ARMA paid only 54.2% of guarantee payments in the first half of 2026, ILI
From January to June 2026, the state budget received UAH 123.7 million in revenues from 42 contracts for the management of seized assets – just 54.2% of the amount that asset managers were required to pay. The contracts were concluded with the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA). This is stated in a study by the Analytical Centre “Institute of Legislative Ideas” (ILI).
“The total amount of guarantee payments under the contracts was supposed to reach UAH 228.3 million. At the same time, under contracts that failed to meet the guaranteed target, the budget lost out on potential revenues amounting to UAH 109.7 million. Of this amount, UAH 75.4 million relates to seven assets that generated no revenue at all,” ILI analysts said.
According to their estimates, the largest source of revenue remains the assets of the Glusco group, managed by PJSC Ukrnafta. Over the six-month period, they generated UAH 76.4 million, accounting for 61.8% of all revenues. This was UAH 4.4 million above the established guarantee target.
“Two other significant sources of revenue are the October Palace in Kyiv and the assets in Lebedyn. Together with Glusco, they accounted for almost 80% of all actual revenues to the state budget. Thus, only a small number of assets generate a high financial return,” the experts emphasized.
The largest budget losses are associated with railway carriages and vessels. A total of 1,697 railway carriages generated no revenue for the state, despite their potential to bring in UAH 37.4 million. Another nine vessels also generated no revenue, although their guarantee target amounted to UAH 27.9 million. The vessel EMMAKRIS III was expected to generate an additional UAH 6.5 million.
“A significant gap was also recorded in relation to the assets of Terminal Karpaty LLC. In particular, the real estate in the village of Batovo generated only UAH 1.4 million against guaranteed payments of UAH 14.8 million. Another four contracts began generating revenue only in June, following delays in transferring the property for management,” the study says.
ILI also assessed the quality of asset management. ARMA provided information on inspections of 41 contracts for January–April, but final results were available for only 36 of them. At least one deficiency was identified in 25 contracts. Inspections found no violations in only 11 contracts.
“The most common violations were discrepancies in reporting (15 contracts), problems with asset insurance (11 contracts), breaches of deadlines for making guarantee payments (7 contracts), and systematic failure to comply with material contractual terms (7 contracts). In 16 cases, ARMA required the managers to remedy the violations; however, there is no information on whether these requirements were fulfilled, what sanctions were imposed, or whether outstanding debts were recovered,” the analysts noted.
ILI experts recommend introducing monthly public monitoring of each contract; reporting actual revenues and guarantee targets separately; accelerating the replacement of ineffective asset managers; and conducting an audit into the reasons why assets have not been transferred for management. They also recommend strengthening risk-based oversight of assets generating zero or unstable revenues and regularly publishing inspection results.