In the Far East, the fishing sector that anchors the Primorsky Territory faces a significant smuggling challenge that has drawn considerable attention from state authorities. A legal step is on the horizon as the Arbitration Court of the Primorsky Territory is set to hear, in March, the Prosecutor General’s Office’s claims against a group of fisheries producers, with totals reaching 376 billion rubles. This impending case places a spotlight on the governance and oversight of Russia’s aquatic resources and the economic stakes tied to coastal communities.
The case lists 31 fishing companies and 29 individuals as defendants, among them prominent figures associated with the fishing industry, such as Dmitry Dremlyuga and Oleg Kan, often referred to in media discussions as the so-called “crab kings.” The state supervisory authority is seeking the nationalization of several firms and a financial recovery for alleged illegal extraction of aquatic biological resources, as well as questions about foreign participation in the businesses involved.
Should the Prosecutor General’s Office prevail, the upcoming trial could dramatically alter the landscape of the region’s fishing empire. The charges center on unauthorized exploitation of biological resources and the absence of proper government permits, which are considered fundamental to lawful operations in this highly regulated sector.
Foreign nationals Oleg Kan and Dmitry Dremlyuga, despite their citizenship, have played conspicuous roles in Russia’s fishing ventures. Their involvement in crab harvesting has stirred concern among officials and policymakers, contributing to the legal confrontation that is now unfolding in court. The case underscores tensions between rapid business expansion, regulatory compliance, and national interests in resource management.
The Prosecutor General’s Office presents a range of violations, including breaches of laws governing the extraction of biological resources and attempts to obscure stakeholding through share transfers and shifts in company leadership. Analysts note the complexity of disentangling ownership structures in large, multi-entity groups, yet some observers believe that nationalizing certain assets may not immediately destabilize the domestic market, particularly if crab prices remain elevated for Russian consumers. This point reflects the delicate balance between enforcement actions and market stability in the seafood sector.
Among the defendants are entities such as Fish Island, Merlion, Crab Marine, Crab DMP, Real Development, Coastal Fishing, and others tied to Dremlyuga’s business network. The broad range of companies highlights how interconnected the regional fishing ecosystem can be, spanning multiple corporate vehicles and an array of corporate governance arrangements that complicate regulatory oversight and enforcement efforts.
Oleg Kan’s corporate footprint extends to companies including Aquamarine, Moneron, Priboi-T, Kuril Universal Complex, Primorskaya Fishing Company, Sevryb-flot, along with the Korean entity OLVES CO., LTD. This international dimension adds layers to the case, prompting considerations about cross-border participation in the Russian fishery and the implications for both domestic supply and foreign investment policies in the region.
Recent events in nearby regions, including high-profile actions in Khabarovsk and other areas, indicate a broader push to address perceived irregularities in the fishing sector. The current proceedings in Primorsky Territory appear to be part of a wider national emphasis on resource discipline and corporate accountability in the fishing industry. The outcome of the case could redefine the competitive dynamics among players in the Primorsky coast and influence regulatory approaches to foreign involvement, asset consolidation, and the long-term stewardship of aquatic resources.