websites referenced TODAY: "SkyWay Invest Group has many investment packages from $10 to $100,000 with potential returns of Hundreds of times Your Initial Investment." See the original here: [86]. Besides, plausible deniability in small print does not reduce the companies responsibility for any false and misleading advertising which has been documented by the verified sources. Even if they changed their websites today, however, you would still have the verified sources who commented upon this misleading advertising which has consistently been a part of their marketing campaign for years, with a staff of dedicated pyramid marketers like Kudryashov and Mejlumyan who have a history in working on scams like MMM-2011 with Mavrodi. [87]

Anatoly Yunitskiy, Victor Morozov and the SkyWay Empire

A number of articles have been published about the true nature of the SkyWay Belarusian offshore empire with it roots in the Gomel region of Belarusia through the inventions of Anatoly Yunitskiy. These articles contain detailed information about how the SkyWay empire actually works and the unseen people who connect all the well known figures who keep popping up at SkyWay events around the world like Kudriashov and Khovratov. If you want to understand how the empire works, see this complex illustration which will inform you of almost all the people who have been already mentioned plus a whole bunch of others who have remained hidden:[88].

Translations of these articles will follow. From a first glance all the detailed information in these articles is backed up by the contents of the verified articles, but these articles are much more detailed. I found this information in trying to research which of the SkyWay companies actually exist.

What follows is a translation from the opening of the articles about the activities of the silent partner, Victor Morozov.

Electronic pyramid Sky Way and "Keshbury" pumped out more than 215 million dollars from the citizens of Russia. At the same time, if Keshbury is widely known, then Sky Way has already been forgotten. Meanwhile, the losses from the Sky Way pyramid are the same $ 200 million, and Keshbury is just a late clone with a "harvest" of only 15 million "green". The organizer of Keshberi, Arthur Vardyanan, the “head” of Sky Way, Anatoly Yunitsky, is long-time subordinates of Viktor Morozov, who is the real organizer of these, and many other Internet frauds. Read the details of the flight of Viktor Vasilyevich Morozov from Russia in this material. [89]
-Zachar (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This article confirms Morozov's involvement in both the SkyWay and 'Keshbery' projects: [90]
"In 2016, when the SkyWay pyramid gradually began to collapse, Viktor Morozov was already in search of another Zits chairman of Pound, to deceive the gullible“ hamsters ”- as then, and now, all fraudsters call citizens affected by the Internet pyramids. The financial flow weakened, but at one of the events of dubious content, Viktor Morozov met the young, promising Artur Vardanyan. According to Morozov’s observations, this “young man” had a rare gift - he disinterestedly loved money. As much as Viktor Vasilyevich."
-Zachar (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend not to use these articles even here in discussion. They are just rubbish and the source is not even unreliable but also anonymous. Don't bring all this garbage to Wikipedia please. It is also against the Wiki rules about living persons. Dron007 (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yunitskiy's SkyWay - "bitcoin for morons" (18 February 2018)

This article includes detailed information about the history of Yunitskiy, his dubious credentials, the origin of the offshore empire, and the profits made by the Morozov empire. Other articles only expand on this already detailed information with more descriptions that make sense in relation to already existing verified references. A summary of major points in the article follows:

  • SkyWay is not an advanced scientific program, but a Russian scam that existed long before the bitcoin epidemic.
  • In the 80s Yunitskiy was a member of the USSR cosmonautics federation who was the co-author of theories relating to a space elevator designed to put people, cargo and nuclear weapons into space which remain unrealized and which the scientific world has remained silent about.
  • After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 90s Yunitskiy worked as a guard at a potato farm and developed his ideas about an alternative form of transport. His ideas were not influenced by the scientific community because he did not have access to the internet, and was not aware of similar developments taking places in other parts of the world.
  • Around the year 2000 he met Viktor Morozov who already had a reputation in extensive criminal activity in the region. Morozov was looking for a global operation that could “serve as a base for rapid enrichment.” It was a marriage made in heaven: Morozov had found a utopian idea to exploit and a ‘mad scientist’ to represent it.
  • This is how Morozov went to work. He founded a group of companies under the banner of the “IBC UniSky Corporation” which had a self-estimated value of $400 billion dollars. The shares of this office began to be sold by a group of intermediary companies registered in the British Virgin Islands (e.g. GTI, ERSSH). However, these shares are not sold directly, but via “a second group of agents registered in the UK” (e.g. SWIG). The English intermediaries transfer the shares for sale to Russian companies controlled by Dmitry Schastlivy and Salim Miftakhutdinov.
  • Russian companies transferred funds received from duped investors to England, who in turn sent it to the British Virgin Islands; thus Morozov had found a way to access funds from Russia abroad.
  • Morozov became at one point the chairman of the board of the SkyWay sales network but he quickly decided it wasn’t worth the risk exposing himself and he placed new figure-heads in these positions.
  • Yunitskiy himself had “nothing but a great idea”; otherwise he would receive commercial loans to fund his projects. But real businessmen aren’t interested in projects connected to the known criminal Viktor Morozov and fronted by suspicious figures like swindlers and fraudsters Andrei Khovratov, Armands Murnieks and Evgeny Kudryashov. Gullible investors at home, however, don’t know any better.
  • These investors don’t know, for example, that Yunitskiy was unable to defend his PhD thesis and that he “bought the title of an academic”. They couldn’t, however, buy the respect of the “Russian Academy of Sciences”; they spent their money instead on the “Russian Academy of Environment Sciences” (RAEN) which is known for selling its positions to people who have no education that peddle pseudoscience. His scientific articles are filled with unverified nonsense that looks scientific to people who don’t know any better but that have been ignored by the scientific world.
  • The sale of worthless investment products (on pretty paper) has duped hundreds of thousands of Russians. They used call centers and sent mass amounts of spam emails directing potential investors to internet sites to siphon the funds of Russians to the accounts of Morozov’s offshore companies. Once they got people to invest, they encouraged them using MLM techniques to invite other people to invest by rewarding them financially.
  • The article includes a list detailing internet representation of SkyWay technology, including SkyWay websites, the hundreds of promotional videos on YouTube, SkyWay representation on social media (Vkontakt, Twitter and facebook) and the hundreds of partner sites which promote this fraudulent.
  • Although millions of people have embraced unsupported Skyway promotion, apart from fake events presented as part of advertising, no one has made a cent.
  • It can be stated that SkyWay is the most powerful criminal internet pyramid since the infamous MMM of Mavrodi. It is the longest living scam in the modern criminal history of Russia.
  • After the accumulation of an initial capital Morozov decided to aim at developing countries like India, Egypt and Pakistan. Representatives from these countries were given financial incentives to attend the events at the SkyWay test site. The targeted infrastructure programs were “mired in corruption”.
Sky Way Юницкого – «биткоин для дебилов» (18 February 2018) Yunitskiy’s SkyWay – “bitcoin for morons”

https://victormorozov.org/sky-way-yunickogo-bitkoin-dlya-debilov/ Sky Way Юницкого – «биткоин для дебилов» Yunitskiy’s SkyWay – “bitcoin for morons” 18 February 2018

Unitsky's Sky Way - “Bitcoin for morons” Do you think that Sky Way is an advanced project like Elon Musk only on Russian soil? Yes, it did not happen at all - this is a Russian scam that existed long before Russia was covered by the "Bitcoin epidemic". Back in 2000, Anatoly Yunitsky, a drunken alcoholic, who smoothly could only talk about his "great invention" - the string transport, the transport system of the "new generation" - was excavated from the dust of Soviet cosmonautics. Without further ado, this collection of technical misunderstandings was called "String Transport Unitsky".

At the end of the 90s, Anatoly Yunitsky, this poorly paid Belarusian scientist, parted ways with his creative center, “Star World” [«Звездный мир»], and was suffering from unrealized ideas. A decade earlier, in the 80s, being a member of the USSR Cosmonautics Federation, where they took all scientists who were able to relate a few words, Anatoly Eduardovich was just a junior co-author of the stupid development of the Council of Ministers about the string elevator, which was to put useful cargoes into the Earth orbit, cosmonauts and nuclear weapons. The deadlock of the project was understood by everyone except the elderly CPSU General Secretaries. But at the time of sunset, the USSR financed even stupid ideas - it is important that they were in beautiful packaging. Therefore, a defense project of this type was created, foundations were built for it, employees were allocated apartments, and all the “scientists” and, especially, party functionaries involved in this squandering of people's funds were allocated.

After the collapse of the USSR, the idea of a "string" was buried, but the past super-profits and the "almost academic" lifestyle did not give rest to Anatoly Yunitsky. That is why, working as a guard at a vegetable base and consuming immensely cheap alcoholic drinks, he decided to continue his "scientific research" by expanding the transport horizontally - now he would become the "string player" as an alternative transport system of the planet. The advanced developments of Japan and the United States in the field of non-friction magnetic trains did not influence Yunitskiy. First of all, because he did not read English well, he did not subscribe to specialized magazines, and he did not have the Internet at that time. In addition, modern developments killed the whole concept of its “advanced” method, which was hopelessly outdated in 1986, after the crash at the Gomel test site. Two corpses of testers, trapped inside a test capsule, impacted, on the high-speed section of the test site, did not upset Anatoly Eduardovich, who was already in an alcoholic half-sleed at that time - he reasoned that “they died, so they’re dead”.

It was at the turn of the 2000s that Anatoly Yunitsky met the “serial entrepreneur” Viktor Morozov. “Comrade Morozov”, with his criminal sense, was able to immediately appreciate the influence of alcohol, his greedy burning eyes and a very nimble charm, which sharply intensified after the intake of alcohol. Morozov was constantly in search of ideas of a “global scale” that would be feasible before the stage of test technical implementation and could serve as a base for rapid enrichment. On the still fresh fragments of MMM, it was decided to create a new Internet scam with the sonorous name of Sky Way (Skyway, "Heavenly Way").

It really turned out to be heavenly, particularly for Anatoly Yunitskiy. Nobody, of course, was going to build anything advanced - all these rationales and beautiful pictures in Photoshop, stories about the revival of “leading research teams” were needed for the seperation of stupid suckers investors who did not know where to invest crazy money. Victor Morozov, both at that time and now, performed a social function - he saved idiots from candy wrappers that they did not need.

The basic idea of the “planetary project” was simple and unpretentious. Unitsky proposed to return to the idea of almost contactless transport, which would rely only on a steel high-strength cable, stretched from 15 to 100 meters above the ground. The capsule will “slide” along it at high speed, ensuring the transfer of happy passengers from point A to point B. Shamelessly giggling and making an intelligent face Anatoly Yunitsky told Morozov his idea for several hours, sprinkling it with technical details. But this did not embarrass Victor Morozov, as well as the utopian nature of the idea itself. He needed a plan and a "mad scientist" - he found both.

In general, any novice user of the Network knows that the same road was tested in the USA as early as the 70s - they tried to organize a transport connection through Hudson Bay using such “carriages on strings”. But the vibration of the strings simply dropped the cabins. Americans are more humane - there were no human victims. The organizers of the “new transport” dismantled the experimental road and never returned to it. Yes, and about the declared speed of 400 km, you can very much doubt.

But who remembers this? Victor Morozov decided to make everything cooler.

The capitalization of this fraudulent project was as follows. A group of companies was formed in a closed jurisdiction. The head IBC UniSky Corporation estimates its authorized capital to be valued at 400 billion dollars - this is only a small fraction of the “great contribution” of the alconaut Yunitsky to the “global economy”. After that, the shares of this office began to be sold by a group of intermediaries - Global Transport Investments Inc. (GTI) BVI, RSW Investment Group Ltd, Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd BVI. However, these shares are not sold directly, but through the second group of agents registered in the UK - FIRST SKYWAY INVEST GROUP LTD, SWIG INTERNATIONAL LTD, SKYPARK LONDON LTD, Global Transnet UK LTD. The English intermediaries transfer the shares for sale to Russian LLCs, primarily controlled by the Eurasia Consumer Society, under the leadership of Dmitry Schastlivy (TIN 380101081982) and to the cluster of companies of Salim Miftakhutdinov (TIN 772451505227), who had a long and hard experience in selling various dietary supplements through the Internet and improvised call centers with cold calls with a staff of 200-400 people. It was the subordinates of Miftakhutdinov who sold drugs on the basis of “motherwort” and “pentalgin” at the price of 30-40 thousand rubles per package to old men. But the OBEP raids, with the support of the SOBR, promptly knocking out “platforms” for the implementation of “medical” drugs “from everything” did not embarrass Miftakhutdinov - he immediately recruited new personnel in another major city. It was Dmitry Schastlivy (the name, apparently, was replaced under the influence of white laughing drugs) and Salim Miftakhutdinov controlled the Sky Way sales network in Russia. And he led the scheme - Viktor Morozov, already known to us, who always preferred to stay in the background. For some time, Morozov even became the “Chairman of the Board of Directors of the SkyWay Group”, but he quickly realized that it wasn’t worth the risk of exposing himself and he placed new figure-heads in these positions.

Russian companies transferred funds received from sucker-investors to English, and those, in turn (being agents), gave everything to an offshore group of the British Virgin Islands. Thus, Morozov formed a channel for withdrawing funds from Russia abroad. During this entire period of time, it was used, inter alia, for illegal financial transactions to legalize proceeds from crime. The plot of the fraud Sky Way was very elegant - it turns out that Yunitskiy’s “great” contribution to the economy of the planet is underestimated. Yunitskiy himself is a great discoverer of a fundamentally new transport system. Throughout the world, with the help of Internet hamsters, we will raise funds for the construction and testing of "unique" transport, almost a new round in the life of the Earth. After we test it and get a mysterious "certificate" (without specifying who, when and for what it will be issued), we will begin a great expansion to Europe and Asia - selling unique high-speed string transport. Reasonable people already at this stage refused to read further about the scam. But the gullible idiots on the web will never run out, so the project flourished.

Of course, Yunitsky had nothing but a great idea. Otherwise, he would receive a commercial loan or investment of a venture fund. But neither the loan nor the investment is and never will be, because the real businessmen are not interested in the air sold by the crook Viktor Morozov and the alcoholic patient Anatoly Yunitsky with a huge “flock of comrades” in the form of a demonic drop Andrei Khovratov, a Latvian citizen Armand Murnieks, a drop Igor Ryanenko , Evgeny Kudryashov, fraudster Dmitry Schastlivy, hypnotist and swindler Maxim Isyp, unlucky lawyer Maxim Gafinyak, Belarusian “serial entrepreneur” Alexei Murashko, a nut in a criminal case.

Morozov has invested some money in building the image of Yunitskiy. He is represented as a “general designer” - this is the helper from the distant USSR, where such posts were handed out only to the greatest scientists who worked on projects all over the country. The position sounds nostalgic for those who from the "Soviet Union" only remembers the launch of the satellite and the flight to the moon. They have little idea that in the days of the USSR Yunitsky could not even defend his Ph.D. thesis. Yunitskiy bought the the title of an academic. But in the Russian Academy of Sciences such rogues are not yet accepted, so the money was spent on the title of "Academic of the Public Russian Academy of Natural Sciences." This place has not yet been covered solely due to the fact that it gives too high income to its “organizers”, due to which they block any unfriendly encroachments of the controlling authorities. In general, the fraudster in the society of the same "scientific employees". Many members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences are people far from science, who do not even have a proper education and recognized scientific works. But Yunitsky is not confused at all. The same fake at Yunitskiy and "contribution to science”. Formally, the “academic” is the author of 140 inventions, 19 monographs, 200 scientific works. This is written on the Sky Way website. Formally, everything is fine. Actually - the same deception. Let's take a close look at Yunitsky’s inventions - only 99 patents are written behind him and not 140 patents. For the period from 1977 to 2013. About a third of them are copyright certificates of the USSR, one third - patents of the Russian Federation and another third - patents of the Eurasian Patent Organization. It is strange that all these patents are valid only in the countries of the former USSR. There is simply no patent registered in leading developed countries. That is, any entrepreneur in any of these countries can build a transport network using the technologies of the “great Yunitskiy” and not pay a penny for it. Officially. So all these inventions are worth nothing. The price of all this intellectual property is zero. If we study the "scientific work" of Yunitskiy, then we also expect a disappointment. His scientific articles are 70 and not 200, and here they are all together - articles, reports, justification. What is the scientific nature of this "text waste paper" knows only their author. All this nonsense is dedicated to string transport and spell out almost the same material from 1974 to 2015. The same material as in numerous videos on the Sky Way website. No research results, no theoretical calculations, nothing close to science is there. At best, a number of controversial design decisions. Well, "monographs", as we understand it - of a similar quality. Out of 19 monographs 10 - reprints of the little book “Unitsky Transport System (TSNU) in Questions and Answers” in various editions and versions. And they all duplicate already known clips (or clips duplicate monograms).

There is nothing scientific. So no astronomical intellectual value is observed. Yunitsky is an ordinary loser dreamer who, during 40 years of “scientific activity”, created only a global bunch with a characteristic hydrogen sulfide [rotten egg – ed.] odor.

By 2014, over the 14 years of its development, the Sky Way system has deceived hundreds of thousands of people by selling them air for a dollar for a beautiful, but worthless piece of paper. Such papers were sold to tens of millions of ever-green American "rubles". With the help of call centers, Internet sites and simply thousands of desperate “shareholders”, Sky Way has been collecting money from gullible citizens of Russia for 17 years and siphoning this financial flow abroad to the accounts of Viktor Morozov’s offshore companies. No financial statements, no achievements, only a very inexpensive “Potemkin village” in the Gomel region of the Republic of Belarus where the same carriages roll over the air year after year, as well as a very mediocre Internet infrastructure. In principle, this is the way it should be - any fraudulent project is aimed at maximizing profits, therefore, it bears only those demonstration costs, without which it cannot be dispensed with.

The five main Internet sites of the Sky Way scheme are hosted by the American provider Godaddy and the Russian Roucenter. Several youtube channels and social media pages complemented the image of the modern scam monster Sky Way, which he appeared in early 2014. Up to this point there were separate sites, and mass telephone calls to databases like “Lotus”, where fraudsters gathered everyone who ever invested, in anything in Russia. In addition, Sky Way employees carried out mass spam emails, so popular at the turn of 2008-2010. And, of course - a huge network, similar to MLM, network marketing. "I bought the shares myself - bring a friend and get a bonus." The entrance ticket was priced at a minimum of 50 dollars. A little later, it was raised to $ 100.

Main sites:

https://skywayinvestgroup.com - registered in 2014

http://rsw-systems.com - registered in 2014

https://skyway.capital - registered in 2014

http://sky-way.org/ - registered in 2014

http://sw-tech.by

Anatoly Eduardovich Yunitsky website - http://yunitskiy.com - registered in 2011

Channels on YouTube:

youtube.com/user/SkyWayInvestGroup - 420 videos / youtube.com/user/rswsyst/videos - 239 videos / youtube.com/ user / Anatoly Yunitskiy - 238 videos (total on Youtube more than 2,000 video clips devoted to SkyWay, Transnet, RSW Systems, STU, etc.).

Pages and groups on VKontakte - vk.com/rswsyst and vk.com/skywaycapital / on Facebook - facebook.com/groups/RSWsystems / on Twitter - twitter.com/ rsw_systems

Partner and other sites about SkyWay - rswskyway.com / skywayinvestgroup.com / railskyway.ru / my-invest.wix.com/rsw-systems / rsw-online.ru / sky-way.org / rswfuture.ru/rswplc / gramtriz .com / index. php? r = projects / page & view = unitsky ... in reality, there are many more, about 300.

What can I say - work on finding suckers to finance personal projects of Victor Morozov, done a lot. Millions of people are embraced by this stupid PR and hundreds of thousands of them have lost their “investments”. All "private traders" who have invested money in Sky Way have lost their money. There is no positive example, except advertising and fake events.

Over the years, Victor Morozov exercised control and possession of the fraudulent group Sky Way. Members of the OPS Viktor Morozov are responsible for massive cases of fraud in Russia, at least against 300-350 thousand citizens of our country. The damage caused by the illegal activities of Morozov alone in these episodes exceeds $ 200 million. It can be stated that Sky Way is the most powerful criminal Internet pyramid after the acclaimed MMM. And, at the same time, the longest living in the modern criminal history of Russia.

But by 2016, the fraudulent scheme of Sky Way is already beginning to wobble under the claims of the “shareholders” and is attracting the attention of law enforcement agencies. A year before, the radical “cleansing” of the Sky Way system begins through the mass liquidation of legal entities involved in the fraudulent scheme. Thus, more than 15 companies with direct ownership of Anatoly Yunitsky, as well as other members of the OPS Viktor Morozov involved in the String Transport Unitsky project, were liquidated.

After the accumulation of initial capital from the "internet-suckers", Viktor Morozov decided to aim a blow at the attack of state organs in Asia and the Middle East. For kickbacks, the Sky Way project was attempted to sell to representatives of many “developing” countries such as India, Egypt and Pakistan. Having received generous financial gifts, a special interest in “cooperation” was also shown by representatives of Iran and Tunisia. The delegations that took part in Belarus rather actively attended the Sky Way test site and were very active in taking photo and video-shooting of all the moving prototypes of a string highway, on wheeled transport carts. The main task of the new phase of the international scam was interstate projects that were supposed to lead to the financing of the “String Transport Unitsky” by the Middle Eastern governments that were mired in corruption within the framework of targeted infrastructure programs. Of course, the funds raised in this way would be foreign loans from more developed countries, and, moreover, their fate would be to be transferred through Viktor Morozov’s “financial sieve” to foreign jurisdictions for “cutting” with very compliant brown-eyed friends from the Middle East. Government officials were to organize the "financing" of research and the potential construction of a "string highway" in the capitals of their states. And Viktor Morozov took upon himself the withdrawal of these funds, legalization and the proper sharing of the divide between himself and new business partners. Strengthening of the sanction direction against the Russian Federation also affected Victor Morozov. Foreign banks have become more and more common. Under the "cap" of the European Way, it is Armand Murnieks, Irina Volkova, Evgeny Kudryashov, Ineta Anjane, Solar Frantisek, Alexey Sukhodoev. Yes, and Victor Morozov began to feel a little more uncomfortable - the interview became longer and longer during the receipt of Schengen visas. And foreign banks persistently asked him to clear the presence of the IBC accounts UniSky Corporation, Global Transport Investments Inc. (GTI) BVI, RSW Investment Group Ltd, Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd BVI with “money of dubious origin”. Most of the criminal funds were transferred to the infamous Latvian bank ABLV, which was favorable to any “plums” and any “dirt”. True, it was he who in February 2018, at the suggestion of the US regulatory authorities, was subjected to verification and blocking of dollar correspondent accounts for a huge number of dubious operations with criminal clients and no less criminal accounts.

The most complete scheme of the fraudulent project Sky Way (20 February 2018)

This second article is an explanation of the detailed illustration you can view here: [91]. It describes the role of individual figures in the Morozov criminal empire.

Summary:

  • Victor Morozov designed an elegant scam, but he hadn’t expected that his name would be revealed in the “panama papers” as a co-owner of offshore SkyWay companies.
  • The main cash flow hub is via the four offshore companies in the closed jurisdiction of the British Virgin Islands: IBC UniSky Corporation, Global Transport Investments Inc., RSW Investment Group Ltd., Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.
  • These offshore companies receive cash flow from their “agent companies” registered in the UK: First Skyway Invest Group Ltd., SWIG International Ltd., Skypark London Ltd. and Global Transnet UK LTD.
  • Morozov fully controls the figure-heads for these agent companies like Evgeny Kudryashov and Armands Murnieks.
  • These British companies receive money from a variety of Russian companies concentrated in three clusters: the “Eurasia” cluster Dmitry Schastlivy, the cluster under Salim Miftakhutdinov and the cluster under Yunitskiy, although these companies have been drastically cleaned up since 2015 and have a primarily demonstrative function.
  • Schastlivy specializes in the sale of “education” packages to his investors. Miftakhutdinov is particularly well-known for a telemarketing scam that targeted herbal wonder remedies to elderly people.
  • The logic of receiving funds from individuals in Russia is based on the sale of shares of the BVI companies whose value is based on the imagined capital value of 400 billion dollars. The companies in the UK and Russia send money to the offshore accounts.
  • The main point of the scam is that customers end up buying unsecured ‘shares’: a pretty piece of paper that has absolutely no value, being based after all on the intellectual property of Yunitskiy which has no valid patents and which was outdated thirty years ago. But Morozov and Yunitsky were able to organize their scam so elegantly to convince 350 thousand people in Russia to acquire SkyWay shares.
  • The SkyWay project is definitely a financial pyramid. Its owner, Viktor Morozov is a criminal.
Самая полная схема мошеннического проекта Sky Way(20 Februari 2018) The most complete scheme of the fraudulent project Sky Way

https://victormorozov.org/samaya-polnaya-sxema-moshennicheskogo-proekta-sky-way/ 

Самая полная схема мошеннического проекта Sky Way

The most complete scheme of the fraudulent project Sky Way 20 February 2018

Legally, the ownership scheme for the Sky Way project is fundamentally different from what the employees of Viktor Morozov and Anatoly Yunitsky are trying to convey to the end consumer with unsecured shares. the main “gateway to the world of the new planetary transport”. This wonderful world is offered to join all interested "investors" for cash. Investors are ordinary suckers, and the Great Transport System is nothing more than an electronic MMM for those who consider themselves too smart to play traditional MMM. It is this, as well as a dull-pushy PR, the presence of a “Potemkin village” [EcoTechnoPark – ed.] for “hamsters” [internet investors – ed.], in the Gomel region of the Republic of Belarus, distinguishes the brainchild of Morozov and Yunitskiy from the brainchild of Mavrodi [well-known Russian scammer – ed.]. That is why Sky Way is still working - their approach is better thought out.

Illustration of the criminal scheme viewable here: [92]

We told you about the history of this system in a separate article. The time has come to find out what lies behind the “Sky Way Group of Companies”, about which the frontman of the system speaks so widely and constantly, the experienced alcoholic and the classic “scam” of Anatoly Yunitskiy. Let us pay special attention to the system Victor Morozov designed and implemented.

The main cash flow hub is four offshore companies in the closed jurisdiction of the British Virgin Islands. Initially, Viktor Morozov made the right move, since the jurisdiction of the BVI will remain non-transparent for a long time, despite the declaration of interaction with the Russian FTS [financial transparency system – ed.]. Of course, Viktor Morozov could not have guessed the investigation of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), one of the projects of the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), an American non-profit organization, regarding the case Panama Papers. This is the informal name for the leak of confidential documents of the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, which the media in 2012 called the leader of the criminal industry in the country. The results of the research papers cover the period from 1977 to 2015. The main theme of the study of the results of the “Panama dossier” was to make public the presence of hidden property of politicians, major entrepreneurs, including on the territory of the Russian Federation and related conflicts of interest. It was this base that allowed journalists, among other things, to discover the connection of Victor Morozov and Anatoly Yunitsky, as well as to prove their joint ownership of companies IBC UniSky Corporation, Global Transport Investments Inc (GTI) BVI, RSW Investment Group Ltd, Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd BVI.

These companies receive cash flow from their “agent companies” registered in the UK. This is FIRST SKYWAY INVEST GROUP LTD (20.11.2014, 09320759, United Kingdom Director Kudryashov Evgeny Anatolyevich), SWIG INTERNATIONAL LTD (09862987, 11/09/2015, United Kingdom, Director Armand Murnieks), SKYPARK LONDON LTD (09862865, 09.11.2015, United Kingdom, Director Armand Murnieks), Global Transnet UK LTD (09457445, 02/25/2015, United Kingdom, Director - Armand Murnieks).

Interestingly, Evgeny Kudryashov was the owner of FIRST SKYWAY INVEST GROUP by 10% and Oksana Kudryashova by 90%. The owner of SWIG INTERNATIONAL LTD and SKYPARK LONDON LTD is 100% Armand Murnieks, 40% owned by Global Transnet UK LTD. The other owner of Global Transnet UK LTD, 60% is the parent company Global Transport Investments Inc. (GTI), BVI. There is no doubt that these are the people of Viktor Morozov, who are fully controlled by him personally.

In turn, British companies receive money from a variety of Russian LLCs, mainly concentrated in two clusters. The first is the cluster of the Eurasia consumer society (TIN 3811038226, 04/02/2015, Irkutsk, Chairman of the Board Schastlivy Dmitry Viktorovich). The second is the cluster of Miftakhutdinov Salim Galiyevich (TIN 772451505227). The third cluster, personally by Anatoly Yunitsky, has been drastically reduced and “cleaned up” since 2015, at present it is only a demonstration one and does not represent much interest.

The general logic of receiving funds from individuals in Russia is based on the sale of shares of the parent company of the system - IBC UniSky Corporation or a minor company Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd BVI. Considering the authorized capital of IBC UniSky Corporation of 400 billion dollars, the number of shares is calculated by the same number. The nominal value of one share is 1 US dollar. Russian companies, as well as British organizations, are agents for the sale of shares to groups of consumers. Keeping for themselves uncontrolled agent fees, they send the main financial flow to Global Transport Investments Inc (GTI) BVI and RSW Investment Group Ltd. accounts. Further movement of these funds can be traced in a criminal case. In general, this resembles a standard scam from the series “sites on the moon” - we draw a beautiful picture, offer a piece of paper with a promise of something material, but not now, but in the future. Nearest and bright. Only idiots and stupid people can believe this.

The main point of the scam is that the “Sky Way Group of Companies” misleads buyers and sells them shares of an enterprise that are not secured by anything - there are no assets or intellectual property here. All that UniSky Corporation owns is a “puffed-up charter”, based on the Great Developments of Anatoly Yunitskiy, which, for a review, is obsolete in 1986, the string transport system, the development of which Yunitskiy was involved as a junior co-author. Simply put, Anatoly Yunitskiy is not the owner of the rights to this system, he does not have any patents in the countries of Europe and the United States that could somehow consolidate his “scientific creativity”. This is an old mrazmatik, which owns a cloud of paper stuff on a prototype, which was outdated about thirty years ago. Moreover, this prototype has no practical application. And Anatoly Yunitsky, as well as Viktor Morozov, knew this from the very beginning. But they were able to organize the business so beautifully that under this non-existent “intellectual property” more than 350 thousand people in Russia acquired the unsecured shares of UniSky Corporation. Fraud on an especially large scale, committed by a group of persons by prior agreement, is precisely how the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation interprets this situation.

The structure of both “selling” clusters in Russia is similar. At the head of the cluster is a high-class cheater-scam, which exists in the business of deceiving the population for quite some time. This applies to both Dmitry Schastlivy, and Salim Miftahutdinova. Both have tried themselves in all the reincarnations of MMM, both applied cheating technology to the general population.

The only difference between these “scammers” is that the Miftakhutdinova cluster additionally specializes in the sale of dietary supplements — for example, OOO Edas International Corporation (TIN 7726394968, 01.20.2017 Moscow, President Miftakhutdinov Salim Galiyevich), CJSC SCIENTIFIC-PRODUCTION MEDICAL AND PHARMACISTECTURAL NATURAL DOCTOR (TIN 5008034956, 03.03.2003, Dolgoprudny, President Miftakhutdinov Salim Galiyevich), LLC “SCIENTIFIC-PRODUCTION COMPLEX OF BIOENERGO-INFORMATION NANOTECHNOLOGIES” (“BENIT”) (INN 501003448) Gen.dir. Miftakhutdinov Salim Galievich), "NATIONAL CENTER OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE" (TIN 7726644551, 12.01.2010, Moscow, Gen.dir. Karpeev Alexey Alekseevich) are engaged in daily telephone attack of the elderly. They buy phone databases with personal data on the black market at the filing stations and public health centers. Huge call centers of 400 employees, without breaks and weekends, are tricked by selling "placebo" to those who are desperate to become healthy and want to extend their active life.

The cluster of Schastlivy, in addition to the sale of "shares" specializes in the "training" of Internet suckers, the main idea of which is to "make the right investment". With the help of Sky Way Group LLC (TIN 4217164442, 08/29/2014, Novokuznetsk, Gen. Dir. Romanenko Igor Vladimirovich, Other vocational education activities, not included in other groups), TNG LLC (TIN 4217172179, 07.08. 2015, Novokuznetsk, Gen. Dir Romanenko Igor Vladimirovich, Activities on additional professional education, other, not included in other groups), Educational Portal "Eurasia" LLC, 3811443440, 02.20.2017, Irkutsk, Manager - individual entrepreneur Hovsepyan Zhirayr Grachikovich, Additional education for children and adults, other, not included in other groups), "TNG" LLC (TIN 310193290, 07.07.2016, Krasnodar, Gen.dir. Gafiyak Maxim Nikolaevich, Other vocational education activities, not included in other groups), Academy of Private Investor LLC 2310197336, 12/23/2016, Krasnodar, Gen. dir. Goryacheva Svetlana Vladimirovna, Advisory and information services), Venture Investment Fund "New Transport Technologies" (TIN 3811443030, 06.02.2017, Irkutsk, Chairman of the Foundation, Schastlivy Svetlana Viktorovna, Capital investments in capital investments, venture investment, including through investment companies), the Schastlivy cluster forms a huge flow of "important investment information" and successfully recruits numerous people lost in this life. Attempts to get rich without doing anything or investing in a “successful company with a worldwide reputation” entice many, and standard contributions of between 200 and 2 thousand dollars, not counting the sums “for training”, powerful cash flow is transferred to the accounts of foreign organizations-agents Viktor Morozov and Anatoly Yunitsky - of course, for the shares of UniSky Corporation.

All of the “executives” declared on the Sky Way websites, with titles such as “traditional investor” or “professional investor”, etc. are members of the organized criminal community of Viktor Morozov, attached to a project with the participation of the main clown Anatoly Yunitsky to successfully ensure fraud against the citizens of the Russian Federation. Since 2014, on the territory of European countries, Anatoly Yunitskiy and Viktor Morozov have become defendants in criminal cases of fraud, but in Russia and Belarus they still feel quite calm.

As noted above, the Anatoly Yunitskiy Cluster has recently lost about 15 legal entities, which is obviously an attempt to conceal financial flows before actively investigating a criminal case for fraud. Only String Transport Unitsky (STU) remains at the disposal of Yunitskiy (TIN 7725646852, 09/29/2008, Moscow, Gen. Director. Anatoly Yunitskiy, Research and development in the field of natural and technical sciences), LLC "International Center" TRANSNET ", 7726710170, 04.12.2012, Moscow, Gen.dir. Miftakhutdinov Salim Galiyevich production of railway locomotives and rolling stock) and NPO Unitran Foundation for promoting the development of string transport (non-profit organization) 7704199233, 04/29/1999, Moscow, President Yunitskiy Anatoly Eduardovich). These enterprises allow him to present themselves as sonorous posts like “president” or “general designer”, however, they have nothing but… sweet sounds of these words.

Of course, throughout the course of its activities, not a single enterprise in the cluster of Schastlivy, Miftahutdinov or Yunitskiy will never, ever submit financial statements for all periods of its existence. Interestingly, the territorial inspectorates of the Federal Tax Service are experiencing total blindness with respect to these enterprises. They are not subjected to non-cameral checks or criminal prosecution, which gives grounds to assume corruption with the help of links of Victor Morozov.

The Sky Way project is definitely a financial pyramid. Its owner, Viktor Morozov, is a criminal, which is recognized in a number of European countries, from which the “successful entrepreneur” with the “dreamer professor” Yunitskiy was forced to move to Russia, and then to Belarus. So he had to flee in 2014 from Lithuania, where, under Shaulyaem, “two friends” also tried to build a “landfill transport system” at the side of the NATO base. Even earlier, they fled from Poland and the Czech Republic, where law enforcement agencies were actively interested in the dishonest conditions for investing in UniSky Corporation. Despite the fact that Viktor Morozov and Anatoly Yunitskiy are still at liberty, this is all temporary.

Sky Way fails in Belarus (2 April 2018)

This article concerns details of the well known test-site in Marjina Horka that is used to attract potential investors to the project. You view the original here: [93]. If you have reason to believe any of these claims are wrong, please explain why below with any references to verifiable sources which support your claims.

Summary:

  • In the 90s Yunitskiy, involved with potato farming, became associated with the criminal underworld in the form of Sergei Morozov.
  • In 1996 the ‘String Transport’ scam started and over 350 thousand Russian citizens were deceived.
  • In 2006, however, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus sentenced Sergei Morozov and two of his colleagues to death for his criminal activities.
  • Yunitskiy continued his work in 2014 under the direction of Victor Morozov, a massive attack was made to victims who had survived the MMM and other Russian scams.
  • After fleeing from Lithuania when their attempts to negotiate a “string road” in Siauliai were unsuccesfful, in February 2015 Yunitskiy and Morozov decided to register a new enterprise in the Pukhovichy district near Minsk: “Strunnye Technologii” ZAO [‘String Technologies’ CJSC] where construction began on a testing facility there for the “road of the future”.
  • This is all the justification the duped investors needed to willingly pay thousands of dollars to Victor Morozov although they were only welcomed by the comforting face of the “Great Genius Anatoly Yunitskiy” from the pages of the SkyWay cluster of sites.
  • All certification which is still used to justify this technology is fake, at best confirming some minor technical details. They do not record real test tesults are do not certify anything. This technology remains untested and this documentation has one function only: to fool ignorant investors.
  • The company has attempted to retain its good names by initiating legal action against the press who brought Yunitskiy and his company into disrepute, which included the magazine MODERN PRINT (“СОВРЕМЕННАЯ ПЕЧАТЬ”) who questioned Yunitskiy’s emergency evacuation from Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the risks normal Belarusian citizens took investing in SkyWay projects. In the 2016-2017 period there were four court cases. They were all dismissed.
  • The Gomel test site is in decline. In order to revitalize the interest of investors, Morozov started hiring provincial actors of various local theaters who acted as if they were foreign delegations resulting in publicity material being posted to the Yunitskiy websites.
  • Victor Morozov is “trying to stop a number of criminal cases against himself and other SkyWay organizers”. They are not interested in the fate of Yunitskiy himself who seems to have be having health problems which may result in his imminent death.
Sky Way терпит неудачу в Белоруссии (2 April 2018) Sky Way fails in Belarus

https://victormorozov.org/sky-way-terpit-neudachu-v-belorussii/ Sky Way терпит неудачу в Белоруссии Sky Way fails in Belarus 2 April 2018

Every time the creators of the Sky Way scam are asked about their accomplishments, they nod to Belarus, saying the sacred mantra "we have a testing ground." No, not "polygon" but "Polygon!". And show photos of the string track, seemingly heading off into the horizon. However, it’s much easier to check than the drunk Anatoly Yunitskiy and his criminal owner Victor Morozov want to admit.

It all started back in 1994, when Tolya Yunitsky, in the intervals between drinking, organized an analogue of a peasant farm — IP Yunitskiy, Anatoly Eduardovich. At Gomel, st. Kirova 90/40, where the “ingenious inventor” then lived, in the five-story building of the Khrushchev times, started the usual process of digging potatoes, for which Anatoly Eduardovich forced a riotous famine. But, with the beginnings of an entrepreneurial buddy, he approached the matter scientifically - he registered an IP and tried to grow this pig food [low quality potatoes, -ed.] on the fields of local collective farms, and the IP needed him to sell products to the nearest Gomel stores, trade in the market and save on taxes. However, after several attempts to act independently, he realized that it was impossible to bypass organized crime and began to pay them. It was then that he met the head of the “Morozov” grouping, Sergei Morozov, who was protecting the scam, racketeering and prostitution in Belarusian Gomel.

According to the data of the prosecutor's office, the operatives of the “local rubop” have been working closely and specifically against the Morozov group since 1999. Employees of the Main Directorate for Combating Organized Crime and Corruption of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor's Office and the Investigation Department of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Gomel Regional Executive Committee opened the first “Morozovskoe” criminal case in December 2004. But it was only on December 1, 2006 that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus issued a guilty verdict against about three dozen participants of the “Morozov” criminal organization who were being held in the case. Its leader and creator Sergey Morozov, as well as the two most active participants Valery Gorbaty and Igor Danchenko were sentenced to an exceptional measure of punishment - the death penalty. The sentence is enforced. The remaining members of the criminal organization received a sentence of imprisonment from 6 to 20 years. Nikolai Losev, the former head of the criminal investigation department of the Gomel Department of Internal Affairs who covered the bandits, was sentenced to 18 years in prison and deprived of the rank of police colonel.

But all this will be only in 2006, but for now the enterprise, which did not bring much profit, will be liquidated by Anatoly Yunitsky in 1998, when he, already firmly seated on alcohol and soft drugs, will start to work closely, and with the support of the “Morozovskys”, engage in a major string transport . The beginning of the process in which more than 350 thousand citizens of Russia were deceived began in Belarus in 1996.

The reincarnation of the Sky Way scam began in 2014, after a massive attack on the Internet of everyone who survived after MMM, MMM-2, binary options, forex, and similar Internet frauds of modern times. Details of this are described in a separate article. After fleeing from Lithuania, where Victor Morozov attempted to build a “string road” landfill in the Siauliai suburb, in February 2015, a decision was made about a covering operation in a more favorable area. At the same time, the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Taxes and Tax Collection in the Pukhovichi district registered a new enterprise, Anatoly Yunitskiy and Viktor Morozov, in the territory of the Republic of Belarus - closed joint-stock company “String Technologies” (UNP 192425076). And at the address Minsk Region., Pukhovichi District, Novoselkovsky village, ag. Novoselki, st. Lenin, d.1a, place of registration of the enterprise, and began the construction of the very "Landfill", which, from that time, everywhere and everywhere boasts the unrecognized genius Yunitskiy. Already then it became clear that a powerful “screen” was needed, which can be seen from everywhere, including satellites. And it was from the end of 2014 that the Polygon project was launched. Eight hundred and fifty piles, three roads, one and a half “pontovyh” buildings and many options for “capsules” for the “road of the future” - in principle, this is all that was necessary for Internet hamsters. Frowning from the seeming "seriousness" of the company, they gave thousands of dollars to Viktor Morozov. And only the Great Genius Anatoly Yunitsky smiled tenderly at them from the pages of the Sky Way cluster of sites (albeit in those rare moments when he could stand upright).

By and large, the Gomel training ground is a modern analogue of the “Potemkin village”. The central building of the landfill is just a pavilion of prefabricated steel structures which costs a penny. Everything inside is a screen and decoration. All the hanging elements on the “string highways” are decorative, and the “capsules” created by the Great Genius are simply plastic and sheet metal props. None of these capsules ever moved with a large gathering of journalists, and never, after unsuccessful trials, were written about in the press, inside people no longer roll. Visits of paid journalists and “bloggers” who were flattered by the completely irresponsible Anatoly Yunitskiy were among the alleys of young apple trees - according to legend, they were allowed by the founder of the Sky Way to plant only at least 2 thousand dollars for the project. There were many such suckers too. And Eco Fest, an annual festival invented by narcotic delirium, was intended to attract doubters to the test site. In addition, Yunitskiy, as never before, was bored and needed new drinking companions - he did not experience their lack during the “festival” period.

The implementation of the project “Landfill” allowed Viktor Morozov and Anatoly Yunitsky to endlessly say that “everything works”. However, on verification, this was not at all the case. The frenzied activity of all the criminals connected with Sky Way gave birth to the long-known principle of all fraudsters - the imitation of violent activity. The fact is that there is no working model for Morozov and Yunitskiy, and never was. All certificates that are received by various legal entities, which Yunitskiy and Morozov assign to the “Sky Way Company” (which simply does not exist legally) are merely fake papers confirming “scientific developments” or allowing to proceed to testing. At the extreme option - they just confirm some minor technical details. They do not record any real achievements and are not permission documents. This is just a set of candy wrappers, important only for one thing - to show ignorant "investors" that things are moving. Of course, it moves - into the void. The Sky Way project is just an analogue of pornography - there is progress on the screen, but after watching the viewer looks around and understands that the beautiful picture was gone, but in reality nothing happened. And, fastening his pants, he realizes that this time everything was not real again. This is what the fraud of Viktor Morozov and Anatoly Yunitskiy is built on - to keep the attention of “hamsters-investors” until one of them guesses.

If someone shrewd starts shouting about deception, but he is isolated from the Sky Way project and he continues to do it alone. All the rest - magically believe. All this was reminiscent of the long-standing story of the Russian-Japanese war, when the Japanese consul Kabayasi many times asked the governor of Sakhalin Lyapishev for permission to open Japanese stores:

“In the evening, Lyapishev accepted the Japanese consul without any hunting. Kabayashi asked him for permission to open stores with goods from Sigiura in the villages of Sakhalin.

“Mr. Consul,” Lyapishev answered wearily, “you often ask me for consent to open stores.” I give you permission every time. But there are still no Sigiura shops. And you again come to me with a question about the resolution of the stores.

Kabayasi listened to the governor with a smile:

- We, the Japanese, would like to find out the pressing issues of the Sakhalin market. If we have studied well what the women of Paris like or what the Chinese in Canton like, then we cannot grasp the needs of the people of your Sakhalin. ”

It is needless to add that the main goal of the Japanese was intelligence on the frontiers of the Russian empire before the Russian-Japanese war. However, the behavior of Viktor Morozov and Anatoly Yunitsky is very similar - to hold out as long as possible, rob as many as possible of Russian citizens. And then ... however, they believe that no "later" will be gone and everyone will safely forget about them.

The Gomel project “Landfill”, registered with the Closed Joint-Stock Company “String Technologies” (UNP 192425076), is a fake infrastructure for a good “picture”. However, it is treated extremely unfortunate. The company has substantial debts to the budget of the republic and very soon the tax inspectorate will deal with all the dark affairs of an organization that does not even find time to hand over the next annual balance for 2017. However, to imitate the turbulent activity of CJSC String Technologies, it also upholds its “good name” - having managed to participate in four lawsuits for 2016-2017, which was initiated in all cases. However, all claims are of a penny nature and none of them went beyond the equivalent of 1.5 thousand US dollars.

One of the noisiest processes was a lawsuit against the Belarusian media, LLC MODERN PRINT (“СОВРЕМЕННАЯ ПЕЧАТЬ”), a journalist who doubted the mental adequacy of Anatoly Yunitskiy and asked him a group of questions about the reasons for the emergency evacuation from Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the financial performance of the parent company project. Having received no answer, the author simply and affordably wrote about the risks of the Sky Way project for ordinary citizens of Belarus and called on law enforcement agencies to inspect ZAO String Technologies. This extremely upset Anatoly Yunitskiy. Assessing moral damage in the amount of 1 thousand. US dollars, he rushed "into battle." However, the fair Economic Court of the city of Minsk rejected his claims to MODERN PRINTING LLC and discontinued the proceedings. On the Sky Way sites, this is still viewed from the very opposite angle - they say, Yunitskiy, protecting investors from slander, shortened the provincial journalists.

Everything the couple Morozov and Yunitsky touches turns into manure. The Gomel test site is in decline - an enticing picture no longer pleases new members of the Sky Way sect. True, in order to “revitalize the process,” Viktor Morozov started hiring provincial actors from Belarus and the near regions of Russia, who portray members of foreign delegations. Reports allegedly about their “familiarization trips” to the Sky Way test site regularly appear on the Yunitskiy website. Secondary actors of the Belarusian Republican Young Spectator Theater, the Republican Drama Theater, the Brest Academic Drama Theater, the Vitebsk Youth Theater “Koleso” Gomel Regional Drama Theater. However, even the makeup is not able to change the appearance very much, and someday this “carousel” of delegations will come to an end. The flow of staged pictures has plummeted since 2018. In addition, Viktor Morozov is trying to stop a number of criminal cases against himself and other Sky Way organizers. The fate of Anatoly Yunitskiy doesn’t bother him - the Great genius speaks smoothly only after he drinks and has strong memory problems. Many years of drunkenness greatly undermined the health of Yunitskiy and his inner circle seriously fears his premature death.

The Sky Way project is gradually collapsing. It is known that the electronic infrastructure is often disconnected for non-payment of hosting, in January 2018 the unit “work with sucker clients” was sharply reduced, and the rest were given an almost impracticable plan to purchase new shares of the project. Everything ends, and the "investors" of the project, obviously, do not wait for it to move to the next stage. The security team is fed up with unpaid wages and newsmen and cameramen refuse to work in debt. The transition to the active phase of the investigation of criminal cases will inevitably entail the detention of many managers of this modern Internet scam, which caused damage of no less than 200 million US dollars.

“Side companies” of the SkyWay Project (9 July 2018)

This article concerns the side activities of companies in the SkyWay Group controlled by the Schastlivy family who target potential investors, funnel funds to offshore locations, actively influence the media, negatively campaign against critics and help to disrupt any legal actions investors make against the SkyWay Group.

You may disagree with the contents of this article or can help to confirm its contents. Please read the article first and post your contributions below.

SUMMARY:

  • Dmitry Viktorovich SCHASTLIVY [confirmed as SkyWay staff member here: [94] –ed.] is an important participant in the SkyWay operation. Based in Irkutsk, Schastlivy was responsible for concealing where money actually ended up that was invested in the UniSky Corporation.
  • Dmitry Schastlivy and his sister Svetlana control two groups of companies.
  • The first are a set of cover companies to conceal funding and promote publicity; the company names include suitably ambiguous titles like “New Transport Technologies” (which sponsors almost exclusively bloggers and regional journalists to write second-rate articles praising SkyWay) and “National Economic Development” (which promotes “investor training” and negative campaigns against SkyWay critics).
  • The second group of companies called LLC “Expert” and LLC “Aspect”, in charge of Dmitry and Svetlana respectively, are legal companies designed to make life difficult for people who made legal complaints against the SkyWay companies.
  • These legal companies also oversaw the registration of the English block of the system (companies like “SWIG International Ltd.” and “First Skyway Invest Group Ltd.”): “While Armands Murnieks and Kudryashov… smiled encouragingly at ‘potential investors’ from the pages of SkyWay websites and at endless ‘training’ seminars… laywers of Expert and Aspect formed legally void agreements, allowing them to steal funds with impunity from investors in exchange for beautiful multi-coloured pieces of paper, which can only be seen as stock certificates if you completely misunderstand what this term means.”
  • Social media influences public opinion these days even more than traditional media. Victor Morozov and his SkyWay companies have demonstrated an awareness of this change. This is particularly observable in the change of emphasis towards Anatoly Yunitskiy and the scientific developments which will receive final expression in three years: “no one mentions Victor Morozov; all accent has been shifted to … Yunitskiy and almost no one remembers about Morozov’s accomplices like Dmitry Schastlivy.”
  • Morozov’s PR activity is fairly easy to interpret: if he shifts the emphasis to new faces, he’ll be able to safely disappear into the shadows when the pyramid finally collapses.
  • When you have companies who are legally informed and manipulate the media (which is certainly true of the Schastlivy family), “it is difficult to connect ‘A and B’ especially if there are people working the project whose main task is ‘A and B’ should not be connected. In other words the major function of the Schastlivy companies to influence the public through bribing the media and threatening them with the legal system.
«Боковые компании» проекта SkyWay (9 July 2018) “Side Companies” of the SkyWay Project

https://victormorozov.org/bokovye-kompanii-proekta-sky-way/ «Боковые компании» проекта SkyWay “Side Companies” of the SkyWay Project 9 July 2018

Internet fraud of the last decade under the futuristic name "String Transport Unitsky" or "project Sky Way" for many years will present surprises. By unwinding a long bundle of related companies, it will be possible to detect many criminal companies set up to steal citizens' funds. But if the investigation will deal with the cash-laundering network quickly enough, then with the “side” companies that also took part in the rehabilitation and laundering of funds obtained by criminal means, everything will be somewhat more complicated.

One of the active participants in the Sky Way scheme was Dmitry Viktorovich Schastlivy (TIN 380101081982), whose work requires serious study. Being one of the two trustees of the organizer of the scheme, Viktor Morozov, Dmitry Viktorovich controlled a significant piece of the Sky Way cluster, and carried out the so-called. "blood transfusion". It consisted in concealing the “ends” of the funds of the investors who trusted Anatoly Yunitskiy under the pretext of buying the mythical shares of UniSky Corporation. Irkutsk was the hometown of Dmitry Schastlivy. It was there that he formed his infrastructure for the criminal project SkyWay. In addition to the group of "educational enterprises", there were two groups of companies. The first was related to cover companies - venture fund “New Transport Technologies” (3811443030) and the Irkutsk Regional Public Organization “People's Economic Development” (TIN 3811443785). The foundation was chaired by a special trustee of Dmitry Schastlivy - his sister, Svetlana Schastlivy, the president of the public organization became Dmitry Schastlivy. The second group of companies were two law offices - LLC “Law Firm“ Expert ”” (TIN 3811152232) and LLC “Aspect” (TIN 3811173930), whose management, again, the accomplices shared - “Expert” was “ruled” by Dmitry Viktorovich himself, and The Aspect entrusted to Svetlana Viktorovna. Ownership of the company was also for both relatives in varying proportions.

And if Expert LLC and Aspect LLC were created “at the dawn” of the era of Sky Way Internet expansion in the regions - in the period 2011-2013, then People's Economic Development LLC and the New Transport Technologies Foundation were registered at the end - at the beginning of 2017. The difference of five years between these companies marks the main stages of the criminal life of both the organizer of the scheme, Viktor Morozov, and his organized criminal community.

For all the time of its existence, LLC Expert and LLC Aspect were engaged in only one thing - they showed the fiscal authorities how bad life was for honest lawyers. That is why the financial statements of companies do not contain any revenue or fixed assets. One and a half pencil and a rented computer are all the achievements of companies over five years of work. Even the salary in organizations was a big question, not to mention the total non-payment of personal income tax and contributions to state funds. But this did not prevent them from carrying out their main task - disrupting all the cases in the courts of the deceived Sky Way investors as representatives of the infinite cluster of companies of Dmitriy Schastlivy and active salesperson of Viktor Morozov - Salim Miftahutdinov. Involving lawyers with criminal reputations into the “project work”, LLC Expert and LLC Aspect also served as a liaison with the registrars of the English block of the system - overseeing the functioning “on paper” of SWIG INTERNATIONAL LTD, SKYPARK LONDON LTD, Global Transnet UK LTD and FIRST SKYWAY INVEST GROUP LTD. While Armand Murnieks, Kudryashov Yevgeny Anatolyevich and Oksana Kudryashova smiled encouragingly at “potential investors” from the pages of Sky Way websites and at endless “training” seminars and even webinars, lawyers of OOO Expert and Aspect LLC formed legally void agreements, allowing with impunity to steal funds of investors in exchange for beautiful multi-colored pieces of paper, which can be considered stock certificates only by great misunderstanding. Attempts by some of the investors who had matured to recover their funds came up against the legal barrier of all the same “lawyers” LLC Expert and LLC Aspect, the overwhelming majority of whom had external signs of regular residence in places not so distant. These "figures" by means of minimal incentives for the representatives of the judiciary successfully "resolved the issue" with the repulse of all claims of unfortunate investors.

The performance of the companies of the “late period” Sky Way was caused by a sweep, announced by Viktor Morozov for the entire cluster of Internet scam. Cash receipts plummeted and, despite the vigorous activity of salespeople, revenues sank very significantly. The main proceeds from the stolen $ 200 million basically ended at the end of 2016. Registration of the New Transport Technologies Fund and the People’s Economic Development public organization is just a part of the covering operation.

Many read the media - without online newspapers or news sites it is no longer possible to imagine the media space of our country. We receive all the operational news electronically, traditional newspapers and magazines are not as popular as a decade earlier. Using specialized systems such as Medialogia or Prism, one can very quickly understand how the discussion of a topic changes, from Internet portals to regional blogs or individual journals and Vkontakte groups. Such topics can be very ambiguous, but the operations of the media cover are to shift the emphasis, when the topic is simply impossible to shut up. So it was in the case of Sky Way - with Viktor Morozov, the topic was skillfully diverted towards Anatoly Yunitsky and String Technologies. If at the beginning of 2017 there was a talk about the project “is about to fire”, then a year later the media activity tells us something completely different - there is a long building of a stable and breakthrough scientific and technical project ahead, the results of which will be within three years. Simply put, by 2021 everything will be “exactly finished”, and all stages of the project launch have been completed. No one mentions Victor Morozov, all accents are shifted entirely on the alcoholic “Perzident” and Magician-magician Yunitsky, and almost no one remembers about Victor Morozov’s accomplices like Dmitry Schastlivy. The New Transport Technologies Foundation and the People’s Economic Development Public Organization are direct participants in this process. It is on their behalf that mythical characters propagandize new investments in Sky Way, wild price cuts on share packages and sponsor hamsters contests - who will better tell about the “great project of our time” on the Internet. But Victor Morozov understands perfectly well that all possible revenues have already been accomplished, this project has exhausted itself and for the second year the Internet has been subjected to its large-scale covering operation. His PR activity is fairly obvious: shift the emphasis to new faces, new names, completely forgetting about old things. Another year and a half and you can safely go into the shadows, from where Victor Morozov can only get the efforts of operational law enforcement officers.

The whole activity of the Venture Investment Fund “New Transport Technologies” consists exclusively in sponsoring “manual bloggers” and writing second-rate articles by regional journalists. Calls to believe in the Yunitskiy transport system consist only in shifting the focus of attention. Calling “fire on herself”, Svetlana Schastlivy, the Chairman of the Foundation, understands perfectly well - she will not have to answer for what she did personally, and making all claims to the organizers of the scheme is extremely difficult. In the blue eye, she will assure media representatives that she believes in the project to the depths of her soul and even sends the lion’s share of “investments” into it. But the financial statements of the company are still missing, and the fund itself is simply an LLC with a big name, it has never been audited and does not store its assets in a special depository. Simply put - it is a loud "bunch" and nothing more. But this deception will be revealed in a year or two, which will enable Victor Morozov to finally "leave the stage." The public organization “National Economic Development” will help the venture fund with this - “breakfasts” for suckers-investors, promotion of investments in “promising technologies”, assistance in “investing training” - all those activities that will be focused on the new “clients”, as well as all the hatred of those who have already suffered from Sky Way. However, legally, everything is very transparent, since the law does not prohibit conducting such events and “conscientiously err”. It is possible to prove the affiliation of the Schastlivy family only within the framework of the criminal case, and for most people, special databases and media background aggregators are not available. And, as a result, it is very difficult to connect “A and B”, especially if there are people working in the project whose main task is that “A and B” should never be connected.

The Sky Way project is not finished. He is still harvesting a bountiful crop of heart attacks and suicides from the economically active population. People who believed Viktor Morozov and his alcoholic clown Anatoly Yunitskiy, in the majority, lost if not all, very much. Losses affected are estimated at more than 200 million US dollars. It remains to rely on the reaction of law enforcement agencies in investigating the crimes of the OPS Morozov and stopping their attempts to evade responsibility. Chronicles of modern Russia are still far from complete on a good note. However, there is confidence that the activities of the OPS of Victor Morozov will soon be terminated, and the guilty will be punished.

“Wallets” of the Sky Way organizer (20 September 2018)

The Articles concerns cluster of the companies that were owned by Yunitskiy and co. You may be able to help us confirm these claims or provide counterclaims. Please don’t interrupt the narrative with long texts; make your suggestions at the bottom and they will be checked for verifiability and implemented. If you have valid for reasons for questioning the contents of these articles, they will be removed.

SUMMARY:

  • Although Morozov and co developed their business through network marketing and direct telephone sales, with the arrival of broadband internet into every home in the period after 2011 they quickly switched their operations to the internet.
  • In the turbulent 2000s several companies were created for Anatoly Yunitskiy. He remained unaware that governmental regulatory agencies would check any claims he made; he continued to believe that he was a great genius destined to save humanity.
  • Yunitskiy String Transport LLC still exists today; although STU-Dubna LLC created in 2008 was transformed into "Strunnye Technologii ZAO" ['String Technologies CJSC' -ed.] in March 2011. Somehow thanks to Viktor Morozov part of the 4 billion rubles [which had already been transferred to an offshore location] was returned to Yunitskiy: “only accountants and corrupt employees of the Federal Tax Service who covered this liquidation know how”.
  • However, 5% was owned by the son of the inventor (Denis Antolyevich Yunitskiy). Denis Antolyevich managed to check in five more profile companies of his father such as “Center for String Technologies” in Ulyanovsk – probably distant from tax authorities in Moscow to avoid questioning.
  • Under the direction of Morozov, Yunitskiy paired up with Salim Galiyevich MIFTAKHUTDINOV to create the “Sky Way Group of Companies” such as the “International Center TRANSNET”.(see a similarly named company Miftakhutdinov registered in London here: [95] -ed.)
  • To this list can be added the non-profit organization “Unitran” for which Anatoly Yunitskiy claimed imaginary charity linked directly to bringing his mythical string transport to troubled countries in Africa, the Middle East and Latin American. The intention was to unload this technology in Delhi, Jakarta, Karachi and Mexico City. Needless to say, mayors of these cities have never heard of Yunitskiy or his technology.
  • ”Yunitskiy String Transport” company liked to boast to the press about its authorized capital of 3.8 billion rubles thanks to the intellectual contribution of Yunitskiy. Morozov deliberately launched this financial nonsense in all interviews with Yunitskiy in order to create the illusion of stability in the SkyWay criminal cluster. Small investors saw the Federal Tax service reports which confirmed these claims and spent a lot of money on brightly colored pieces of papers that pretended they were shares of the “IBC UniSky Corporation”.
  • Although the BVI companies “IBC UniSky Corporation”, “Global Transport Investments Inc.”, “Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.” and “RSW Investment Group Ltd.” names keep turning up, Yunitskiy never mentions the company “Sinfora Holding Inc.” Victor Morozov has a vested interest in keeping this particular company secret.
  • It was in these companies that around $200 million of the investment of Russian citizens was effectively white-washed. These activities will come under the radar of Russian legal entities and Morozov, Yunitskiy and all others involved will be punished.
«Кошельки» организаторов Sky Way (20 September 2018) "Wallets" of the Sky Way organizer

http://victormorozov.org/koshelki-organizatorov-sky-way/ «Кошельки» организаторов Sky Way "Wallets" of the Sky Way organizers 20 September 2018

Ever since Gomel times, Anatoly Yunitsky has imagined himself a great entrepreneur. Sometimes he likes to recall his first enterprise in colors - a peasant farm named after himself, organized in Gomel in 1994, to collect pork feed (Belarusian potatoes of extremely poor quality). Violent famine, anarchy and dismissal from a second-class design bureau, which, at the same time as the collapse of the Soviet Union ceased to build failing searchlights to send astronauts to Mars and Jupiter, spurred entrepreneurial thinking. But some earned millions, and Anatoly Yunitsky made great plans.

However, a decade later, Anatoly Eduardovich had “his own” enterprises. It was already much later than his acquaintance with the Gomel gangster Sergei Morozov, who had defrauded the scams, racketeering and prostitution in the glorious city of Gomel. Belarusian law enforcement officers seized the very first “owner” of Yunitskiy in 2004, and shot them in 2006. Those times are long gone, Yunitskiy has a new criminal owner, also Morozov - but Viktor Vasilyevich. However, the desire to command is left. It is implemented in the remnants of its “business empire”, through the efforts of the Morozov’s security and fire alarm system, as superfluous as it was liquidated in the period 2011-2014.

In times of weak Internet, the fraudulent project Sky Way developed through network marketing and direct telephone sales. They called on the “bases of the suckers” received from sellers of similar low-quality goods that were worth big money. With the arrival of fast communication channels and the penetration of “broadband” into every home - Victor Morozov switched the Sky Way cluster to the Internet. At the same time, a decision was made to sharply reduce Russian enterprises of swindlers, including the “owned” to the Great Luminary of Russian and Belarusian science, General Designer of string transport - Anatoly Eduardovich Yunitskiy. Of course, possession of many legal entities was purely nominal, and the application was the most practical, but rather dull. Many Yunitskiy offices were cashed in a large part of the funds received by the Russian Sky Way cluster from unsuspecting suckers. At the same time, they didn’t worry much - the money was often given out “under the report” to real and imaginary employees of the enterprise. The other part was sent to the network.

In the turbulent 2000s, several companies with sonorous names were created for Anatoly Yunitskiy. On their behalf, it was “prestigious” (in the view of Yunitskiy himself) to speak with prepaid journalists, to go to various forums and congresses of idlers who were going to simply “rally” about life overlooking Lake Geneva or the Mediterranean. Anatoly Eduardovich was unaware that in more or less decent companies they do not believe in the word, and all big names are checked by the specialists of the economic security department. But since Yunitskiy was not engaged in real affairs, he continued to remain in the blissful euphoria of his Great Genius and the true Transformer of humanity.

The garbage dump of Yunitskiy String Transport LLC (TIN 7725646852) still exists today, but STU-Dubna LLC (TIN 5010038235), created on November 11, 2008, was reorganized into Center of String Technologies JSC and cleaned up on 03/31/2011. According to the longstanding, rather stupid, tradition, Yunitskiy achieved from Viktor Morozov the inclusion in the authorized capital of his Great Intellectual Property for 4 billion rubles. How, with what wild labor and how it was written off during the liquidation of the Center for Stringing Technologies OJSC, only accountants and corrupt employees of the Federal Tax Service who covered this liquidation know. Nothing significant, except for participation in the Sky Way scam, these companies are not seen. However, 5% of the shareholder of the OJSC was the son of the Great Inventor - Yunitsky Denis Anatolyevich. Familyhood in such a matter is even to the benefit - Denis Anatolyevich managed to check in five more profile companies of his father, such as OJSC “Center for String Technologies” in Ulyanovsk (TIN 5010040611), who changed the address from the Moscow region to a “distant region” in order to be guaranteed to be eliminated without unnecessary questions from the tax authorities, as well as in the long-time office of the registration of transport system "azhzhzhzh with the President in the form of his father. This fund was “clogged” by the tax authorities, on the instructions of Viktor Morozov, already 22.12.2016, on the basis of the magic clause 2 of Article 21.1 of the Federal Law of 08.08.2001 No. 129-ФЗ.

Adoring loud names, and striving, on the orders of Viktor Morozov, to create a “Sky Way Group of Companies”, within which he himself could break the leg from mutual claims, obligations and “drawn debts”, Anatoly Yunitsky visited the head and founder of “String Transport Technologies” (eliminated 24.07 .2012), LLC NTL (liquidated under paragraph 2 of Article 21.1 of the Federal Law of 08/08/2001 No. 129-FZ of February 19, 2007) and, of course, LLC International Center TRANSNET (TIN 7726710170). In this company, “in a pair”, Yunitsky was fastened to the long-time salesman of manure, Miftakhutdinov Salim Galiyevich, to at least somehow control the inclinations of the Great Genius to receive “unaccountable sums” from the cash register for alcohol and drugs. However, at the turn of 2018, only the International Center TRANSNET LLC and the String Transport Unitsky LLC were still “in the deck” of an unrecognized genius. It should be added to this solitaire and NPO "Unitran" Fund for the promotion of string transport (non-profit organization) (TIN 7704199233), on behalf of which Anatoly Yunitskiy was so fond of claiming imaginary charity - the use of which he linked directly with the supply of his mythical string transport to troubled countries in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. The goal, as always, was “good” - to unload the land communications of Delhi, Jakarta, Karachi and Mexico City. However, employees of the mayors of these cities have never heard of either Yunitsky himself or his proposals. Everything remained only on paper and in loud statements in Russian, which are not well understood in Indonesia or Venezuela.

The financial statements of enterprises, according to a long-standing tradition, never gave up. However, Yunitsky String Transport LLC was an exception and liked to boast in the press with its authorized capital of 3.8 billion rubles. 99.9% of this amount was provided by the intellectual contribution of the Great Genius. Viktor Morozov deliberately launched this financial nonsense in all the interviews of Anatoly Yunitsky in order to create the illusion of stability in the criminal cluster Sky Way. The hamsters-investors, haunted by the unusually huge numbers of the statutory, which was also “confirmed” by the information on the official website of the Federal Tax Service, actively hawked all this nonsense, actively buying colored pieces of shares of IBC UniSky Corporation, which promised unprecedented profits. Against the background of Yunitsky’s fantasies and the precise calculation of Viktor Morozov, Bitcoin is simply “resting.”

Interestingly, in his interviews, Anatoly Yunitsky never mentioned Sinfora Holding Inc, registered in the British Virgin Islands, like the entire original Sky Way criminal cluster in IBC UniSky Corporation, Global Transport Investments Inc., Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd, and RSW Investment Group Ltd . All of them are worthy of a separate story, but Sinfora Holding Inc, undoubtedly, is one of Viktor Morozov-controlled, specially hidden from prying eyes of companies-wallets.

It was in them, after the “washing” in the millstones of the “English” Sky Way cluster, that the money came from Russian citizens, according to the most modest estimates of law enforcement agencies, estimated at $ 200 million. The investigation of Viktor Morozov and Anatoly Yunitsky’s activities will still return to the existence of Russian legal entities and all those involved in their criminal activity, as well as at least criminal elimination, will incur deserved punishment.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SkyWay_Group/Archive_2&oldid=916769471"