Corruption at SFGCU: the case of Dmytro Dobrii, a representative of an international grain trader

Corruption at SFGCU: the case of Dmytro Dobrii, a representative of an international grain trader
Start of the trial 13 January 2020
Instance HACC
Stage of criminal proceedings Judicial proceedings

The NABU and the SAPO accuse Dmytro Dobrii, a representative of an international grain trader, of involvement in a scheme through which grain belonging to the state-owned company was supplied to Saudi Arabia via a chain of business entities, some of them bearing signs of being fictitious.

According to the investigation, in 2014 Russian businessman Alexey Fedorychev decided to expand his agribusiness and made contact with Petro Vovchuk, then Chairman of the Board of State Food and Grain Corporation, offering bribes in exchange for selling grain on favorable terms — at below-market prices and with deferred payment.

To disguise the scheme, the parties brought in a foreign intermediary company, to which SFGCU sold grain at a lower price; that company would then immediately resell it to a controlled structure at a higher one, leaving the difference on foreign accounts as illicit gain.

Among those drawn into the scheme was Dmytro Dobrii, a representative of an international grain trader, who personally oversaw the signing of the sham contracts.

The first stage of the scheme was executed when the parties signed contracts for the supply of 75,000 tons of barley at USD 209 per ton, even though the market price at the time exceeded $215. As a result of this manipulation, more than $667,000 was to remain in the accounts of the intermediary company SOMERTON — money earmarked for the leadership of PJSC SFGCU. The grain was successfully loaded onto the vessel PEACE ARK, and the state lost significant funds from the very start of the cooperation.

Later, drawing on the corrupt ties they had established, Fedorychev and his accomplices — Dobrii among them — convinced SFGCU staff of the reliability of LIRTAVIS ENTERPRISES LTD. Four further large contracts were then signed for a total of over $72 million. The key term was a payment arrangement that allowed those involved to obtain ownership of the grain and resell it to end buyers before it had actually been paid for to the state corporation.

According to the prosecution, the perpetrators in fact had no intention of paying for the products they received. The state grain was resold to a Saudi Arabian company and shipped out aboard the vessels Tonic Sea, Corinna, and others. As a result of these manipulations, PJSC SFGCU lost more than 273,000 tons of barley and 22,000 tons of wheat. The total damage caused to the state by this fraud exceeded $660,000 (UAH 797 million).

Corinna vessel. Photo credit: VesselFinder
Corinna vessel. Photo credit: VesselFinder

The final stage of the criminal activity was the laundering of proceeds from the sale of the stolen grain. On the instructions of the scheme's organizer, Dobrii used online banking to move funds received from foreign buyers between controlled offshore accounts. In particular, funds were transferred from the Cypriot company LIRTAVIS to the accounts of GRAIN-TRANS LTD under the guise of payments for fictitious transport and information services that had never actually been provided.

In all, the scheme caused damage to the state, represented by PJSC SFGCU, of at least UAH 45 million.

Dmytro Dobrii's actions have been classified under Articles 369(3), 190(4), and 209(3) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. His trial is ongoing.

The HACC has already approved a plea agreement with former Chairman of the SFGCU Board Petro Vovchuk, who received three years of probation. Plea agreements were also reached with Vitalii Korniienko, owner of the company used to receive the bribe, and Oleksii Venetskyi, head of an SFGCU directorate, who signed grain supply contracts with Fedorychev's structures. Both also received probation instead of actual imprisonment.

The HACC also sentenced Vovchuk's adviser Anatolii Zavadskyi to 10 years in prison. The HACC Appeals Chamber, however, reduced the sentence to 8 years. Businessman Fedorychev is on the wanted list.

Wanted notice for Alexei Fedorychev on the NABU website
Wanted notice for Alexei Fedorychev on the NABU website
Proceeding No. 52019000000000101
Case No. 757/21137/19-к
Date the hearing was scheduled 13/01/2020
Subjects
  • Business
  • Other
Qualification
Article 191, part 5, Article 364, part 2, Article 369, part 3, Article 209, part 3, Article 190, part 4
Merged with
Instance Key parties
HACC 13/01/2020 Panel of judges: Shkodin Ya.V., Zadorozhna L.I.
THE CASE OF DMYTRO DOBRII
Judicial proceedings

According to the investigation, Dmytro Dobrii, as a representative of an international grain trader, took part in the scheme by signing sham contracts and overseeing shipments — enabling state grain to be sold at below-market prices through intermediaries, resold abroad, and the proceeds laundered, causing losses to the state.

Articles 369(3), 190(4), and 209(3) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

  • pic
    July–October 2014
    Implementation of the scheme to sell grain at lower prices
  • pic
    January 5, 2017
    Dobrii was served with a notice of suspicion
  • pic
    April 19, 2019
    The case was referred to court
  • pic
    January 10, 2020
    The case materials were received by the HACC
  • January 13, 2020
    The HACC scheduled a preparatory hearing
  • February 13, 2020
    The case was scheduled for trial on the merits

Decisions from the Register

Case No. Court Decision type
757/21137/19-к HACC 06/07/2026
757/21137/19-к HACC 29/05/2026
757/21137/19-к HACC 16/12/2024 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 27/11/2024 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 09/07/2024 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 05/01/2024 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 13/12/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 21/11/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 01/11/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 04/07/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 22/05/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 04/04/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 14/03/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 21/02/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 16/01/2023 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 14/12/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 02/11/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 16/08/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 18/07/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 07/06/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 11/05/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 04/05/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 23/12/2021 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 21/12/2021 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 30/07/2021 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 29/04/2021 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 17/03/2021 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 16/07/2020 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 01/07/2020 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/21137/19-к HACC 13/02/2020 On the appointment of a trial
757/21137/19-к HACC 13/01/2020 On the appointment of a preparatory court hearing