Ukrinbank demonstrates how simple legal loopholes can be exploited to overturn National Bank liquidation orders and inflict multi-billion-hryvnia damage on the Deposit Guarantee Fund.
At its core, the case revolves around years of legal scheming by Vladimir Klimenko, the bank’s owner, who seized control of the liquidated bank’s assets, causing billion-hryvnia losses to the state and depriving the Deposit Guarantee Fund of oversight.
Brief retrospective
Until a certain point, there was nothing particularly remarkable about Ukrinbank’s history — it was an ordinary commercial bank founded in the early 1990s. There were several rather murky episodes involving refinancing from the NBU, but they ended without consequences for management or owners. In 2015, however, Ukrinbank met the same fate as other banks that abused refinancing during the “Donetsk” era: the national regulator declared it insolvent and launched liquidation. As of December 21, 2015 (the date of the liquidation decision), the main shareholders were Vladimir Klimenko (66.99%) and Aleksey Morozov (10%).
That is when things became interesting. First, as required by law, the Deposit Guarantee Fund paid UAH 1.8 billion to depositors from its own resources, since Ukrinbank had no funds in its accounts. These UAH 1.8 billion were supposed to be reimbursed later through the sale of the liquidated bank’s assets.
At least, that was the theory. In practice, the bank’s owners used a simple but effective scheme that left the Fund without money while the owners retained control over the financial structure, blocked liquidation, and siphoned off remaining assets.
The scheme to evade liquidation
The scheme was straightforward: Vladimir Klimenko challenged the NBU’s liquidation decision while simultaneously changing registration data. The private joint-stock company “Ukrainian Innovation Bank” changed its name to “Ukrinkom” and its business activity to “other monetary intermediation.” This removed it from NBU oversight, since this activity does not require a license.
The restructured entity declared itself the legal successor of the liquidated Ukrinbank and began contesting the NBU’s insolvency decision in court. This allowed the ultimate beneficial owner — now Vladimir Klimenko — not only to shed debts already paid by the Deposit Guarantee Fund, but also to regain control over assets that were supposed to compensate the UAH 1.8 billion payout.
“Ukrinkom” blocked the Deposit Guarantee Fund’s access to Ukrinbank’s resources, claiming that, as successor, it controlled all property. It also resumed financial operations and reached profitability fairly quickly.
Naturally, those profits remained with Vladimir Klimenko, while Ukrinbank’s debts to the Fund stayed unresolved. At the same time, Klimenko actively withdrew former bank assets now controlled through PJSC “Ukrinkom.” Court actions were also used to collect debts from former borrowers, which were immediately siphoned out of “Ukrinkom.”
This led to criminal case No. 12016100000000789, initiated by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine across multiple episodes. Charges included abuse of office, document forgery, fraud, and misappropriation of bank property on a large scale, under Articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: Part 4 Art. 358; Part 2 Art. 364; Part 3 Art. 365-2; Part 2 Art. 367; Part 4 Art. 190; Art. 14 Part 5 Art. 191. The case has no logical conclusion so far and continues to be delayed.
As for Vladimir Klimenko, no official charges have been brought against him by the state. However, independent investigators link him directly to the disappearance of billions of hryvnias through schemes examined within criminal case No. 12016100000000789.
Who was in on it with Klimenko?
Similar schemes frequently surface in the media and involve well-known figures who allegedly provided high-level cover for Vladimir Klimenko. One such case involves former MP from the Radical Party, Sergey Skuratovskiy, who is currently on the run.
Through an affiliated company, LLC Ukrpoliskorm, Skuratovskiy received two non-revolving multicurrency credit lines from Ukrinbank in 2010–2014 totaling more than UAH 220 million. The funds were disbursed in full, but at least UAH 136 million was never repaid.
Investigators established that in 2013 the borrower was substituted from one legal entity to another, simplifying further manipulation of liabilities. Formally, the funds were directed toward residential construction in Sofiivska Borshchahivka, but according to NABU, they were actually used within an organized embezzlement scheme. Skuratovskiy’s wife, per case materials, acted as a co-organizer of a group aimed at stealing at least UAH 112 million, qualifying under Part 5 Art. 191 of the Criminal Code.
A separate episode involved interest-free “repayable assistance”: in 2013, Ukrpoliskorm issued Skuratovskiy a loan of nearly UAH 18 million for five years. This debt was not disclosed in his electronic declarations for 2015–2017, indicating an attempt to conceal the source and movement of funds obtained from bank loans.
Skuratovskiy’s role essentially involved siphoning large credit funds through a controlled company now in bankruptcy.
In the context of Klimenko’s schemes, this means he is attempting to enforce debt recovery against the Sofia Kyivska residential complex, built with bank credit funds, in favor of PJSC “Ukrinkom,” declared the bank’s successor.
As for Ukrinbank’s debts to the Deposit Guarantee Fund for individuals, PJSC “Ukrinkom” refuses to act as successor here — Vladimir Klimenko continues litigating against the Fund, disputing the bank’s liquidation and repayment of its debts through the Fund.
Meanwhile, Ukrinbank’s assets — over which the NBU and the Deposit Guarantee Fund lost control due to Klimenko’s scheme — have effectively dissolved. Everything that could be withdrawn from PJSC “Ukrinkom” over the years has already been taken out. Skuratovskiy’s funds appear to be among the last remaining sums that Klimenko is trying to squeeze out of the Sofia Kyivska complex, which, according to Klimenko himself, was built using Ukrinbank’s credit money.
