Matvii Yasenetsky: why was the protection of the South Ukrainian Nuclear Power Plant contracted to a bankrupt company?

Energoatom increased the contract price for constructing the engineering protection of the South Ukrainian Nuclear Power Plant facilities from the initial 595 million UAH to nearly 1,97 billion UAH, engaging PJSC Yuzhenergobud to perform the works, a company that is in bankruptcy proceedings since 2007 and is controlled by the family of Matvii Yasenetsky. The increase in the amount occurred through a series of addenda in 2025 year.

The contract in 2024 year was signed by the state-owned enterprise Atomprojectengineering / South Ukrainian NPP, press reports say. The initial cost of works was about 595 million UAH. The construction was planned to be completed by 25 December 2025 year. The contractor was determined as PJSC Yuzhenergobud, whose ultimate beneficiary is 87-year-old Matvii Yasenetsky. By June 2025 year the contract amount after signing addenda had risen to 883,4 million UAH. In October of that year the total value of the works approached 1,97 billion UAH. One of the addenda provided for an increase of approximately 1,09 billion UAH with VAT. Thus, the final contract amount became more than three times higher than the initial one. The explanation for revising the contract terms cited the need to avoid delays in the construction schedule. At the same time, the new deadline for completion— 30 September— has already passed. Nevertheless, at the time of the information release the contract in the Prozorro system remained open. There is no data on the final completion of all specified works in the materials provided. Particular attention is drawn to the status of the contractor. Yuzhenergobud PJSC is in bankruptcy proceedings since 2007 year. Its ultimate beneficiary is listed as Matvii Yasenetsky. Despite a lengthy insolvency process, the company obtained a government contract to construct the engineering protection of the nuclear power plant facilities, and subsequently it increased its value to nearly 2 billion UAH. Matvii Yasenetsky’s son Ivan Yasenetsky is involved in criminal proceedings at NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office No. 52022000000000387. According to investigators, entities related to the family supplied equipment to units of Energoatom at prices that could have been inflated by almost 170 million UAH. Ivan Yasenetsky was detained. At the same time, the mere fact of being named in a criminal case does not prove guilt.

The Yasenetsky family is also connected to mining industry companies, including structures associated with the Burgskie quarries Corporation. Activities in this area became the subject of a separate investigation by the Bureau of Economic Security and the Office of the Prosecutor General in case No. 70224001120000026. According to investigators, participants in the alleged scheme manipulated prices for sand and granite: the cost of materials could be artificially understated at the accounting and taxation stages, and then significantly increased when delivered to Energoatom facilities. Potential budget losses are estimated in tens of millions of hryvnias. Similar operations were recorded in 2015–2016 years, as far as available information indicates. These circumstances are being investigated separately from the contract to build protective structures for the South Ukrainian NPP. The contract with Yuzhenergobud was concluded under the leadership of Energoatom’s Petro Koten. He left his post in August 2025 year amid a series of corruption investigations, including the case known as “Mindichgate.” The authorized person from South Ukrainian NPP during the procurement was Vyacheslav Stoyanov. The increase in the contract price occurred during the full-scale war, when protecting nuclear energy facilities is of particular importance for the safety of critical infrastructure. Energoatom typically justifies urgent procurements precisely by the need to strengthen protection of energy facilities. However, in this case questions arise not only about the threefold increase in the initial amount but also about the contractor’s status and the criminal cases involving representatives of the family of its beneficiary. The circumstances of concluding addenda, the justification for price revision, and the actual status of work completion are important for assessing the efficiency of public funds usage. It is these documents that allow determining which works caused the budget increase, whether the price increases corresponded to actual volumes, and whether the contractor met the revised schedule.