A new Kurchenko emerges: the scandalous "Unigran" case involving Naumets and Shapran is gathering more details.

This concerns the assets of "Unigran," which were essentially sold to private companies.

Subscribe to our Viber: news, humor, and entertainment!

This is mentioned in a publication by Trap Aggressor (a media project of the analytical center StateWatch), as reported by Obozrevatel. On November 15, investigators from the Main Investigative Department of the National Police conducted searches at the home of the former director and now accountant of "Unigran-Service," Alexander Stadnik.

This enterprise is part of the "Unigran" group of companies, which is one of the leaders in granite extraction and processing in Ukraine. However, they are under sanctions, making it crucial to scrutinize the situation surrounding the alienation of assets of this group, which was also controlled by the sanctioned Russian citizen Igor Naumets.

Thus, it is quite logical to analyze the situation in detail, explaining the legal tricks employed by a group of Ukrainian businessmen and law enforcement officials who stole assets that were subsequently supposed to be recovered for the state, as stated in the publication.

Naumets' Empire: How It Worked

For years, Russian representatives have been sinking their financial claws into the economy of our state. One vivid example is the business empire of Russian citizen Igor Naumets, who holds passports from both Russia and Ukraine and controlled the "Unigran" group of companies. In the spring of 2023, the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) imposed sanctions against Naumets himself, his British frontwoman Elena Kalpa, and three Cypriot legal entities – Westgrinite Holdings Limited, ES Mining Company Limited, and Smartdixi Limited.

The method of sanctioning involves blocking all assets. In other words, no actions can be taken regarding the property of the five specified entities, making it impossible to recover such property for the state in the future.

Regarding the property owned by these companies, it involved more than 250 movable and immovable assets. The approximate value of all the specified assets exceeds 4 billion hryvnias. For comparison, this is nearly one-third of the amount of military aid to Ukraine announced by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin during his visit to Ukraine on October 21, 2024.

"50-50": Naumets-Shapran Memorandum as the Key to Preserving Assets

The state could lose everything because the group of "entrepreneurs" swiftly transferred all assets from the legal entities in the previous infographic to newly created companies. They disregard both the NSDC's decision on sanctioning and the implementation of this decision by a decree from Zelensky. The fact is that while sanctions remain, the Ministry of Justice will file a lawsuit in the High Anti-Corruption Court (VAKS) for the recovery of Russian assets for the state, and the corresponding property will end up, following a favorable decision, in the State Property Fund.

Notably, journalists from the "Schemes" project partially demonstrated how Igor Naumets utilized all his connections and skillfully removed assets from under sanctions for the benefit of businessman Sergey Shapran. Within this scheme, Shapran and Naumets signed a memorandum on the distribution of business shares "50-50".

"The development of a step-by-step action plan for the theft of sanctioned property was handled by Igor Naumets himself, Ukrainian businessman Sergey Shapran, as well as the so-called 'kum of Oleg Kiper' (head of the Odessa Regional Military Administration, Ed.) Vladimir Osipov. The arrests on the property of a whole list of legal entities from the 'Unigran' group," the publication states.

However, it is not surprising that the aforementioned circumstances were somehow overlooked by neither the investigators nor the prosecutors who are investigating and procedurally directing the criminal proceedings against the "Unigran" group, as potentially state property of Ukraine became the private asset of several Ukrainians.

How Potentially State Property Was Stolen

Arrests on the movable and immovable property of the "Unigran" group of companies were imposed by a decision of the investigating judge of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv. A few months later, those same arrests were lifted by a ruling of the Kyiv Pechersk District Court signed by Judge Sergey Vovk, almost six months after the sanctions were applied.

Subsequently, the criminal proceedings transitioned from the Office of the Prosecutor General to the Kyiv Podil District Prosecutor's Office. This is where the most interesting part began, namely the removal of sanctioned assets from state control in favor of the aforementioned talented individuals: Shapran, Osipov, and Naumets.

The alienation of assets from the "Unigran" group of companies occurred through the involvement of "transit" enterprises, which, on the day of "acquisition" of the property, transferred them to newly created entities. Of course, this is pure coincidence. In the "carousel," we will show each transaction regarding the transfer of assets from the "Unigran" group, as journalists from "Schemes" have already reported.

The group of entrepreneurs involved both "interested" prosecutors and "loyal" judges. They did not shy away from breaking the law, including notaries, particularly Alla Ryabikina. In 2024, the Ministry of Justice penalized this notary by restricting her access to the state register of property rights. Ryabikina contested this penalty, and the court satisfied her claim, overturning the Ministry of Justice's order.

The fictitiousness of the concluded purchase and sale agreements is evident, as these agreements were not intended to create legal consequences at the time of their execution. It gets even more interesting.

In March 2024, a tripartite agreement on the assignment of the right of claim was concluded, which included two points outlining the following. The company "Unigran-Service" transfers to the enterprise "Enkros" (let us remind you that this is a "dummy" firm – author), and the latter, in turn, takes on partial fulfillment of the financial obligation under the contract for the supply of scrap metal dated February 23, 2024. This agreement was preliminarily concluded between "Unigran-Service" and "Olden Service".

Now, the key aspect of this agreement is the subject of the supply contract. It involved the transfer from "Olden Service" to "Unigran-Service" of waste and scrap of copper alloys worth 5 million hryvnias. In turn, the new debtor - "Enkros" - confirmed the acceptance of partial fulfillment of the financial obligation under the supply agreement for the amount of 55.8 million hryvnias.

Two months later, in May 2024, "Unigran-Service" and "Enkros" entered into a contract for the offsetting of reciprocal homogeneous claims. As a result, "Enkros" incurred unpaid monetary obligations to "Unigran-Service" in the amount of 55.8 million hryvnias under the purchase and sale contracts. Consequently, the specified companies agreed to offset reciprocal homogeneous claims against each other.

Most likely, similar agreements were concluded for the total amount across the purchase and sale transactions. But certainly, analogous "settlements" were conducted between "Unigran" and "Martens Lox".

From the above, we conclude that "Unigran-Service" and "Unigran," which alienated immovable property belonging to the enterprises in January 2024 (effectively the material and technical base for conducting economic activities) without receiving monetary funds under the respective agreements, acquired scrap metal worth over 329 million and 315 million hryvnias respectively. Subsequently, through the conclusion of assignment agreements, they "offset reciprocal homogeneous claims."

The situation with "Unigran" is yet another confirmation of how, against the backdrop of reforms and promises to adhere to the rule of law in Ukraine, the same schemes that prevailed during Yanukovych's time are reviving. The mechanism for removing assets from under sanctions and rewriting property to new "grown" businessmen under the cover of law enforcement and courts demonstrates how effectively the system can manipulate legal instruments in favor of the "powerful of this world"... The lack of proper oversight from the prosecutor's office and judges, especially the regime of maximum cooperation, allows such schemes to thrive, maintaining a high level of impunity for those involved," the publication states.