Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
⚖️🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
The court did not freeze 12,6 million on the accounts of a Kyiv contractor
On 17 August 2026, the investigative judge of the Dnipro District Court of Kyiv refused the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office's request to seize the funds of LLC “Construction Company ‘Anta’.” They asked to withdraw 12,56 million UAH from circulation across six banks at once: PrivatBank, PUMB, Ukrainian Capital, Investment and Savings Bank, MIB, and Ukrbudinvestbank.
The prosecutor did not attend the hearing. He sent a statement: proceed without me, grant the motion.
The State Bureau of Investigation case in Kyiv No. 72026102500000014 under part 3 of article 212 of the Criminal Code. According to the investigation, officials of “Anta” between 2023–2025 underpaid the state by exactly 12,56 million UAH. Supporting evidence — an analytical product of the risk management department of the same territorial unit of the SBI and forensic economic expert report No. 38 dated 27 May.
They equated the amount of unpaid VAT with the money currently sitting in the accounts. Wording in the motion: the funds were “possibly obtained as a result of tax evasion” and “constitute physical evidence.” The judge replied: “possibly” is a supposition. You don’t impose a seizure on that basis.
To freeze an account as physical evidence, you must show that these specific hryvnias are the subject, consequence, or instrument of the crime. Not “somewhere in the company there’s an amount similar to the arrears.” You need the date of receipt, the specific operation, the source.
That wasn’t in the package. There is no detective’s order declaring the funds in these accounts to be physical evidence. There’s no breakdown showing that in PrivatBank it’s “dirty” money, while in PUMB it’s revenue from a contract. There’s no risk that everything will be dispersed tomorrow: only a general phrase that the officials “are aware of the illegality.”
Separately, the judge pointed to the SBI’s analytics. It was written by the management of the same territorial unit whose detectives are handling the case. The expert then examined that same internal product. Such a paper alone does not prove that a hryvnia in an account is the fruit of a scheme.
Who is “Anta”
A Kyiv construction company since May 2018, authorized capital 2 thousand hryvnias, office on Akademika Tupoleva, 18-B. Director and co-owner Serhiy Novozhen, second founder Serhiy Saranov. NACE code — residential and nonresidential construction.
On Prozorro the firm is no newcomer: dozens of wins, contracts signed for approximately 803 million UAH. Revenue in reports jumped: 43 million in 2021, 3,3 million in 2022, 58 million in 2024, 37 million in 2025. Profit during that time was minimal, just thousands and hundreds of thousands. 26 employees.
Because of the contracts, a seizure of all accounts across six banks for such a company would mean a shutdown of the cash register. The court wrote plainly: the prosecution did not prove that the investigation requires this.
💬 ABleaks_bot
💕 Join
Telegram publication
