Search

Embezzlement of EUR 6.4 million from Energoatom. The first episode of the case of former MP Mykola Martynenko

  • Date of commencement of the case: 26/09/2019
  • Instance: HACC
  • Stage of criminal proceedings: Judicial proceedings
Track case progress If you would like to follow the case, leave your email and get updates sent straight to your inbox
Embezzlement of EUR 6.4 million from Energoatom. The first episode of the case of former MP Mykola Martynenko Embezzlement of EUR 6.4 million from Energoatom. The first episode of the case of former MP Mykola Martynenko

Case description

Former MP Mykola Martynenko is accused of embezzling EUR 6.4 million from Energoatom. The embezzlement allegedly occurred during tenders for the procurement of equipment for the Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

According to investigators, in 2009–2012, Martynenko, together with members of the group that he had organized, increased the prices of bids for the procurement of equipment for the Ukrainian nuclear power plants from the Czech company Skoda JS.

Among the individuals implicated in the case are Energoatom Director Valerii Vasyllkov, the head of a separate division Volodymyr Sviatnenko, and the representative of a fictitious company, Pavlo Skalenko.

According to the investigation, Martynenko, while serving as the head of the relevant parliamentary committee, used his official position and insider knowledge of the procurement processes at the state enterprise Energoatom to orchestrate a scheme to embezzle public funds. He developed a criminal plan that involved inflating prices during procurement from a foreign company under his control.

The participants ensured that the controlled foreign company won Energoatom’s tenders by inflating price proposals to account for pre-agreed kickbacks. Contracts for the procurement of goods at inflated prices were signed, and the funds were transferred to the foreign company’s accounts, from which a portion was later routed to Martynenko’s accounts.

To cover up the scheme, in January 2007 Martynenko instructed Skalenko to set up a company called Bradcrest Investment S.A. in Panama, registered to an address in Marbella. To conceal Martynenko’s identity as the actual owner, nominee founders and directors, Panamanian nationals, were used. All decisions and financial operations were controlled by Martynenko.

At Martynenko’s direction, Skalenko opened an account for Bradcrest Investment at Fortis Banque in Switzerland, naming Martynenko as the beneficial owner. Between 2009 and 2012, this account received more than €6.4 million from Energoatom. Skalenko, acting on Martynenko’s instructions, managed the distribution of the funds.

In 2011, for additional cover, another account was opened at Hottinger & Cie bank with similar documentation, again listing Martynenko as the ultimate beneficiary. The company’s internal records identified Martynenko as a Member of Parliament and an engineer by education.

Picture

Executives of Skoda JS, fully aware they faced no financial risk, reached an agreement with the heads of Energoatom’s Atomkomplekt division, Vasyllkov and Sviatnenko, to inflate prices in the tender proposals in order to cover future payments to Bradcrest Investment. To create a façade of legitimacy, a cooperation agreement was signed, under which Bradcrest Investment supposedly provided intermediary services to help increase Skoda JS sales in Ukraine.

Payments to Bradcrest Investment were tied to contract disbursements from Energoatom to Skoda JS and bore no relation to any actual services. Sviatnenko was authorized to represent Bradcrest Investment in Ukraine, and Skalenko was granted a general power of attorney to manage the company’s affairs.

According to investigators, Vasyllkov and Sviatnenko arranged for contracts between Skoda JS and Atomkomplekt to include inflated prices, a portion of which was transferred to Bradcrest Investment accounts as commission fees. An additional agreement increased the contract value by more than CZK 97 million, including unnecessary supplies and insurance costs.

The tender procedures were conducted in violation of regulations, and the Skoda JS bids included an 18% markup to cover Bradcrest Investment’s commission fees, resulting in overpayments by Energoatom.

Subsequent agreements signed in 2009–2010 also provided for payments to Bradcrest Investment under similarly structured contracts. Through these schemes, the organized group led by Martynenko misappropriated large sums of money from the state enterprise.

As a result, Energoatom overpaid this company EUR 6.4 million, which was then transferred to the Swiss accounts of the Panamanian firm Bradcrest Investment S.A., controlled by Martynenko, and laundered under the guise of a service fee.

For such actions, all the defendants are charged under Article 191(5) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and three of them are regarded as Martynenko’s accomplices.

On June 17, 2022, the case materials were separated into two episodes due to the large number of participants on the part of the defense, failure to appear following court subpoenas, and the large number of criminal proceedings.

The second episode concerns the embezzlement of USD 17.2 million from Eastern Mining and Processing Plant, as well as Martynenko receiving EUR 311,600 of an improper advantage for lobbying the interests of the Czech company Skoda JS.

  • Proceeding No.: 52018000000000153
  • Case No.: 761/8826/19 show all cases hide other cases
  • Other court cases No.: 761/40298/16-к, 991/2007/22
  • Incriminated: Article 191, part 5, Article 209, part 3
Other cases concerning these proceedings:
Instance Key parties Instance /Key parties:
HACC
26/09/2019

Panel of judges: Fedorak L.M., Maslov V.V., Fedorov O.V.

Infographics

THE CASE OF MYKOLA MARTYNENKO

Former MP Mykola Martynenko and his accomplices allegedly embezzled EUR 6.4 million during Energoatom’s tenders for the procurement of equipment for Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

Article 191(5) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

  • pic
    October 25, 2017
    The NABU and the SAPO served Mykola Martynenko and Volodymyr Sviatnenko with suspicion notices
  • November 15, 2018
    the proceeding concerning two representatives of Bradcrest Investment S.A. was separated from the main one
  • pic
    October 3, 2019
    The indictment was forwarded to the HACC
  • October 24, 2019
    The HACC consolidated proceedings on Martynenko’s embezzlement of EUR 6.4 million from NNEGC Energoatom SE and USD 17.2 million from SE Eastern Mining and Processing Plant
  • June 17, 2022
    The case materials were again separated into two episodes due to systematic abuse by the defense counsel

Decisions from the Register

Case No. Court Decision date Decision type
761/8826/19 HACC 26/09/2019 On the appointment of a preparatory court hearing
761/8826/19 HACC 24/10/2019
761/8826/19 HACC 24/10/2019
761/8826/19 HACC AC 01/11/2019 Opening of appeal proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC AC 08/11/2019
761/8826/19 HACC 15/11/2019
761/8826/19 HACC 15/11/2019
761/8826/19 HACC 22/11/2019 On the appointment of a preparatory court hearing
761/8826/19 HACC AC 03/12/2019
761/8826/19 HACC AC 03/12/2019
761/8826/19 HACC 05/12/2019 On the appointment of a trial
761/8826/19 HACC 05/12/2019 On the appointment of a trial
761/8826/19 HACC 05/12/2019
761/8826/19 HACC 05/12/2019
761/8826/19 HACC 05/12/2019
761/8826/19 HACC 05/12/2019
761/40298/16-к HACC 11/02/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 24/04/2020 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC 28/04/2020 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC 04/05/2020 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC 07/05/2020 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC 06/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 13/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 13/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 14/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 16/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 16/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 16/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 16/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 24/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 24/07/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 07/09/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 07/09/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 16/10/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 16/10/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 20/10/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 20/10/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 23/12/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 23/12/2020
761/8826/19 HACC 29/06/2021
761/8826/19 HACC 29/06/2021
761/8826/19 HACC 06/07/2021
761/8826/19 HACC 06/07/2021
761/8826/19 HACC 28/09/2021
761/8826/19 HACC 28/09/2021
761/8826/19 HACC 08/11/2021
761/8826/19 HACC 08/11/2021
761/8826/19 HACC 20/12/2021 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC 01/02/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC 15/02/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 15/02/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 23/02/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC 26/04/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 26/04/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 11/05/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 11/05/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 16/05/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 16/05/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 17/06/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 17/06/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 14/07/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 14/07/2022
991/2007/22 HACC 18/07/2022
991/2007/22 HACC 18/07/2022
991/2007/22 HACC 21/07/2022
991/2007/22 HACC 21/07/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 21/09/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 28/09/2022
991/2007/22 HACC 28/09/2022
991/2007/22 HACC 28/09/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 28/09/2022
761/8826/19 HACC 22/02/2023
761/8826/19 HACC 29/03/2023 On the suspension of court proceedings
991/2007/22 HACC 26/01/2024
991/2007/22 HACC 26/01/2024
761/8826/19 HACC 16/04/2024
761/8826/19 HACC 16/04/2024
991/2007/22 HACC 28/05/2024
991/2007/22 HACC 28/05/2024
991/2007/22 HACC 10/12/2024