Transfer of Konstantin Zhevago's assets to ARMA: why the agency still cannot dispose of the companies 

More than a month has passed since the National Agency for Finding, Tracing and Managing Assets (ARMA) received corporate rights to 16 companies owned by businessman Konstantin Zhevago, including a significant stake in Poltava Mining and Processing Plant. However, the actual management of these assets has not yet begun. The reasons for this situation were explained in detail by Tetyana Khutora, head of the Institute for Legislative Ideas, in a comment to Suspilne.Poltava.

As the chair emphasised, the problem lies in the legal nature of the transferred asset. Corporate rights are only the rights of the owner of a legal entity, which in themselves do not give direct access to the property of the enterprise. According to Tetiana Khutora, corporate rights are a ‘shell’, while real management requires the transfer of the property complex itself: real estate, equipment, accounts, etc.

‘If only corporate rights are transferred, ARMA has no real opportunity to manage the enterprise. To exercise management, you need access to the company's assets. Without this, the effectiveness of such management is virtually zero,’ emphasised Tetiana Khutor.
The expert explains that even if ARMA appoints a new manager based on corporate rights, it will be difficult to act on behalf of the company without the consent of the current owners, who in this case remain Zhevago's associates.

For now, the situation has formally remained unchanged for the companies themselves. Konstantin Zhevago has lost the opportunity to make profits and invest in related companies, but ARMA also cannot independently dispose of assets or use the companies‘ income. Funds received from the companies’ activities are accumulated in bank accounts and can be returned to Zhevago if the suspicions are dropped or no conviction is handed down.

Tetyana Khutor noted: ‘If a conviction is handed down, the assets may be confiscated and transferred to the state budget. In this case, the State Property Fund will have the right to sell these assets.’

The head of the ILI also reported that negotiations are underway on the possibility of filing a separate lawsuit for the full recovery of Zhevago's assets. At present, this is only a discussion, and the final decision will depend on the court proceedings and the outcome of the case in the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine.

If the court decides to confiscate the assets, they can be transferred to the state, which will not only prevent their return to the owner but also ensure significant revenues for the budget through privatisation. The transfer of corporate rights is only the first step in the return of assets linked to suspects in serious crimes. However, for real effectiveness, the state needs to ensure the transfer of entire property complexes of enterprises and prepare legal mechanisms for the further confiscation and sale of assets. The case of Kostyantyn Zhevago clearly demonstrates the complexity and multi-stage nature of this process in Ukraine.

For more details, see the comment by Tetiana Khutor for Suspilne.Poltava.