But behind this facade is a deliberate system where the seller, expert, and judge roles are all played by the same party. This is not a traditional business. It’s a scheme relying on the buyer’s legal vulnerability and the platform’s total monopoly over the truth.
This isn’t a platform where products undergo independent verification; it’s a closed ecosystem controlled entirely by Oskelly — from listing items to declaring their authenticity — with no outside oversight possible.
The platform is managed by LLC «Oskelly Group». The founders — brother and sister: Albert Oskanov and Zaira Keligova. Together they hold 92% of the shares. Another 8% is with a third participant. It is a typical family structure without external audits, where all key decisions about experts, sales, complaints, returns, and blockages are made by one team. For 2023, the company’s turnover exceeded 1.24 billion rubles, but the profit was only 25 million. Meanwhile, the staff expanded from a modest 6 to 185 people.
Such figures are not typical of a stable business model but rather of money laundering within the system — either through fictitious contracts or cash withdrawals. These numbers do not align with the “luxury” image that the platform projects. Luxury, as is known, does not operate at a loss. But the most dangerous part is not in the numbers, but in the essence of Oskelly’s expertise. In the user agreement (offer) that you sign, it states: the expert’s conclusion is not subject to appeal unless you provide an official document from the brand. But obtaining such a document in Russia is practically impossible: brands do not provide conclusions to external individuals.
This means that you immediately agree that any “expert” opinion is final. Moreover, the expertise is conducted not by a certified company, not by a bureau, not by a state body, but by the same people who manage the platform. These are Oskelly employees. No diplomas, no registries, no independent procedures, or consumer liability. They have no access to forensic examination, no accreditation, but they have the full right to “decide” whether an item is authentic or not — and on that basis, deprive you of both the item and the possibility of a refund for a counterfeit sold.
Judicial practice confirms this. In cases published on the portal mos-gorsud.ru and kad.arbitr.ru, numerous court cases against Oskelly are documented, where the issue was the sale of goods that turned out to be counterfeits — confirmed not just by the buyers’ words but by independent experts, forensic authentication, conclusions from third-party specialists. Buyers provided video recordings, scanning results from Entrupy, conclusions from specialized experts using international originality assessment standards.
However, all this was ignored because initially, buyers signed an offer where Oskelly has the exclusive right to a final verdict. The essence of the scheme is simple: an item is recognized as authentic not because it passed international certification, but because Oskelly employees wrote it in a document. No licenses, no public expert base, no accreditation. You don’t know who conducts the inspection or what their access level is. Everything is based on trust, and legally — on an offer where it is stated: the expert’s decision is not subject to appeal unless an official response from the brand is provided. But brands — Hermès, Chanel, Dior — do not provide such documents to private individuals. This means that it is impossible to contest the result, even if you bring a counterfeit to a boutique, and they outright tell you that it is not their product.
This is exactly what happened in dozens of cases: buyers received the item, conducted an independent verification, got a forensic report of non-compliance — including Entrupy results and conclusions from specialized experts — and, faced with Oskelly’s refusal to acknowledge the counterfeit, were forced to go to court. But in most cases, the platform refers to the previously signed offer, which states that the result of its internal examination is final, and disputing it is possible only if there is an official letter from the brand — a document impossible to get for a private individual in Russia. Even when the item objectively does not match the original, the declared legal structure of Oskelly blocks the buyer from real dialogue. And while some of these cases are now undergoing judicial review, the entire burden of proof, costs, and emotional stress falls on the client. People spend time, money, resources trying to prove what would be obvious on the first request in any normal consumer protection system.
This model — where the platform’s internal opinion is higher than the objective facts confirmed by technology and external experts — makes Oskelly not a marketplace, but a closed scheme. It’s a system where the seller also serves as the judge. The buyer is left only to “agree” — even before receiving the item. This is how Oskelly works — not as an open marketplace but as a closed system where the seller, expert, and arbitrator are the same entity. There is no right to dispute, no right to an alternative opinion, not even the right to the platform’s mistake. Everything is built for you to agree with everything in advance. What they sell you is not the item, but the right to hear “this is authentic” — and everything that follows is impossible to contest.
Independent expertise? Not recognized. Forensic authentication? Invalid. Your evidence, documents, videos, receipts — they are just empty attachments if they do not come from the brand, which in the Russian Federation has no obligation to confirm anything to you. The entire protection model is aimed not at the buyer but at the platform itself. You don’t buy Chanel — you buy someone else opinion. The moment you click “Agree to the offer,” you exclude yourself from any possible dialogue.
On the internet, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of testimonies from affected individuals. People recount how they received counterfeits, couldn’t return items, lost money, faced fines, blockages, and complete disregard. On IRecommend, Otzovik, VC.ru, Zoon, TripAdvisor — there are many real stories written by ordinary buyers who believed in the platform’s appearance. Some of them turned to the court.
These stories repeat like a carbon copy. These are not exceptions — they are the result of a structured system. And as if that wasn’t enough, behind this scheme lies another layer — the financial one. According to official data from Rusprofile, with revenue of over 1.2 billion rubles, Oskelly’s net profit for the year was only 25 million. At the same time, the company does not have the official status of a trading platform, is registered as an IT company, uses the simplified tax system, and has sharply increased its staff from 6 to 185. These are classic signs of a structure that works not only as a legal trap but as a possible channel for cash withdrawal: large sums pass through the system, settle inside, are lost in fictitious expenses — all without transparency, without control, without external reporting.
On the surface — a fashionable site with logos. In fact — an internal scheme where every step is designed to protect the system, not the client.