Analytical Note on the Management and Disposal of Seized Vessels: Challenges and Solutions.

This analytical note examines two ARMA approaches to the management of seized vessels: transfer into temporary management and sale. In total, 10 vessels located in the ports of Izmail and Chornomorsk were transferred into management and tendered in two separate lots. Despite limited qualification requirements for participants, the tenders had a low level of competition, and management of all vessels was concentrated in one winner - PE “Marinex”. At present, the management has formally been recognised as ineffective, but the agreement with the manager has not been terminated. Repeat unsuccessful tenders have already been announced on the Prozorro platform.

The analysis shows that the model of transferring vessels into management proved ineffective due to legal restrictions imposed by court rulings, in particular the prohibition on leaving port waters. Under such conditions, the vessels cannot in practice be used according to their intended and functional purpose, which significantly limits the possibility of generating income, leads to their downtime and loss of economic value, and creates additional financial and security risks for the state.

Attempts to modify the seizures in order to expand the possibilities for using the vessels were accompanied by significant risks of asset loss and were therefore deemed unacceptable. The management practice, including litigation, the manager’s failure to fulfil contractual obligations, and the need for constant state oversight, further confirmed the burdensome nature of this approach.

Instead, the sale of individual vessels through auctions on the Prozorro.Sale platform demonstrated greater effectiveness. This made it possible to minimise risks, secure proceeds to the budget, and relieve the state of the function of long-term control over the assets.

Identified issues as of 11.02.2026

• 1. Too much time passes between the seizure of assets and their actual transfer to a manager for management (more than two years in the case of EMMAKRIS III).
• 2. Lack of public information about the selected manager.
• 3. Impossibility of using the vessels according to their intended and functional purpose due to the prohibition on leaving the ports.
• 4. Risk of physical destruction or damage to the vessels as a result of shelling of port infrastructure due to prolonged downtime.
• 5. Systemic failure by the manager to fulfil obligations to pay guaranteed payments leads to numerous court proceedings involving ARMA.
• 6. Lack of competition during new tenders for transferring vessels into management.

Vessels, as a specific category of property, may either remain under management to preserve and increase their value or be transferred for sale. In practice, ARMA has applied both mechanisms. In this analytical note, we compare these two approaches to determine which of them is more effective.

10 seized vessels were transferred into management in two separate lots:

- nine vessels located near the berth on the territory of the dock station of PrJSC “Dunaisudnoremont” (Izmail, Odesa Oblast):
1) “Rondo”, 2) “Svir”, 3) “Avangard”, 4) “VolgoBalt 225”, 5) “VolgoBalt 193”, 6) “VolgoBalt 244”, 7) “Omskiy 6”, 8) “Naviger 2”, 9) “Omskiy 132”.

The vessels were seized as part of a pre-trial investigation in connection with their use by business entities whose UBOs are the Russian Federation and its residents to generate income used to finance actions against the foundations of Ukraine’s national security. In 2022, the vessels were seized and transferred to ARMA for management.

Since October 2022, the vessels have been transferred to LLC “Sof Marine” for management. However, ARMA found such management ineffective and inconsistent with the interests of the state. LLC “Sof Marine” received nine vessels worth more than UAH 530 million, while the state receives only UAH 90,000 per month from their management.

- the bulk carrier “EMMAKRIS III”, moored near the berth of the Railway and Ferry Complex of SE “Chornomorsk Sea Commercial Port” (Odesa Oblast):

• built in 2000, with seven holds, a deadweight capacity of 73,281 tonnes and a draught of 6.8 metres. Its length overall (LOA) is 225 metres and its beam is 32.26 metres.

The vessel “EMMAKRIS III” was used in an illegal scheme to move agro-industrial assets of Ukrainian business entities, forcibly seized by representatives of the Russian Federation in the temporarily occupied territories of southern Ukraine, to third countries. In 2023, the vessel was seized and transferred to ARMA for management. This was the first time it had been transferred for management.

Three seized vessels were transferred for sale through three separate auctions:

The Russian oil tanker NIKA SPIRIT was seized back in 2019. It was transferred to ARMA for management in 2020. In 2022, NIKA SPIRIT was seized for the second time together with nine vessels. In 2024, this vessel was transferred to ARMA for sale. 

The second vessel is USKO MFU, which sailed under the flag of Cameroon, belonged to a Turkish company and was detained by the Ukrainian Navy. The reason was calls at the closed ports of occupied Crimea to export Ukrainian agricultural products. In 2024, the vessel was seized and transferred to ARMA for management. In April 2025, by a court decision ARMA received authorisation to take measures for the sale of USKO MFU.

ANKA is the third vessel. It sailed under the flag of Tanzania, belonged to a Montenegrin company and also illegally called at the port of temporarily occupied Crimea. In 2025, the vessel was seized and transferred to ARMA for management for the purpose of taking measures to sell the asset.

I. Analysis of the procedure for transferring vessels into management through tenders on the Prozorro platform.

Tender for nine vessels

The announcement of preliminary consultations took place on 29.01.2024. On the same day, a tender for selecting an appraiser was announced. 

The appraisal agreement was concluded on 26.03.2024 with LLC “Consulting Company ‘Ostriv’”. The cost of the appraisal was UAH 300,000. 

The tender for selecting a manager was announced on Prozorro on 07.08.2024. The expected management value was UAH 300,000 (manager’s remuneration - 30%).

The auction took place on 23.08.2024. Two participants took part in the tender for selecting a manager of the seized assets with the following tender proposals:

• - LLC “Sarma City” - UAH 184,998;
• - PE “Marinex” - UAH 185,000.

ARMA rejected the proposal of LLC “Sarma City” because the participant did not correct the discrepancies in the information and/or documents submitted in its tender proposal that were identified after the tender proposals had been disclosed.

Thus, the second participant, PE “Marinex”, was selected as the winner. As a result, an asset (property) management agreement was concluded on 03.10.2024, under which:

• - the estimated value of the assets (market value) is UAH 464,315,891;
• - the manager’s remuneration is 18.50% of the amount of monthly income received;
• - the minimum monthly (guaranteed) payment is UAH 4,643,158.91.

Tender for EMMAKRIS III

• Preliminary consultations were announced on 07.12.2023.
• The tender for selecting an appraiser was announced three times - on 07.12.2023, 11.01.2024 and 08.07.2024.  
• The appraisal agreement was concluded on 21.02.2024 with LLC “Yurformat”. The cost of the appraisal was UAH 40,000. 

The tender for selecting a manager was announced on Prozorro on 07.08.2024. The expected management value was UAH 300,000 (manager’s remuneration - 30%). One proposal was submitted by PE “Marinex” in the amount of UAH 230,000 (manager’s remuneration - 23%).

On 26.08.2024, ARMA rejected the tender proposal of PE “Marinex” due to the failure to provide all copies of documents required by the tender documentation. On 28.08.2024, PE “Marinex” filed a complaint with the AMCU alleging that ARMA had violated the procurement procedure and requested that ARMA be obliged to cancel the decision rejecting the tender proposal. On 09.09.2024, the AMCU ordered ARMA to cancel the decision rejecting the tender proposal of PE “Marinex”.

On 03.10.2024, after the appeal, an asset (property) management agreement was concluded, under which:

• - the estimated value of the assets (market value) is UAH 108,721,939;
• - the manager’s remuneration is 23% of the amount of monthly income received;
• - the minimum monthly (guaranteed) payment is UAH 1,087,219.39.

The tender documentation for both of the above tenders provided for the following qualification criteria for participants:

• 1. The procurement participant must have employees of appropriate qualification who possess the necessary knowledge and experience in management:

In particular, the participant must have specialists with higher education in speciality 073 “Management” and/or specialists with higher education who completed professional courses in enterprise management, who perform the functions of company managers, members of executive bodies, chief engineers, operators, accountants and/or otherwise support property and asset management activities.

• 2. Documented experience in performing similar contract(s) by procurement subject matter (at least two ongoing or completed contracts).
• 3. Financial capacity confirmed by financial statements or other documents (annual income/revenue must be at least 100% of the expected value of the procurement subject matter).

Thus, the tender documentation for the first tender did not include qualification criteria for tender participants regarding:

• - availability of equipment, material and technical facilities, and technologies;
• - the minimum number of employees of appropriate qualification.

ARMA conducted additional checks regarding possible links between PE “Marinex” and the aggressor state or the owners of the seized asset. On 03.04.2025, it transferred 10 seized vessels to PE “Marinex” for management.

Private Enterprise “Marinex” was registered on 29.01.2003. Its main NACE activity is 52.29 Other transportation support activities. The UBO and head of PE “Marinex” is Iryna Viktorivna Samusenko.
The activities of PE “Marinex” are not public. PE “Marinex” has no official website or social media pages. There are isolated reports about the activities of PE “Marinex”, in particular in 2005, 2013, 2016 and 2023. 
The above information indicates that PE “Marinex” provides maritime agency services, including forwarding services, primarily in the Izmail Sea Commercial Port and also in the Odesa Sea Port.

However, just four months later, on 15.08.2025, ARMA announced a repeat tender on Prozorro to select a manager for both assets,. It should be noted that the qualification criteria for participants in the tender documentation were supplemented to reflect the comments on qualification requirements discussed above,. None of the tenders took place due to the absence of participants’ proposals.
The repeat manager selection procedure was initiated because, according to our information, the management under these agreements had been recognised as ineffective. Therefore, new tenders were launched to select a manager. Once a new manager is selected, the agreement with the previous manager will be terminated and a new one will be concluded. The purpose of these actions is to ensure continuity of the asset’s operation and avoid downtime.
As of 11.02.2026, no new tenders have been announced. There is also currently no public information on the termination of the management agreements concluded with PE “Marinex”.

It should be noted that in 2025 a systemic legal dispute effectively unfolded between ARMA and PE “Marinex” in connection with the manager’s failure to fulfil the terms of the agreements for managing seized vessels, in particular non-payment of guaranteed payments, accrued financial sanctions, and failure to provide documents confirming asset management. The claims cover the period from April to July 2025, and based on the cases already considered by the courts, approximately UAH 25.6 million has been recovered (guaranteed payments, penalties, fines, 10% annual interest, inflation losses and court costs). The set of these proceedings indicates the manager’s financial incapacity or improper performance of contractual obligations, which correlates with ARMA’s assessment of the ineffective management of the transferred assets

Regarding the use of the vessel “EMMAKRIS III” as a grain storage facility.

As early as 07.08.2024, ARMA reported that the appraisal had established the satisfactory condition of the vessel “EMMAKRIS III” and that it could be used, in particular, as a floating grain storage facility for transhipment and storage of dry cargo. 
According to clauses 1.5 and 4.3.1 of the management agreement for the vessel “EMMAKRIS III”, the manager manages the vessel by using it in any type of business activity that is not prohibited by law, according to its intended and functional purpose.    
Article 15 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Ukraine provides that a merchant vessel is a self-propelled or non-self-propelled floating structure used for:

• - transportation of cargo, passengers, luggage and mail; fisheries activities, including fishing vessels; exploration and extraction of minerals; search and rescue of people in distress at sea; towing other vessels and floating objects; emergency rescue, navigation and hydrographic, and hydraulic engineering works; servicing vessels and passengers in a seaport (marine terminal); and raising property that has sunk at sea;
• - state supervision over maritime safety (shipping), protection of the marine natural environment and aquatic biological resources;
• - scientific, educational and cultural purposes;
• - sports;
• - other purposes.

It is quite clear that the intended and functional purpose of the bulk carrier “EMMAKRIS III” is the carriage of dry bulk cargo by sea, not its use as a grain storage facility.
The Pecherskyi Court of Kyiv noted that the use of the vessel “EMMAKRIS III” as a grain storage facility is not consistent with the current legislation of Ukraine governing the circulation and storage of grain.

Regarding amendments to the seizures in terms of the possibility of movement outside the port.

At the end of February 2025, the seizure of the vessel “EMMAKRIS III” was lifted in the part prohibiting any other persons from disposing of and using the vessel and from leaving SE “Chornomorsk Sea Commercial Port”. In the relevant ruling of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, in particular, it stated that “The procurement participant PE “MARINEX” provided the relevant documents and confirmations that its founders, participants, shareholders, controllers, managers and employees are not directly or indirectly connected with the owner(s) of the seized Assets; similar time-charter agreements with the provision of management and operation services - the use of vessels as means of transport for waterborne cargo transportation; diplomas and qualification documents of personnel (ship captain, ship electromechanic, ship electroacoustic specialist, ship mechanic (diesel engineer), etc.”.

However, already on 24.02.2025, the Pecherskyi District Court again imposed a seizure on the vessel “EMMAKRIS III” by prohibiting representatives of the owner, operator, charterer and any other persons from taking measures to dispose of, use or alienate the said property, including by prohibiting it from leaving SE “Chornomorsk Sea Commercial Port”. In the relevant ruling, in particular, it stated that “At present, the bulk carrier “EMMAKRIS III” has been transferred to the operational management of Private Enterprise “Marinex”, which intends to use the vessel for its intended purpose, including outside Ukraine, which will lead to the irreversible loss of physical evidence. The prosecutor indicates that, in order to preserve physical evidence in the proceedings, it became necessary to impose a seizure on the above-mentioned property”.

On 22.04.2025, ARMA called on state authorities to prevent seized ships from leaving Ukrainian waters. The Head of ARMA and the Head of the Shipping Administration held a working meeting on strengthening oversight of seized Russian ships.
During the meeting, the parties discussed the management of seized vessels located in Ukrainian ports. Today, ARMA manages 16 such vessels, and each of them has significant potential to replenish the state budget.
The parties paid special attention to the situation with the vessel “EMMAKRIS III”, one of the most high-profile of the 10 seized vessels transferred to PE “Marinex” for management. One of the key issues was preventing the vessel from leaving Ukrainian waters even during its movement to optimise space in the port.
The parties agreed that seized vessels should not remain idle at berths, blocking port operations and losing economic value. A more effective mechanism for managing such assets is their sale on the basis of relevant court rulings.

The events of 13 June 2025, when ARMA together with the Shipping Administration stopped an attempt to illegally remove the seized vessel “EMMAKRIS III” from the port despite an issued order and a valid court decision, clearly demonstrated the problematic nature of the asset management model.

Under this model, the state is forced not only to ensure formal management of the property but also to constantly monitor the good faith of the manager and prevent the risks of unlawful withdrawal of the asset. By contrast, sale of the asset makes it possible to eliminate these risks by changing the owner and relieving the state of the function of constant oversight.

Regarding the need to sell vessels rather than transfer them into management

A similar problem also concerns the nine vessels that are prohibited from leaving the port of Izmail.

Although the agreement for managing them also provides that the manager manages the vessel by using it in any type of business activity that is not prohibited by law, according to its intended and functional purpose.

On 06.12.2024, ARMA together with the State Service of Maritime, Inland Waterway Transport and Shipping of Ukraine (Shipping Administration) submitted a joint statement to the NSDC on the need to transfer seized vessels to ARMA for management through sale due to the following:

• - court seizure orders prohibit the vessels from leaving the ports;
• - while idle, the vessels lose their economic value;
• - damage is caused to the commercial activities of the ports where the seized vessels are stored;
• - an excessive burden is placed on the Shipping Administration, which currently stores the vessels;
• - significant costs are incurred for storing the vessels;
• - environmental risks arise;
• - there is a risk of losing the vessels due to constant shelling of port infrastructure.

In particular, at the end of 2025 it became known that the vessel “EMMAKRIS III” and another civilian vessel, ANKA (discussed below), were damaged in a Russian UAV attack. This once again confirms that the sale of the asset in this case is a more successful management method, as the state will be relieved of all risks.

The Ministry for Communities and Territories Development of Ukraine also initiated a change in the form of management of seized assets from a management agreement to sale.
ARMA also appealed to the Head of the SSU, as the entity that may initiate items for the agenda of NSDC meetings, requesting support for the initiative of ARMA and the Shipping Administration to change the method of ARMA’s management of sea vessels exclusively to their sale and to ensure the interests of the state.

II. Analysis of the procedure for selling vessels through auctions on the Prozorro.Sale platform

Taking into account the practice of transferring vessels into management, ARMA concluded that it was necessary to adjust the approach to managing such assets and moved to a sale strategy aimed at attracting new owners instead of managers.

As of 06.02.2026, three vessels were listed on the Prozorro.Sale platform for sale. Two of them have already found new owners, while one remains unsold.
On 21.04.2025, ARMA successfully sold the Russian oil tanker NIKA SPIRIT on the first attempt. Four participants competed for this lot in a three-round English auction. As a result, LLC “ALFA GROUP 77” became the new owner of the asset and paid UAH 6,425,000.00, which is more than 2.5 times higher than the starting price of UAH 2,438,475.00.

The second vessel that was successfully sold on the third attempt was USKO MFU. The first auction did not take place because the starting price of UAH 5 million did not attract participants. The second auction also did not take place due to the absence of participants, although the value of the vessel had been halved. Only through the use of the Dutch auction model (price reduction) did the asset find a new owner.

On 08.12.2025, the winner was Odesa-based LLC “Uneversal LTD”, which offered the starting price of UAH 2.4 million for the vessel. The benefit for the state did not end there. In addition to the lot price, the new owner of the vessel paid another UAH 4.42 million in customs payments. Thus, the total economic effect of the transaction amounted to UAH 6.9 million, which has already been credited to ARMA’s accounts.

ANKA is the third vessel that still remains in an active sale procedure. ARMA announced the first auction for this vessel on 29.12.2025, almost six months after the asset had been transferred into management. The starting price was set at UAH 16,358,478.15, but the auction did not take place due to the absence of participants. Therefore, in January 2026 ARMA announced a repeat auction, also reducing the lot price by half. However, this did not help find a new owner for the vessel. The auction did not take place for the same reason.

As of 11 February, a third auction has been announced. The starting sale price remained unchanged at UAH 8,179,239.07. The auction is scheduled for 4 March 2026.
It should also be noted that the future auction winner will additionally have to pay customs payments in the amount of UAH 4,504,532.56 to ARMA’s account.

The analysis of the practice of managing seized sea vessels indicates the systemic inefficiency of the model of transferring such assets into management, which is accompanied by high financial, operational, legal and security risks for the state.
Lengthy and problematic tender procedures, failure by managers to fulfil contractual obligations, court disputes, the need for constant oversight of asset preservation, and the risks of their loss or damage during hostilities confirm the burdensome nature of this approach.
By contrast, the sale of vessels through competitive auctions has demonstrated greater effectiveness, made it possible to secure proceeds to the state budget, relieved the state of the function of constant control, and minimised the risks of loss of the assets’ economic value. In view of this, the sale of seized vessels is a more appropriate and sustainable mechanism for managing such assets in the interests of the state.
We will continue to monitor the situation with the seized vessels.