Zelensky, Kolomoisky seek compromise on PrivatBank – Ukrainian PM

The Ukrainian authorities are seeking a compromise with businessman Ihor Kolomoisky over a PrivatBank case, but this move may alienate Kyiv’s western partners, Ukrainian Prime Minister Oleksiy Honcharuk has told British newspaper Financial Times.

According to the article, Ukraine’s prime minister said that Kyiv was seeking a “compromise” with Kolomoisky over a $5.5 billion banking scandal, a move that risks alienating the western backers of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s new government.

Honcharuk said that he was convinced that it was necessary to focus on economic growth now and look for joint solutions instead of spending resources to destroy each other. Therefore, according to Honcharuk, a compromise between the Ukrainian authorities and Kolomoisky is a very necessary thing. Honcharuk stressed that President Volodymyr Zelensky himself wants to reach an agreement with the oligarch. He added that any solution to this issue should be found together with the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF, in turn, warned Ukraine that concessions to Kolomoisky would jeopardize its $3.9 billion standby program.

At the same time, former Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Gontareva, directly involved in the nationalization of PrivatBank, told the Financial Times that a compromise with Kolomoisky was impossible, emphasizing that a recapitalization plan was offered before the nationalization of his bank, but the oligarch “failed to fulfill his promises.”

Investigations and risk consulting firm Kroll confirmed after an audit of PrivatBank that the financial institution was subject to large-scale and coordinated fraud at the end of 2016, which led to at least $5.5 billion in losses.

In December 2017, PrivatBank filed a lawsuit with the High Court of Justice in London against Kolomoisky, Hennadiy Boholiubov, as well as companies Teamtrend Ltd., Trade Point Agro Ltd., Collyer Ltd., Rossyan Investing Corp., Milbert Ventures Inc. and ZAO Ukrtransitservice Ltd., which are likely to be owned or controlled by them. The plaintiff secured a worldwide freezing order from the High Court on more than $2.5 billion of assets belonging to the bank’s former owners and six companies associated with them.


One comment

What is your opinion?