Хто насправді зароблятиме на арештованій «Моршинській»? Розповідаю про СХЕМУ

Investigation into who truly profits from the seized Morshynska water assets and the controversies around its management by LLC Prioritas.

Key Takeaways

The management of seized state assets like Morshynska is fraught with legal and ethical challenges.
LLC Prioritas, the chosen manager, shows signs of insufficient capital, forged documents, and conflicts of interest.
Competitors managing seized assets pose risks of insider abuse and market manipulation.
Connections between asset managers and powerful media/business figures complicate transparency.
Stronger regulatory safeguards like bank guarantees are necessary to protect state interests.

What the video covers

Morshynska, a well-known Ukrainian water brand, had a portion of its assets seized from Russian oligarch Fridman and partners valued at about 5 billion UAH.
The state chose LLC Prioritas to manage these assets through a contested auction process overseen by ARMA.
Prioritas has a very low statutory capital and profit, raising questions about its capacity to manage such a large asset.
There are strong indications of document forgery and questionable tender documentation submitted by Prioritas.
Prioritas provided self-signed recommendation letters, undermining the legitimacy of its claimed management experience.
The management team of Prioritas includes a direct competitor of Morshynska, which is legally prohibited and a conflict of interest.
The investigation reveals connections between Prioritas and influential media and entertainment figures, suggesting complex ownership and influence networks.
There are suspicions that Prioritas may be involved in schemes to reduce state profits from managing ARMA assets.
Legal proceedings are ongoing regarding the seizure and management of Morshynska, with potential transfer to the State Property Fund.
New regulations require managers of seized assets to provide significant bank guarantees to protect state interests, which shell companies like Prioritas may struggle to provide.

Chapters

Who currently manages the seized Morshynska assets?

LLC Prioritas was selected through a state auction process managed by ARMA to oversee the seized Morshynska assets.

What are the main concerns about LLC Prioritas managing Morshynska?

Concerns include the company's low capital, forged documents, self-signed recommendation letters, and involvement of a direct competitor in its management team.

Why is it problematic for a competitor to manage seized assets like Morshynska?

Competitors have access to insider information and contracts, which can be used against the asset's market value and state interests, violating legal prohibitions.

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

Morshynska. The whole country knows this water. And since 2022, a portion of the company's assets has been seized from Russian oligarch Fridman and his partners. The value of the seized share is approximately 5 billion UAH. And in September, the state finally decided

Speaker A

who would manage this asset in its interest. This is a company with a statutory capital of 1,000 UAH and a profit of 8,000 UAH for the last year.

Speaker A

And these sad figures are just the tip of the iceberg. My name is Anastasia Radina, and today we have an investigation for you. I will answer four questions. Who is this company to which the state intends to entrust the

Speaker A

management of Morshynska? Why is there a direct competitor of Morshynska on this company's team? Where do the threads lead from this company, and what should be done about all this?

Speaker A

First, I will actually explain how it should have worked. When law enforcement, and subsequently the court, seize an asset, they can transfer it to a special government agency, ARMA.

Speaker A

ARMA's task is to find a manager who will preserve the asset and, accordingly, pay the state. So, in the case of Morshynska, ARMA went through literally all the circles of hell.

Speaker A

There was already one attempt to transfer the asset to a competitor. Then this issue was considered almost endlessly by the Antimonopoly Committee. This decision was cancelled. The results of the competition were challenged in court. As a result, since

Speaker A

2022, the state has been receiving nothing from the company's management other than taxes. Although by law, the state has the right to receive the lion's share of the profit from the company's management. Actually, the law on ARMA reform established deadlines

Speaker A

for announcing competitions to find managers for seized assets in the state's interest. An auction took place for Morshynska, and who won it? There were five participants in total, and I will not describe the entire course of the competition in too much detail. I

Speaker A

will only say that the first "almost winner" could not explain the abnormally low price of their offer.

Speaker A

Therefore, LLC Prioritas was recognized as the winner. The state expects dividends from Morshynska of almost approximately one billion UAH.

Speaker A

Prioritas is supposed to receive 0.9% for its management services. Of this amount, that is 9 million. And you already heard that the statutory capital of this company is 1,000 UAH.

Speaker A

Profit for the last year was 8,000 UAH. The company claims that it additionally contributed 7.4 million UAH to the statutory capital. We checked the registers as of the day this video was recorded. And today is Tuesday, October 6th. So, as of today, the company's

Speaker A

statutory capital is still listed in the registry as that same 1,000 UAH. But this is only the beginning of the questions for the company. Look at what else we know about this company. First, there is every reason to believe that,

Speaker A

unfortunately, the company simply forged documents to even be eligible to participate in the competition. And here’s a greeting to ARMA, which either didn't notice this, which to me is very hard to believe, or simply turned a blind eye to it. Look, the law

Speaker A

requires a competition participant to confirm their experience in managing real estate. So, in the documents that this company itself uploaded to the Prozorro system to participate in the tender—these are public documents, you can take a look at them. Among

Speaker A

these documents is an acceptance certificate dated December 1, 2024, which refers to a power of attorney from January 1, 2025, that is, to a document that simply should not have existed at the time this acceptance certificate was executed. Well, I will

Speaker A

add on my own: it should not have existed, if the acceptance certificate were authentic. Do you know how ARMA explains this? ARMA says that, well, it could just be some kind of typo. In my opinion, referring to a document that

Speaker A

simply should not have existed at the time of signing the act is by no means a typo. This is a highly probable sign of document forgery. Next, the company proves its actual management experience with contracts between a husband's firm

Speaker A

and a wife's firm. The recommendation letter that this company provided was actually given to it by a company that Prioritas itself owns 100%. The recommendation letter for Prioritas was signed by the very director who was appointed by Prioritas itself. Tell me,

Speaker A

please, what do you think of such recommendations, and would you rely on such recommendations in your work? I assume the answer to this question is no. Why is this important? Because the tender procedure explicitly states that if there is materially inaccurate

Speaker A

information or questionable experience, it is grounds for disqualification of the participant. Unfortunately, the commission did not make such a decision on disqualification. Moving on, the Prioritas LLC team includes a direct competitor of Morshinska. Why is this important? Because the law, again,

Speaker A

directly prohibits competitors from managing seized assets. It is important because the manager gains a lot of insider information about the actual operation of the asset. This means access to contracts and access to distribution. In principle, it is the

Speaker A

possibility to act against the interests of preserving the market value and market position of the business. So, as of October of this year, Serhiy Herman became the director of Prioritas LLC. In his own words, he is supposed to be responsible for the

Speaker A

Morshinska business strategy, but according to registry data, he is still the acting head of the Rosynka company and its co-owner. At the time Prioritas LLC won the tender for the management of Morshinska, Serhiy Herman was a co-founder of the Rosynka Trade and

Speaker A

Production Group. He has since stepped down from that co-foundership, but he remains a co-founder of the GER company, which in turn owns a stake in the Rosynka corporation. And we verified all of this, again, as of today,

Speaker A

Tuesday, October 6. Rosynka, as you know, produces water and beverages and, as such, is a competitor to Morshinska.

Speaker A

For me, unfortunately, it looks as if the ARMA—well, excuse me—concocted this scheme with a hired director simply to formally bypass the legal prohibition on involving competitors in managing an asset. Unfortunately, that is not the end of it. Where the threads

Speaker A

from this company lead. Until now, you might have gotten the impression that we are talking about some fly-by-night company. That is not the case, but this conclusion is no compliment. Why?

Speaker A

Because the threads from the company lead to some very interesting places. And here I will tell you only about facts and documents, and accordingly, the conclusions are yours to make. So, the owner of Prioritas also manages a law firm with the same name. According

Speaker A

to documents directly from ARMA, it was she who signed the management agreement between ARMA and the company Kombinat Plus by power of attorney. One of the co-founders of this law firm is, according to tender documents, actually a lawyer for that same Kombinat Plus.

Speaker A

Kombinat Plus is a company owned by Dmytro Sydorenko, the founder of Atlas Weekend. And in July 2025—last year—ARMA transferred the October Palace to the company Kombinat Plus for management. By the way, in August of this year, the October Palace was

Speaker A

returned; specifically, the building of the October Palace was returned to the state. So, according to YouControl data, a co-owner of Atlas Weekend is Yaroslav Pakharchuk. He is currently the head of 1+1 Media. Pakharchuk, according to registry data, is a

Speaker A

co-founder of Kvartal TV and other legal entities together with Timur Mindich. And there is one more document, specifically from the British company registry. A London firm, Global Media Trend Trade, excuse me, Ltd. April 2019. Among its controllers from the very

Speaker A

first day are, in fact, the same Yaroslav Pakharchuk and Timur Mindich. Mindich exited after 10 days.

Speaker A

Pakharchuk, accordingly, only in 2021. And honestly, all of this is as stated above. Of course, it

Speaker A

documents. And, unfortunately, this is not the only red flag regarding LLC Prioritas. Regrettably, I have strong grounds to believe that they may have been involved in a scheme to reduce profits for the state from the management of another ARMA asset. We

Speaker A

are talking about that same October Palace in Kyiv. The manager subleased the October Palace. He subleased it to companies that were all created on the same day. The result: the lion's share of profits from this concert and conference center could have likely

Speaker A

settled in the accounts of private companies connected to Prioritas, while the state could have received—and actually did receive—only minimal guaranteed payments. And here I must say that this is my well-founded assumption. The Anti-Corruption Bureau is investigating the relevant case, and

Speaker A

it is up to NABU to conclude whether or not there was a crime here. But let us return to the role of Prioritas in the management of the October Palace.

Speaker A

Actually, the founders and employees of these sub-tenant companies, which the October Palace was further transferred to, are co-founders of Prioritis itself , their employees, and relatives.

Speaker A

Moreover, the legal address of at least one of these sub-tenant firms of the October Palace completely matches the address of Prioritis itself. Once again , I ask you to write in the comments whether you believe that a company with

Speaker A

so many red flags will be able to effectively and honestly manage the corporate rights of Morshynska. For my part, I have already sent a letter to ARMA and the Cabinet of Ministers demanding an assessment of all the facts, documents, and hypotheses

Speaker A

mentioned above. What happens next? Currently, a court in Dnipro, following a lawsuit from another participant in the corporate rights management competition for Morshynska, has prohibited ARMA from signing the contract, so the transfer of the asset is blocked for now. On the other hand,

Speaker A

the High Anti-Corruption Court is considering a case on the seizure of Morshynska by the state through a specific sanctions mechanism. So, if the court rules in favor of the state, Morshynska will have to be transferred to the State Property Fund and then put

Speaker A

up for privatization. And, in my opinion, this would actually be the best option, but again, the court must decide this. Finally, what can be done to guarantee state revenue from the management of seized assets?

Speaker A

Unfortunately, we have not just isolated cases, not one or two, where ARMA effectively allowed a situation where managers pay the state practically nothing—paying zero or a pittance—while on the other hand, they likely earn from the asset as if

Speaker A

it were their private source of enrichment. And over the last six months, we have analyzed this situation and specific cases extensively at the anti-corruption committee. And it was actually at my initiative that we managed to ensure that contracts with

Speaker A

managers of seized assets must now include a significant bank guarantee. Why is this important? Because shell companies, in principle, cannot obtain a bank guarantee. And if a manager stops fulfilling their obligations to the state, the state's interest will be

Speaker A

secured by this bank guarantee. In the case of Morshynska, it is very important to ensure that the bank guarantee covers not only the company's dividends but also guarantee payments to the state. And these guarantee payments cannot be zero, even in a

Speaker A

situation where dividends are not being paid. For today, that is all I have regarding the investigation. Please let me know if you are interested in finding out what happens next with Morshynska. If so, I will definitely keep you updated. But for now, that's

Speaker A

it. Thank you very much for your attention and please take care of yourselves.

Topics:Morshynskaasset seizureARMALLC PrioritasRussian oligarch Fridmanstate asset managementdocument forgeryconflict of interestUkrainian water brandinvestigation

Get More with the SozAI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries and speaker detection. 30 minutes free.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →

Free tools: TXT to SRT · SRT Validator · Merge SRT · Subtitle to Text · All tools