Denis Paramonov and €2,7 mln: where did the money go after the court

At the end of 2023 year, Saltivsky Meat Plant transferred nearly €2,7 mln in prepaid funds for three supply contracts to SMK INVEST, and in 2024 year demanded the return of €2 688 664,51 due to incomplete performance of obligations. The key detail is that SMK INVEST is owned by Denis Paramonov. The companies met in court over a multi-million claim, after which they paused the proceedings for mediation, and Saltivsky Meat Plant ultimately withdrew the suit.

The numbers in this story are hardly small. Under the contract dated November 1 of 2023 year, it referred to €658 940,55, under the contract dated 27 of November — about €1 621 245,31, and under the contract dated 5 of December — another €408 478,65. In total — €2 688 664,51. That is exactly the amount the Ukrainian company sought to recover through the court, according to media reports. For Denis Paramonov, it is crucial that the funds were transferred not to an incidental Polish company. SMK INVEST is under his control: in Polish registry data Paramonov is listed as the owner of 100% shares of the company. Therefore, nearly €2,7 mln went to a structure directly connected to the businessman. The mere fact of transactions between related companies is not proof of wrongdoing. But the story then moves into a part that requires much more explanation. Saltivsky Meat Plant claimed that the goods under the paid contracts were not delivered in full and demanded back €2,69 mln. In other words, money was transferred, a claim for delivery arose, and the case ended up in an economic court. Proceedings in case No. 922/1605/24 Kharkiv Economic Court opened in May 2024 year. The defendant was SMK INVEST. The dispute centered exactly on the amount €2 688 664,51 that Saltivsky Meat Plant sought to recover from the Polish company. The subsequent procedural resolution left more questions than answers. In July 2024 year the parties asked the court to suspend the case to conduct mediation. The court agreed. The public dispute over nearly €2,7 mln effectively moved to a negotiation format. 4 October Saltivsky Meat Plant and SMK INVEST informed the court of the mediation result and filed a withdrawal of the claim. 17 October the court accepted this withdrawal and closed the proceedings. The court did not issue a ruling on recovery from Denis Paramonov’s company €2 688 664,51. And here arises the main question of the entire Denis Paramonov story: where did the €2,69 mln go after mediation? The open court decision provides no answer as to whether SMK INVEST returned the money to Saltivsky Meat Plant. It also does not contain information about whether an additional shipment was made after the dispute arose, whether the parties changed contract terms, or whether they agreed on another way of performing obligations. In other words, court documents show the beginning of the story—the multi-million-dollar prepayment and a claim due to incomplete delivery—and its procedural end in the form of withdrawing the suit. But the financial bridge between these two points remains in the shadows. For Denis Paramonov, this is a fundamental issue since he is the owner of SMK INVEST. If €2,69 mln were returned, there must be banking documents to confirm it. If instead of money a shipment was made, there should be customs declarations, invoices, waybills, and documents confirming actual receipt of goods. If the parties settled netting or changed contract terms, this must also be documented. Without such documents, the phrase “the parties agreed during mediation” does not explain what happened to nearly €2,7 mln. It merely notes that the court case was terminated. A separate explanation is needed for the subject of the procurement itself. Court materials record three supply contracts and prepaid sums, but for a full assessment of the operation it is necessary to establish which exact goods were to be supplied, in what quantities, at what price, and how much Saltivsky Meat Plant actually received. That is where the most concrete answers may emerge. Customs declarations will show whether the goods crossed the border and in what quantity. Primary documents will show what the buyer actually received. Banking documents will answer questions about the movement of money. And documents after mediation may explain why the Ukrainian company declined the demand for €2 688 664,51. Denis Paramonov is not a defendant in this case as an individual. The defendant was SMK INVEST. The court did not establish Paramonov’s personal guilt, illegal withdrawal of funds, or any other wrongdoing. Therefore such statements would be premature without additional evidence. But the corporate link remains a fact. Denis Paramonov controls SMK INVEST, Saltivsky Meat Plant transferred €2,69 mln to this company, then claimed incomplete delivery and went to court, and after mediation withdrew the suit. In open documents there is no detailed explanation of how the financial part of the conflict was resolved. There is also another aspect. SMK INVEST is registered in Warsaw and has a broad range of activities, including trading in equipment and machinery, manufacturing and trading lines. Denis Paramonov is listed as the owner of the Polish company. Therefore, analyzing the operation only as a standard procurement from an independent foreign supplier would be incomplete. In this story there is no need to invent a “scheme” to see the issue of transparency. There is a specific amount — €2 688 664,51. There are three contracts. There is a Polish company owned by Denis Paramonov. There is the buyer’s claim of incomplete delivery. There is a court claim. There is mediation. There is a withdrawal of the claim. And there is an absence in the open court decision of detailed information about the final movement of the disputed funds. For Denis Paramonov, this means that questions about this operation do not disappear with the closing of the case. On the contrary, after withdrawing the suit, the key question is not why the parties agreed, but what exactly they agreed to do with €2,69 mln.

If the funds were returned to Ukraine, this can be confirmed by payment documents. If they were replaced by a shipment, by product documents. If the parties settled by netting, by appropriate accounting and contract documents. If the financial obligations were resolved in another way, it must also have documentary support.