The Sennychenko Case: Expert Raises Question About Possible New Center of Influence

The investigation into the case of former State Property Fund head Dmytro Sennychenko has exposed questions about state budget expenditures and the activities of shadow centers of influence.

De-oligarchization and the "administrative module" The expert recalled that in the 2019–2021 years Ukraine pursued de-oligarchization: it adopted the so-called anti-Kolomoisky banking law, imposed NSDC sanctions, and was preparing a law on oligarchs. Under Sennychenko's leadership, the State Property Fund, according to his public statements, pushed oligarchic groups out of state enterprises. In particular, in May 2020 the management of Centrenergo associated with Ihor Kolomoisky was changed, and in August 2021 the permit for a titanium deposit moved from Dmytro Firtash’s Group DF to the state-owned United Mining and Chemical Company (OGHK). Between those events, on 14 June 2021 a memorandum was dated that the defense of the accused Andrii Hmyrin cites. According to the lawyers, the document is in the case files and provided for the distribution of future revenues from control over OPZ and OGHK business processes: 33% to Serhii Bayrak, now one of the prosecution's key witnesses, to the Salo family, and to the so-called “administrative module,” whose participants have not been identified. In the defense’s assessment, that name could have referred to people with administrative levers, law-enforcement capabilities, and media resources — a non-public center of influence comparable in capacity to oligarchic groups. At the same time, the law on oligarchs does not provide for such structures, and the oligarch registry never started operating, Schneider notes. "Has a new center of influence formed against the backdrop of de-oligarchization that struck precisely at those who were pushing oligarchs out of state enterprises?" the expert asks. Who built the evidentiary base in the Sennychenko case Schneider raises the question of whether the work of the “module” could have influenced the formation of the evidentiary base in the case. "Did the work of the ‘module’ itself produce the evidentiary base in the Sennychenko case? Conversation recordings, meetings, collected information about people, materials handed over to investigators: who and how formed this?" the expert writes. It was precisely this that, according to the author of the post, on 30 September Hmyrin’s defense asked the State Bureau of Investigations to establish. Separately, the expert recalled the conflict around Kyiv shopping mall Globus in the 2008–2013 years, in which Bayrak was involved. The British owner of the mall called the events a raider takeover and alleged the involvement of high-ranking officials. "Then, as now, there are no names… ‘What investors will come to a country where statements and ‘proper’ proceedings can be used to pressure anyone for years?’" Schneider writes. Against this background, he notes that the auction to sell 99,57% of OPZ shares with a starting price of more than 4,3 billion UAH, scheduled for 19 October, did not take place: no one registered to bid for the asset. Also read: The Sennychenko case: expert raised questions about the advisability of state spending on the investigation How much the investigation costs and what the defense says Another question is the cost of the investigation. According to lawyer Andrii Tsyhankov’s estimate, the state resources used in the case amount to 241,7 million UAH under the basic scenario and could reach 433 million UAH in the upper scenario, excluding expert examinations, translations, and international legal assistance. At the same time, the defense contends that there are no budget funds at issue because, in their view, the case concerns the price of contracts with a state enterprise. According to the defense, from July 2019 to the fall of 2021 the company AGT, which worked with OPZ under a tolling agreement, paid the plant about 4,5 billion UAH of its own funds — an amount comparable to the plant’s starting price. At the same time, the defense claims OPZ still owes the company about 200 million UAH for process gas. "The state spends resources on the process for years. So is it not paying off someone’s private accounts?" Schneider asks. What Sennychenko is accused of NABU and SAPO accuse former State Property Fund head Dmytro Sennychenko and other figures of embezzling funds of the Odesa Port Plant (OPZ) and the United Mining and Chemical Company (OGHK), as well as of laundering illegally obtained income. According to the judicial registry, the losses to state enterprises exceed 700 million UAH, and the amount of funds that, according to the prosecution’s version, were laundered totals more than 10 billion UAH. The case is currently at the preparatory stage in the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC). The defense denies the existence of a criminal offense and questions the circumstances of how the indictment was assembled.