Property of russian oligarch Yevtushenkov and subsidiaries of russian banks. Currently, we have only the following two cases of confiscation of russian property by Ukraine under new mechanisms: confiscation of the assets of the Russian oligarch Yevtushenkov (law on sanctions) and seizure in favor of the state of the assets of two subsidiaries of russian banks — Sberbank and Prominvestbank (law on the forced seizure of property rights of russia and its residents). We do not take into consideration the confiscation of russian assets within the criminal proceedings, since so far, there have been no such cases.
Yevtushenkov Case
Back on September 1, the High Anti-Corruption Court ruled to confiscate the assets of russian oligarch Vladimir Yevtushenkov. We are talking about his shares in Ukrainian companies, which he owns through the joint-stock company Holding Company “Elektrozavod.”
The oligarch decided not to appeal, so the decision has already entered into force on September 6. However, the government is still looking for ways to manage the property effectively.
The Cabinet of Ministers may entrust the management of assets to various government agencies and even state enterprises. The property of the russian gunsmith may go, for example, to the Asset Recovery and Management Agency, the State Property Fund, or some ministry. In Yevtushenkov’s case, it is still unknown how the government decided to enforce the decision of the Anti-Corruption Court.
Moreover, the question of the effectiveness of the decision enforcement remains. After all, if we follow the general rule (for example, when executing punishment in the form of confiscation of property in the field of criminal law), then such a decision is executed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.” Assets to be confiscated are cataloged and sold at an electronic auction. However, in the case of Yevtushenkov, everything is somewhat more complicated, since both real estate and corporate rights were confiscated.
Yevtushenkov owns corporate rights in Ukrainian companies indirectly. That is, he is the ultimate beneficiary of a foreign company that owns 100% of the authorized capital of the Ukrainian one. And this requires recognition of the HACC decision abroad in the manner determined by an international treaty (on legal assistance) or the legislation of the country in whose territory the court decision must be executed. Therefore, finding a temporary manager of corporate rights until their fate is decided under the laws of a foreign country is critical.
Subsidiaries of Russian banks
In May, the National Security and Defense Council decided to seize the assets of 2 subsidiaries of russian banks — Sberbank and Prominvestbank. This decision was approved by the Presidential Decree, and then enshrined at the level of the law of the Verkhovna Rada.
Although this property was seized under a different mechanism, the role of the leader is still assigned to the Cabinet of Ministers. It should determine the optimal management path and transfer these assets to one of the state-owned enterprises for temporary or permanent management.
To do this, the Cabinet of Ministers had to make certain clarifications and adjustments to its orders. Thus, on September 13, the Cabinet of Ministers provided instructions and recommendations for managing the seized corporate rights, bonds, and other assets to banks of the Deposit Guarantee Fund, the Ministry of Finance, the State Enterprise “National Investment Fund,” etc. But how it ended is also unknown. Back on November 14, Transparency International Ukraine sent relevant requests and is waiting for a response.
In addition to domestic formal history, there is also another aspect — international. The banks have appealed the seizure of their assets to international arbitration and if it supports the banks’ complaint, their property will have to be returned to them. From the experience of such cases, it is a matter of up to a year of time.
There is both a problem and a solution
As of November, we expect that applications will be submitted to the Anti-Corruption Court to recover the assets of more than a thousand sanctioned individuals and legal entities in accordance with the latest decisions of the National Security and Defense Council. But the question arises — is it worth it to rush with confiscation if Ukrainian state apparatus is not yet able to establish effective management of confiscated assets?
Too many entities are involved in the process that takes place after the confiscation of assets, the responsibility for the result is blurred, the order of interaction is unclear. And in general, it is not clear what the Cabinet of Ministers is guided by when determining the further fate of confiscated assets.
The Cabinet of Ministers should define clear and transparent procedures and a specific body/bodies responsible for managing the already confiscated assets, as well as establishing interdepartmental interaction between them. To this end, the Cabinet of Ministers needs to develop and approve the Asset Recovery and Management Strategy and the relevant Action Plan to it, which will regulate all processes after the decision on confiscation is made.
Adopting legislation on confiscation, finding russian assets, and even seizing them is not enough. It is important that the confiscated assets work properly for the interests of the state and citizens.
The Ministry of Justice announced that it was filing a second lawsuit with the Anti-Corruption Court regarding Yanukovych’s property. And this potentially means a number of specific assets, for example, Mezhyhiria. And here is the question: is Ukraine, as a state, ready to effectively cope with this? russia and its accomplices must pay in full for their crimes.
This publication was prepared with the financial support of the European Union. Its content is the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union
Source: yur-gazeta.com
