The Arbitration Court for the Primorsky Territory has upheld a claim from the Prosecutor General’s Office demanding compensation amounting to 358.7 billion rubles from several fisheries enterprises operating in the Far East. This development was reported by RIA News from within the courtroom setting.
The litigation named Dmitry and Alena Dremlyug, Yuri Dalishnev, and additional defendants. A separate case targeted Victoria Ledukova, Oleg Kan, Alexander Kan, Dmitry Pashov, along with 15 other respondents. The proceedings also involve 21 corporate entities, including Moneron LLC, Primorskaya Fishing Company LLC, and Aquamarine LLC, which prosecutors say were controlled by the Korean firm Olves Co., Ltd and an individual named Kang, who holds a residence permit in South Korea and reportedly fled before the court.
The court ordered the restoration of damages to aquatic biological resources totaling 358,706,352,296 rubles to be paid by Kan and the other defendants in favor of the Russian Federation.
Earlier in March, reports indicated that the Primorsky Territory Arbitration Court would review unprecedented claims from the Prosecutor General’s Office against the largest fishing firms in the Far East. The defendants were identified as 31 companies and 29 individuals, including well-known entrepreneurs Dmitry Dremlyuga and Oleg Kan, who are often referred to in regional media as the “crab kings.”
According to prosecutors, the Dremlyuga and Kan groups operated as independent entities on the surface but were, in reality, tightly connected. The businessmen, who are foreign nationals, engaged in illegal extraction of aquatic biological resources, an activity prohibited without explicit authorization from state authorities.
Before this, journalists had conducted an inquiry into fisheries activity in the Northern Basin.
Earlier reports from Khabarovsk noted an arrest linked to a Sakhalin-based billionaire figure, underscoring the broader pattern of enforcement action against major players in the sector.
This sequence of civil- and criminal-justice steps underscores a broader government effort to curb unlawful fishing and to enforce a transparent framework for resource management. Prosecutors emphasize that violations of licensing and environmental rules not only breach national laws but also threaten long-term ecological balance in coastal regions. The court’s decision to seek such a substantial compensation aims to deter similar conduct and to reclaim resources possessed by the state on behalf of its citizens.
Observers note that the case highlights the complexities of monitoring cross-border corporate structures that operate fisheries assets across the Far East. The involvement of foreign-flag entities and the use of intermediaries appear designed, according to prosecutors, to obscure ownership and liability. Legal experts suggest that the proceedings may set important precedents for how future cases against conglomerates in the fishing industry are assessed, especially in relation to subsidiary networks and shell companies.
In the broader legal context, authorities stress that compliance with licensing regimes, habitat protection measures, and sustainable harvest quotas remains a priority. The current actions align with ongoing efforts to ensure that resource exploitation serves the legitimate interests of the state and local communities, while holding accountable those who exploit regulatory gaps for profit.
As the cases proceed, regional authorities are likely to monitor the impact on the sector’s reputation and on potential reform of oversight mechanisms. Stakeholders in the fishing economy may be watching for signals about future policy shifts, financial penalties, and the scope of investigations into related corporate groups.
Where the dispute goes from here will depend on additional evidence, potential settlements, and how closely the defendants choose to cooperate with investigators. The court’s ruling represents a significant milestone in the government’s enforcement program and sends a clear message about accountability in the fisheries industry.
Public records indicate that the parties involved have remained largely silent on the specifics of the allegations, with responses and defenses framed primarily through legal representatives. The ongoing process is expected to unfold over subsequent hearings, during which further details about ownership structures, licensing histories, and resource usage will likely be examined and disclosed.
Ultimately, the case serves as a bellwether for the balance between economic activity in a resource-rich region and the imperative to preserve ecological integrity for future generations. The court’s decision stands as a formal assertion of that balance, insisting on compliance with the law and accountability for those who breach it.