The words “Yanukovych”, “Family”, “Sasha the dentist”, “Mezhyhirya” - all of them are associated with a past that seems already distant, especially in the context of the current war in Ukraine. However, despite this, this reality has not disappeared, and the rubble of the destroyed corrupt building left after the Maidan continues to spoil life in Ukraine.
So, everything in order. Back in 2015, the Kharkov state enterprise Elektrotyazhmash entered into a loan agreement with Unison Bank. It is unlikely that any of the readers will remember what kind of bank it was, because it was not large and was remembered by market specialists only because it was within the sphere of influence of Alexander Klimenko. There was such a minister of revenues and duties under Yanukovych. The effectiveness of this “effective manager” was determined by his friendship with Yanukovych’s son Alexander, whose effectiveness in turn was determined not by his education as a dentist, but by his position as crown prince. In general, it was a classic corruption vertical, which in Ukraine was called the “Family,” and Klimenko was an integral part of it.
But after the Maidan, the National Bank drew attention to the fact that Unison Bank has an opaque ownership structure, and the fact that “the sources of origin of their funds are not properly confirmed.” Of course, they understood where all the money came from, but there is no such term as “family money” in Ukrainian legislation, so the NBU acted according to the law and decided to liquidate Unison Bank. Top management actively opposed this, engaging in legal spam, and pressing on the political component of the National Bank’s actions. As for the “political component,” we can even agree: the financial structure that appeared thanks to this “political component” collapsed immediately after this “component” became different. But the lawsuits ended in nothing - the bank gave up life for a long time.
Now let's return to the loan agreement with the Kharkov "Electrotyazhmash". Who and why signed an agreement on behalf of a state-owned enterprise with a then toxic financial institution is the second question. Perhaps law enforcement will sort this out later. Now the future fate of this agreement is interesting. It was about two and a half million dollars. “Electrotyazhmash” was then in a very deplorable state, the debt was paid irregularly, the contract was extended, and the deposit of “Electrotyazhmash” in “Unison” was credited as repayment... In general, this long story of a miraculously surviving industrial giant is not so important. Another thing is important: in the end the debt amounted to 431 thousand US dollars. It is this 431 thousand dollars that appears in the letter from the bank liquidator, which was sent to Elektrotyazhmash in 2020. Let's remember this amount.
By that time, the bank’s liquidation procedure, which began in 2016, was already coming to an end, and the bank’s shareholders, seven Cypriot companies, received rights to the remaining property, which included the debt of Elektrotyazhmash. In itself, this trick of transferring the property of a liquidated bank is questionable from the point of view of the law, because for this there is a clear procedure according to which the bank must first pay off its creditors, and only then divide the rest. But then things got even more interesting.
The debt of Elektrotyazhmash went “free floating”, either landing “on the shores” of commercial structures (Siquestrum LLC, Financial Company Falcon-Finance LLC, Meligant Group LTD), then returning again to the founders. Why this was done is not entirely clear. Perhaps the task was to “wash” these obligations from the toxic bank. Moreover, this “floating” of debt was clearly manipulative in nature. The fact is that in all the structures that briefly became creditors, the owner or manager was the same person - a certain Oksana Chepizhko. She also acted on behalf of the founders. That is, she transferred the rights to the debt from herself to herself. This situation also looks absurd from the point of view of the law - the Civil Code prohibits a representative from performing actions in his own interests, or in favor of another person whose representative he is.
Later, during legal disputes, two more interesting facts surfaced. Firstly, the directors of the two companies stated that they did not sign the agreement on the transfer of debt, which became the basis for further legal proceedings. That is, apparently, there was a banal forgery of signatures. Secondly, the powers of attorney issued by the five remaining companies to carry out the transfer of rights were invalid at the time of the conclusion of the agreement on the assignment of debt. By the way, the mentioned powers of attorney were issued and notarized on the territory of the Russian Federation!!!
In the end, as a result of these dubious manipulations, one individual entrepreneur, the same Chepizhko A.V., received the rights to the debt of Elektrotyazhmash. This is how a modest female entrepreneur appeared on the scene, demanding the return of the money owed to her. Let us remind you that she did not earn this money, did not inherit it, it never belonged to her, and this debt arose through manipulations that are dubious from the point of view of the law.
It would seem that the idea of going to court with all this can be described in two words - “Dementia and courage.” But the brave individual entrepreneur Chepizhko was not afraid of difficulties, and even... increased the amount of debt that allegedly belongs to her.
In August last year, Chepizhko went to court demanding the return of $1.7 million and 4.1 million hryvnia, instead of the $431 thousand that the bank liquidator reminded Elektrotyazhmash. At the same time, Oksana Chepizhko referred to the conclusions of a certain examination. What is in it is unknown. Perhaps the justification included the global rise in oil prices, sunspots, magnetic storms... Be that as it may, this issue had to be sorted out by a court that would determine the validity of the claims.
Instead, the flywheel of absurdity began to spin. The judge of the Economic Court of the Kharkov Region was so sympathetic to the plaintiff’s position that he decided that the defendant must return to her not only what she asked for, but also 17 million hryvnia in penalties and interest that she did not ask for.
Typically, the courts in this case either grant the plaintiff’s request in full or reduce the amount, taking into account the circumstances. But on one’s own initiative, increasing the amount of the claim by several times is an unprecedented decision.
After a number of vicissitudes associated with the registration of the appeal in court, it was nevertheless accepted by the court, and now, as part of the appeal consideration of the case, an examination of the validity of the brave businesswoman’s claims is being carried out. We are also talking about the investigation of a criminal case based on a statement from Ukrainian Energy Machines JSC. True, it’s going neither shaky nor slow. Although the investigation could answer several interesting questions. For example, in whose interests is Mrs. Chepizhko acting?
From the name “Unison” the debt of “Electrotyazhmash” was washed away as best they could. But Oksana Chepizhko herself previously worked not only at Unison Bank. Before that, she was a top manager in the structures of the financial group of the same name, and at a time when Alexander Klimenko was at the peak of his career, and the Family was using Ukraine as a food base. And even now Chepizhko occupies a luxurious office in the Kiev Gulliver office center, where searches were carried out as part of the investigation into Klimenko’s activities.
By the way, it is interesting that another character unexpectedly appeared on the stage - Konstantin Bryl, the former head of the Zaporozhye state administration. He enters into negotiations “on behalf and on behalf of” Chepizhko, personally meets and corresponds with Ukrenergomashin lawyers, convinces, hints, and generally shows every kind of interest. At the same time, he has no formal connection with Chepizhko, or with this situation in general. Therefore, we can only assume that his role was “deciding”, however, “deciding” on a large scale.
Moreover, the life path of citizen Bryl suggests this idea. A former high-ranking traffic policeman, personal assistant to the Minister of Internal Affairs Kravchenko, who shot himself, then tax, customs, SBU, bureaucratic positions... In general, the man’s biography is unique in its own way - he managed to work everywhere, and everywhere he was accompanied by corruption scandals. We won’t list them; anyone interested can Google them. True, Themis never really got to him. The only thing he was caught for was failure to file property declarations. True, the anti-corruption court closed this case, and only a rather immodest amount of undeclared property remained in people’s memory - 43 million hryvnia.
The appearance on stage of a character who began his career under Kuchma, flourished under Yanukovych and even managed to be a governor in post-Maidan Ukraine perfectly characterizes the level and depth of connections of people who intended to gnaw millions of dollars out of the Kharkov industrial giant.
In general, the question of whether Chipizhko acts on her own or on behalf of representatives of the “Family”, which she once served faithfully, remains open. As well as the question of where it is planned to send the allocated money from Elektrotyazhmash - for the personal needs of a modest entrepreneur or to support those who want to enter Ukraine on the armor of Russian tanks? And most importantly, on whose support in high offices do people who seek to return to the brazen corruption schemes of the “Family” era count?
On January 8, the next court hearing will take place, at which not the dubious results of the “expertise from Chepizhko” will be considered, but the conclusions of independent experts appointed by the court. Most likely, they will radically restrain the plaintiff’s appetites, and the court of appeal will make a fair decision, putting an end to this carnival of judicial absurdity, protecting the state enterprise.
