Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau has disclosed a fresh line of inquiry into former PrivatBank owner Igor Kolomoisky, alleging the misappropriation of more than 9.2 million hryvnia from the bank. The information appeared on NABU’s Telegram channel, signaling a renewed stage in the ongoing case against the businessman and his associates.
According to investigators, the period from January to March in 2015 saw a scheme take shape aimed at seizing PrivatBank’s funds to support an offshore controlled entity and to expand Kolomoisky’s stake in the bank’s authorized capital. The plan, as outlined in court filings and investigative materials, centered on orchestrating a transfer of funds to the controlled company under conditions that would appear legitimate, while serving a broader objective of consolidating influence over the financial institution.
As described by prosecutors, the approach involved directing the bank to issue payments exceeding the stated amount to the controlled company, under the pretense that the transfers were part of a routine repurchase of the company’s own bonds at an inflated valuation. The narrative presented by investigators highlights a deliberate effort to mask the true purpose of the payments as part of a strategic move to strengthen the controlled entity’s position within PrivatBank’s capital structure.
Kolomoisky’s legal team, led by Oleksandr Lysak, indicated that an appeal regarding his client’s detention, which had been scheduled for early September, was postponed to later in the month. The update reflects ongoing procedural considerations as the defense seeks to challenge detention measures and to navigate the formal process surrounding the case.
Earlier, Ukrainian authorities accused Kolomoisky of laundering funds derived from illegal activities. In early September, the Kiev Shevchenkivskyi Court ordered a 60-day detention period for the entrepreneur, with a bail requirement listed at 509 million hryvnia. Reports indicate that the financier declined to meet the bail figure, a decision that kept him in custody during the interim judicial review, and prompted further questions about the handling of the case by prosecutors and the courts alike.
Analysts outside the investigative sphere offered their take on the developments, with some political commentators weighing in on how the relationship between President Zelensky and Kolomoisky has evolved. The discussions suggest that strategic recalibrations within the Ukrainian political landscape may influence how Krasnoyarsk’s political machinery operates in relation to high-profile business figures, reflecting broader questions about governance and accountability in the country.