I don't think you're interpreting the case of Vladimir Putin clearly. It's quite obvious he will not have any chance to actually use his money that he may have

I don't think you're interpreting the case of Vladimir Putin clearly. It's quite obvious he will not have any chance to actually use his money that he may have stowed away. Autocrats don't get to retire. He also has no official family, his suspected relatives are quite well off but nothing spectacular. And it's hard to explain why a kleptocrat would want to start a war which will make his funds actively sought after all across globe and confiscated wherever found. Whatever cuckoo bananas framework of State government Galkovsky has, it sounds more believeable than naive Navalnist "con men and thieves" with regards to Putin. The other people you've mentioned may fit the kleptocrat profile perfectly, but it's hard to argue how the war would benefit their prospects of keeping that money. That's also the weak link of Navalnist's "Putin builds his palace" narrative - it's obvious that for any palace built, Putin does not get to enjoy it now and he certainly is not going to enjoy it afterwards, so it can't be his palace.