A 1.2 Billion UAH Scheme: Will Bank “Alliance” Ultimately Avoid Repaying Its Debt to the State?

Despite the resignation of Ukrenergo CEO Vladimir Kudrytskiy, the company still has to defend its interests in court, including the recovery of a 1.2 billion UAH debt from Bank “Alliance”. According to journalist Denys Bezlyudko, writing on the Censor.NET blog, this process under the new leadership of Ukrenergo will become a benchmark of whether the sector’s management is willing to make real changes in the energy sector and defend state interests. In addition, these funds would be highly valuable for rebuilding energy infrastructure.

According to the blogger, one of the reasons for the information campaign against Kudrytskiy and his subsequent dismissal may have been financial in nature. “If oversimplified — it’s like saying ‘Kudrytskiy didn’t allow stealing money or implementing schemes’. And allegedly this is why the media space was filled with numerous stories about ‘illegal apartments’, ‘audit results’, ‘abuse in body armor procurement’, ‘criminal cases of embezzlement’, and ‘lifestyle investigations’ — all of it white noise. The operation for an uninformed audience lasted for weeks, and for those more closely following — for years. And regardless of who ordered the dismissal, it is now obvious that they have won their round,” the blog states.

Nevertheless, the new management will still have to continue litigation against Ukrenergo’s counterparties, who allegedly attempted to personalize criminal cases around Kudrytskiy. For example, according to Bezlyudko, the case of the 1.2 billion UAH debt owed by Bank “Alliance” will be a key indicator of whether there is a real political will to change the situation in the energy market — or whether it is simply about taking control of financial flows by removing an effective manager.

“In simple terms: Kudrytskyi (‘the ultimate villain’) is no longer head of Ukrenergo. The question is — should the state company continue to demand repayment of the funds owed to it? For an effective manager, the answer is obvious. Especially given the entirely realistic expectations of a difficult winter, a challenging heating season, and serious damage to the energy system, particularly the part controlled by Ukrenergo. In conditions of an acute shortage of funds and constant need for repairs, every hryvnia matters. Therefore, 1.2 billion UAH from Bank ‘Alliance’ would certainly not be excessive,” he adds.

According to the blogger, if the publicly stated reason for Kudrytskiy’s dismissal was the inability to organize effective protection of energy facilities, then the new leadership should proceed from the opposite assumption — that it must be capable of organizing such protection, including by securing necessary financing. “Will the new head of the company receive a ‘free hand’ regarding court disputes with debtors? Will the judicial system be ready to make ‘state-level’ decisions? Or will the ‘Alliance’ debt case be buried in a long drawer, and the 1.2 billion UAH that could have been used for shelters or substation repairs simply be forgotten?” the journalist asks.

In his view, further developments will show what the real intentions were behind Kudrytskiy’s dismissal and how committed all branches of government are to defending state interests. “It will also be a signal for state bodies in other sectors, public enterprises, and their debtors — as well as international partners — as to whether Ukraine is truly improving internal resource management and trying to save every taxpayer hryvnia (whether domestic or Western), or whether it still allows large-scale corruption even during wartime,” he concluded.