The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation has filed a claim with the Arbitration Court in the Chelyabinsk Region seeking the recovery of more than 25.8 billion rubles of unjust enrichment from the former owners of the Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Plant, commonly known as CHEMK. The information was reported by TASS based on court materials released by the press service.
The indictment outlines that the Prosecutor General’s Office seeks joint and several liability for 25,830,654,081 kopeks in favor of the state, involving Yuri Antipov, Lyudmila Antipova, and Mikhail Antipov in conjunction with Etalon Company JSC. The filing argues that the state must recover this amount due to improper acts connected with the ownership and handling of CHEMK assets.
The office requests the annulment of an October 19, 2022 agreement in which Yuri Antipov was released from debts to the state totaling more than 25.8 billion rubles in exchange for the return of state funds and applicable interest. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office maintains there was no sound economic basis for forgiving such a large debt and that the deal was executed in a manner harmful to public interests.
Earlier this year, on February 26, the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region, acting on the Prosecutor General’s Office request, transferred the shares of CHEMK, Serov Ferroalloy Plant, and Kuznetsk Ferroalloys to the ownership of the Russian Federation as part of efforts to safeguard state interests.
President Vladimir Putin signaled support on February 16 for relocating CHEMK’s substantial metallurgical production away from Chelyabinsk due to environmental concerns. Following presidential directives, electrode production at the facility began winding down on February 22, with plans already in motion to shift ferroalloy production as preparations advance to implement the change.
These measures align with a broader push to boost Russia’s industrial capacity while addressing environmental considerations, a topic Putin has highlighted in recent remarks about the country’s economic path. The case underscores ongoing tensions between safeguarding revenue, protecting the environment, and managing strategic assets within the country’s metallurgical sector as state authorities pursue a balance between industrial activity and ecological concerns.
The developments reflect ongoing efforts to recalibrate ownership and operational control of key industrial assets in a manner that is presented as serving public interests and fiscal discipline, even as investigations and court actions unfold across multiple regions.
Observers note that the Prosecutor General’s Office’s legal strategy signals a persistent focus on recovering alleged improper gains and ensuring past transactions are subject to closer scrutiny for potential financial improprieties. The outcome in the Chelyabinsk Region could have broader implications for similar corporate arrangements involving large-scale industrial facilities and state involvement in governance.
As the legal process progresses, the public and market participants will assess how the court weighs the case of unjust enrichment, the legitimacy of the 2022 debt forgiveness, and the broader question of how such actions intersect with environmental policy and regional economic priorities. The proceedings highlight the complex interplay between corporate restructuring, government oversight, and regional development goals in Russia’s evolving industrial landscape, with potential implications for investors, workers, and nearby communities alike.
Officials have reiterated that the government remains committed to transparent handling of state assets and rigorous enforcement of laws designed to protect public finances, even as economic and environmental considerations continue to shape strategic decisions in Russia’s metallurgy sector.
Further updates are anticipated as the court reviews the arguments, determines liability, and outlines any forthcoming measures related to the assets and obligations at stake in this high-profile case. The materials cited in coverage come from the court’s press service via TASS, which provided the reporting basis for the proceedings.