The Motherland Memorial is one of the most famous in Ukraine and a real treasure of the capital. However, the land around the complex became the object of a loud raider scandal and a symbol of encroachments on privatization. After all, part of the park in the elite Pechersk, in all likelihood, in a dubious way, could have been obtained into private hands by a company from the orbit of Igor Kolomoisky and Andrei Bogdan.
How did this company manage to “defend its rights”, contrary to the interests of the Kyiv community? Details of a probable land “scam” involving the structure of the disgraced oligarch and the ex-head of the OP
Two years ago, an active discussion began in the media about the possible privatization of two objects on the territory of the Motherland memorial complex in Kyiv. And the main “anti-hero” in these publications was a sort of company, the Inka Architectural Workshop.
In 2015, Inka rented two buildings from the Ministry of Culture on the territory of the memorial complex with a total area of just over 370 square meters.
Accordingly, an agreement was concluded between the company and the State Property Fund of Ukraine. According to this document, Inka had the right to use the leased property for its intended purpose, and also, according to clause 11.1 of the agreement, these objects were not subject to privatization. For this, Inka undertook to pay a little more than 127 thousand UAH monthly, excluding VAT. The agreement is valid until 2030 inclusive.
In September 2019, changes were made to the agreement. For example, the rent has been increased: now Inka is obliged to pay 233 thousand hryvnia for rent. The point about the impossibility of privatization remained the same. However, before the contract was re-signed in January 2019, changes occurred in the legislation on the privatization of state property. As a result, the privatization of state-owned facilities became possible under certain conditions, which Inka also took advantage of to sue and exclude from the contract the clause prohibiting privatization.
The editors paid close attention to the dates.
“In January there were changes in legislation, in September Inka signed an agreement with the same condition that prohibited privatization. And to extend the story - a year later, “Inka” came to its senses and decided to sue in order to “bring it into compliance with current legislation.” That is, Inka agreed to the terms of the contract after the law on privatization was changed, but for some reason a year later decided that the contract was drawn up incorrectly.
And so in February 2021, the company achieved through the Kiev Economic Court the cancellation of the clause that makes privatization impossible, appealing to what we mentioned earlier, that is: firstly, the agreement does not comply with current legislation; secondly, there are no plans to use the facilities for the next three years (after all, the contract was concluded for 15 years), which means that privatization is possible,” notes Maria Vinnichenko.
As journalists were told at the State Property Fund, a further appeal in the case was scheduled for consideration more than once, but the Northern Appeals Economic Court left the complaint unsatisfied.
What buildings exactly are we talking about?
According to the order of the Ministry of Culture of 2008, the object on Zapecherny Lane, 2 is included in the list of cultural heritage sites. This is the mansion of the commander of the Kyiv Military District.
According to the team of the “Fascinating Kyiv” project, “the house is an original example of residential architecture such as state dachas and mansions of the post-war period.” And although the persons who stayed there remained on the pages of our history as those whom we don’t even want to remember, it is a historical monument.
What is the Inko Architectural Studio and who might be behind it?
According to the information and analytical platform YouControl, the company is engaged in the provision of office administrative services, activities in the field of engineering, geology, geodesy, etc., organization of construction and much more. However, in the context of the story with the Motherland Memorial, the possible privatization of part of the park by a company that has a construction organization as a KVED raises doubts.
According to media reports, the actual owner of Inka Architectural Workshop LLC until 2018 was Igor Kolomoisky’s former lawyer and ex-chairman of the President’s Office Andrei Bogdan, and subsequently the current people’s deputy Nikolai Solsky. Currently, the company is owned by Elena Fasol, an assistant to the Servant of the People deputy Alexander Marikovsky.
Questions also arise to the Ministry of Culture, which is supposed to defend the interests of the state, but strangely, this story was not made public and did not even file a complaint in court. Is it because in those years the Minister of Culture was the former general director of 1+1, a channel owned by Kolomoisky?
Who was the judge in this case?
The case in the Economic Court was considered by Lyudmila Shkurdova, the judge leading cases related to the nationalization of Privatbank, and who, according to journalists, “has repeatedly proven her bias in considering these cases.” In addition, colleagues note: the State Property Fund did not defend the inviolability of the National Memorial in the courts, and sometimes its representatives did not appear at court hearings at all.
And, as StopCor was told in the Office of the Prosecutor General, the role of the State Property Fund in this story did not go unnoticed.
“Criminal proceedings have been established regarding possible abuse of official position by officials of the State Property Fund of Ukraine when concluding an agreement with LLC Architectural Workshop Inka,” the UCP response says.
What is happening to the complex now?
Note that the scandalous story has been going on for more than two years. As noted by the General Director of the National Museum of the History of Ukraine in the Second World War, Yuriy Savchuk, the museum has already informed the management of the State Property Fund of Ukraine as the lessor of the property, as well as the response of the defendant in the case about the need to take urgent measures of legal protection of the property interests of the state and the museum in particular. And, As StopCor was told in the Office of the Prosecutor General, the role of the State Property Fund in this story did not go unnoticed.
“Criminal proceedings have been established regarding possible abuse of official position by officials of the State Property Fund of Ukraine when concluding an agreement with LLC Architectural Workshop Inka,” the UCP response says.
What is happening to the complex now?
Note that the scandalous story has been going on for more than two years. As noted by the General Director of the National Museum of the History of Ukraine in the Second World War, Yuriy Savchuk, the museum has already informed the management of the State Property Fund of Ukraine as the lessor of the property, as well as the response of the defendant in the case, about the need to take urgent measures of legal protection of the property interests of the state and the museum in particular.
It seems to me that you can’t say it better or more accurately. We are talking about the legal protection of the property interests of the state and the museum in particular,” he emphasized.
All this prompted the StopCor team to try to personally meet with Inca representatives and find out their motives.
However, company representatives said that they saw a probable raider attack in this case, and they allegedly had never heard of Andrei Bogdan at all. In addition, according to them, everything seems to be in the lawsuit, and everything has already been decided by the court.
But as the Stopkorovites learned, the court cases are still ongoing, although Director Inki did not mention this, and the Office of the Prosecutor General is already taking part in them.
In particular, the Economic Court of the city of Kyiv received a statement of claim from the Deputy Prosecutor General in the interests of the state represented by the State Property Fund of Ukraine, the Ministry of Culture in LLC "Architectural Workshop "Inka" for termination of the lease agreement, return of property and eviction, which was submitted to Judge Ivchenko .
“I think it is most correct and correct to say that the court decision of 2021 opens the way to possible privatization. From a legal point of view, for the privatization of museum property to begin or continue, this does not happen. Obviously, the court decision caused us alarm and a response due to the fact that it opened the way to the possible, I emphasize, possible privatization of this part of the museum’s property complex,” comments Yuriy Savchuk.
