The minister’s office and gas deposits: how companies connected to fugitive Zlochevsky obtained special permits for fields

State position, gas business, and mineral rights. At the time when Mykola Zlochevskyi headed the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, the company Esko-Pivnich received a permit to develop the Rakytnianskyi deposit in Kharkiv region, and Pari — a permit for the Semygynivske deposit in Lviv region. A later IPVG report links these companies to Zlochevskyi, but the question of actual control over them at the moment of the permit issuance requires verification against archival documents.

It is necessary to clarify:

Who exactly signed the decisions to grant the permits, on what grounds the business obtained the rights to extract, and who ultimately became the beneficial owner. We will analyze the permitting documents, the ownership history of the companies, and the actions of officials. We plan to appeal to NABU and SAP with concrete documents and questions, not with general statements.

Another issue is why the state missed the opportunity to consider its claims on the merits. In the Semygynivske deposit case, the prosecutor's suit was not accepted due to a missed deadline for filing to court, so the legality of the permit issuance was never established.

We will check not only the permit recipients but also those officials who were supposed to timely defend national interests. There will be details about specific deposits, dates, decisions, and questions for documentary verification of asset origins and official accountability.

Mykola Zlochevskyi headed the environmental protection ministry during the Yanukovych era in 2010–2012 years, and after leaving the minister’s post in April 2012 he became deputy secretary of the National Security and Defense Council; he left that position in February 2014 year.

These periods coincide with the permit issuance dates for companies whose corporate ties require verification not by the current register, but as of the date of each decision.

The simple question of this investigation: did the state permitting system operate in the interests of the state, or did certain business interests gain advantages through access to power? The answer must be in the documents: permitting cases, decisions, signatures, corporate archives, and payments.

Not broad suspicions, but concrete permits

Kharkiv region

Lviv region

The IPVG report contains information about the beneficial ties of Esko-Pivnich and Pari with Zlochevskyi as of a later corporate snapshot 2016. This is an important evidence for building the ownership history, but not a substitute for documents on control in 2011–2012 years.

It is necessary to establish who filed the application, who checked the grounds, who approved the decision, who signed the order, and who actually received the economic benefit.

In the Semygynivske deposit case, the Supreme Court 13 in May 2025 year left in force procedural rulings that prevented the prosecutor’s challenge due to a missed deadline. The court did not issue a substantive assessment of the asserted claims. The court noted the possibility that the prosecutor could obtain the relevant information as early as March 2021 year and that a request could be made only in August 7 to 2024 year.

Here arises a separate line of accountability. If the state considered the permit illegal, why did its representatives not ensure timely consideration of the claims? Who controlled the deadlines, who made the decisions, and was there an investigation after the procedural defeat?

NABU and SAP should verify the circumstances of permit issuance during Zlochevskyi’s state service. A separate request to the DBR will concern possible improper performance of official duties in prosecutor responses; final jurisdiction will depend on established facts, subject, and qualification.

The subject of the check should be specific:

The question “where did the money come from?” cannot be resolved merely by referencing the existence of a successful gas business. It requires examining how the asset arose, who financed its acquisition, and whether office position was used as a tool to gain an advantage.

Criminal qualification requires evidence of a specific corpus: for abuse of power, a mere coincidence of official dates is insufficient; for legalization of funds it is necessary to establish their criminal origin; for tax claims a separate evidentiary basis is required. Apply the law with proper consideration of the time of the act, the retroactive effect of a milder law, and statutes of limitations.