Statement by Dubinsky and Kolomoisky’s interests: how the Sennychenko case began

The criminal proceedings in the case of Dmytro Sennychenko were registered on 11 March 2020. According to the defense’s version, its origins may be linked to a statement by then-MP Oleksandr Dubinsky regarding the procedure for selecting a supplier of feedstock for the Odesa Port Plant.

This is stated in a publication by blogger Mykhailo Shnayder, who cites materials from the defense. They note that the initial criminal proceeding No. 236 concerned the cancellation of the procedure for selecting a feedstock supplier for OPP.

In February–early March 2020, OPP held a tender to select a partner for tolling processing of gas into mineral fertilizers. Among the participants was, in particular, Ukrnaftoburinnia, which at the final stage offered the best price terms. On 10 March, OPP’s supervisory board canceled the tender.

Sennychenko’s defense links Dubinsky’s statement and the subsequent development of the criminal proceeding to the interests of Ukrnaftoburinnia. Among the company’s then co-owners, Ihor Kolomoisky was named. At the same time, these claims are the defense’s version and need to be assessed together with other evidence in the case.

Shnayder’s publication also raises the question of whether the criminal proceeding could initially have been used as part of a commercial conflict and later become related to the struggle for control over OPP and the United Mining and Chemical Company.

Separately, attorney Bohdan Ustymenko previously linked the charges against Sennychenko to the State Property Fund’s activities to reduce the influence of large private groups on state enterprises. The lawyer publicly expressed this position in 2023.

At the same time, the official version of the investigation differs significantly from the defense’s arguments. According to NABU and SAP, the case concerns the activities of a criminal organization that, according to the investigation, operated within the SPF and was connected to episodes concerning OPP and UMCC. On 4 September 2026, the indictment in the case was sent to court. According to the anti-corruption agencies, the participants’ actions caused the state over 700 million hryvnias in losses.

Thus, there are two fundamentally different versions of the case’s origin and development. The defense draws attention to the circumstances of the first proceeding’s emergence, Dubinsky’s statement, and possible commercial interests around OPP. NABU and SAP, on the other hand, maintain that they investigated the activities of a criminal organization and the infliction of losses on state enterprises. The final assessment of these circumstances must be given by the court.