HACC AC Confirms Decision to Confiscate Bohuslaiev’s Assets: Reasoning behind It

On June 25, the HACC Appeals Chamber rejected the Ministry of Justice’s complaint regarding the confiscation of assets belonging to the former president of the Motor Sich corporation, Viacheslav Bohuslaiev, and the former top manager, Petro Kononenko. On July 11, a resolution was issued explaining why the court upheld the confiscation of their property without confiscating the property of their relatives.

However, at the same time, the HACC Appeals Chamber did not side with the defendant or the third party, who also appealed the decision of the first instance.

Let us remind you that in April of this year, the HACC seized the assets of Bohuslaiev and Kononenko for national income, including real estate, funds in bank accounts, shares in the authorized capital of several companies, firearms, and more. However, the court confiscated only the property directly belonging to Bohuslaiev and Kononenko, and did not seize the property of their relatives, which was also mentioned in the Ministry of Justice’s lawsuit.

This prompted the Ministry of Justice to appeal the decision, arguing that the defendants could control the assets of their children and grandchildren, as these assets were purchased with their money.

The HACC Appeals Chamber did not agree with these arguments and, in its resolution dated June 25 and published yesterday, provided a justification for this decision:

“The fact that the defendants financially assisted their children and grandchildren in acquiring property (such as housing, commercial real estate, and shares in the authorized capital of business entities), who otherwise could not have afforded it, is not sufficient to conclude that the property belongs to the defendants. This conclusion stands firm despite the fact that the children and grandchildren live abroad, do not directly use the acquired property, and derive their main incomes from business entities controlled by the defendants.”

The Appeals Chamber also noted that the defendants are financially secure at a notably high level, with Bohuslaiev “being considered one of the wealthiest [individuals] in Ukraine.” Therefore, there is no logical reason for him to transfer a small part of his property to family members or relatives.

Bohuslaiev himself, through his representatives, and AZOV TRADE-XXI, a third party in this case, also attempted to appeal the confiscation decision on other grounds. However, the HACC Appeals Chamber refused to grant these appeals as well and upheld the original decision unchanged.