Search

Embezzlement of USD 17.2 million from Eastern Mining and Processing Plant. The second episode of the case of former MP Mykola Martynenko

  • 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 USD 17.2 million from Eastern Mining and Processing Plant. The second episode of the case of former MP Mykola Martynenko Embezzlement of USD 17.2 million from Eastern Mining and Processing Plant. The second episode of the case of former MP Mykola Martynenko

Case description

Former MP Mykola Martynenko is accused of embezzling EUR 17.2 million from SE Eastern Mining and Processing Plant. Along with him, seven other people are involved in the case.

Eastern Mining and Processing Plant in Zhovti Vody is engaged in the extraction and processing of uranium ore and is also a producer of sulfuric acid.

According to the investigation, from 2013 to 2016, Martynenko and his accomplices organized a scheme to embezzle funds. The enterprise was supposed to extract the raw material independently; however, the management procured uranium concentrate from the Kazakh company Kazatprom through the Austrian firm Steuermann, which was controlled by Martynenko and Ruslan Zhurylo, for over $17 million. As a result, the enterprise suffered losses of more than UAH 25 million.

Seven other people are involved in this case:

  • Oleksandr Sorokin, Director of the Eastern Mining and Processing Plant
  • Ruslan Zhurylo and Volodymyr Bohdanets, Deputy Directors of Eastern Mining and Processing Plant
  • Valerii Vasylkov, Director of Energoatom
  • Volodymyr Sviatnenko, Director of Energoatom’s separate subdivision
  • Serhii Pereloma, Deputy Head of Naftogaz
  • Pavlo Skalenko, representative of the shell company.

According to the prosecution, in July 2013, Ruslan Zhurylo decided to misappropriate the enterprise’s funds through the procurement of uranium concentrate at inflated prices. To that end, he conspired with MP Mykola Martynenko, who had influence in the energy sector and controlled several companies, including the Austrian firm Steuermann.

The scheme involved the state-owned Eastern Mining and Processing Plant procuring concentrate from Steuermann, which acted merely as a formal supplier, while the actual deliveries were made by the Kazakh enterprise Stepnogorsk Mining and Chemical Complex at significantly lower prices. The price difference—amounting to tens of millions of dollars—was distributed among the scheme’s participants.

In August 2013, with Martynenko’s approval, Zhurylo brought in officials from the enterprise, including Sorokin, Bohdanets, and others. At the same time, Martynenko strengthened his ties with Steuermann’s management and with Pereloma, who, although not officially employed at Eastern Mining and Processing Plant, coordinated documentation and communication with the Austrian side.

In November 2013, under Martynenko’s instruction, the company Steuermann was brought in to participate in Eastern Mining and Processing Plant’s tender. It was declared the winner, even though the tender should have been cancelled due to the absence of price offers for most of the procurement volume — 2.4 million kg out of 3 million. Although Bohdanets was not a member of the tender committee, he coordinated its work to ensure Steuermann’s victory.

The contract for the supply of 3,000 tonnes of concentrate was signed by Sorokin for $414 million, even though this amount exceeded the enterprise’s approved budget. Subsequent additional agreements provided for the delivery of another 900,000 kg of concentrate, totalling over $109 million, at prices ranging from $115 to $125 per kg.

In reality, Steuermann procured the concentrate from Stepnogorsk MCC at market prices, while Eastern Mining and Processing Plant paid significantly more. Between December 2013 and December 2016, the organizers embezzled $17.29 million, which they laundered through affiliated companies.

Separately, the investigation established that Ruslan Zhurylo is the ultimate beneficial owner of the UK-based company Wargrave Trading LLP. Through trust declarations with Krontex Services LTD and Nostrex Services LTD, he controlled this asset jointly with Zhanna Hryhorenko. Zhurylo personally opened Wargrave’s account at Latvia’s Citadele Bank and acted as its authorized representative.

Martynenko and Zhurylo are charged under Article 255(1), Article 191(5), Article 209(3) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and Sorokin, Bohdanets and Pereloma are charged under Article 255(1), Article 191(5) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Ruslan Zhurylo mobilized into the Armed Forces of Ukraine in March 2023. Therefore, the court separated the case materials and suspended the proceedings against him.

In November 2012, the HACC delivered a verdict on another episode of embezzlement at Eastern Mining and Processing Plant. Ihor Holoborodko, former deputy general director of the plant, and Ihor Veduta, director of Eco-Service Trading House LLC, were convicted for causing UAH 24.5 million in losses to the enterprises following procurement at inflated prices.

  • Proceeding No.: 52018000000000153
  • Case No.: 761/8826/19
  • Separated from proceedings No.: 52018000000000153
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 is accused of embezzling EUR 17.2 million from SE Eastern Mining and Processing Plant. Along with him, seven other people are involved in the case.

Martynenko, Zhurylo: ch. 1 art. 255, ch. 5 art. 191, ch. 3 art. 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Sorokin, Bohdanets, Pereloma: ch. 1 art. 255, ch. 5 art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

  • 2013–2016
    Martynenko and other defendants organized the procurement of imported uranium concentrate, which the enterprise was supposed to produce on its own
  • pic
    April 20, 2017
    The NABU served Martynenko with a notice of suspicion
  • April 22, 2017
    Martynenko was bailed out by MPs from the People’s Front party and a number of ministers at the time, including Liliia Hrynevych, Volodymyr Omelian, and Ihor Zhdanov
  • December 2017
    Solomianskyi District Court allowed Martynenko to travel abroad, and later refused to extend the interim measure requested by the SAPO prosecutor
  • October 24, 2019
    The HACC consolidated the proceedings of embezzlement of funds from Energoatom and Eastern Mining and Processing Plant
  • June 17, 2022
    The case materials were again separated due to systematic abuse by the defense counsel
  • March 29, 2023
    The HACC separated and suspended the proceedings against Ruslan Zhurylo due to his mobilization to the Armed Forces of Ukraine

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
761/8826/19 HACC 05/12/2019
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 On the appointment of a trial
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
761/8826/19 HACC 21/09/2022
761/8826/19 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
761/8826/19 HACC 29/03/2023 On the suspension of court proceedings
761/8826/19 HACC 16/04/2024
761/8826/19 HACC 16/04/2024