A small Ukrainian bank, Alliance, which refuses to fulfill its obligations under a guarantee issued to one of Ihor Kolomoisky's companies to pay for electricity received from Ukrenergo, may be withdrawn from the market by the National Bank. This is stated in the article of the Obozrevatel, UNN reports.
Details
The journalists drew attention to a scheme involving a bank, United Energy, a company linked to Ihor Kolomoisky, and the state-owned Ukrenergo.
At the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, United Energy received funds from the resale of electricity without paying the state. The company's debt was supposed to be covered by the guarantor, Alliance Bank. However, it also refused to fulfill its obligations. The journalists note that the amount of the debt is equivalent to the cost of 14,000 Mavic drones, 57,000 FPV drones, or 7,000 155 mm shells for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was investigating a case where the bank had no right to issue a guarantee for more than UAH 1.8 billion to an energy trader. So when Kolomoisky's company failed to pay for the electricity it supplied, and the bank refused to cover its obligations, it caused direct losses for the state-owned enterprise. Moreover, it is now challenging the validity of the guarantee in courts.
"Failure of a financial institution to fulfill guarantee obligations may raise the question of its withdrawal from the market. After all, the bank’s own capital is less than 1 billion hryvnia, so a guarantee payment in the amount of 1.13 billion hryvnia can significantly affect its financial stability. ... Journalists have already paid attention to the fact that it is very unusual for a third-tier bank to undertake obligations worth billions of hryvnias that exceed its financial capabilities. Moreover, even a superficial glance at the balance sheet indicators shows that Alliance Bank did not have the right to issue guarantees of this size," the article says.
As of September 1, 2021, the regulatory capital of the financial institution amounted to UAH 610 million. This means that the guarantee under the agreement with United Energy could not exceed UAH 152 million (25 percent of regulatory capital). "However, taking into account the agreements between the company and the bank, the guarantee amount reached almost UAH 1.9 billion. This is 12.5 times more than the regulatory limit allows," the article says.
In the author's opinion, this should attract the attention of the regulator (NBU) in the first place. "According to the results of the audit of Bank Alliance in January 2023, it became known that the bank deliberately submitted false financial statements to the NBU. The question arises again: where is the NBU's position?" the journalist writes.
He adds that Alliance Bank has issued other guarantees (as of September 2023, they exceeded UAH 7 billion) and is involved in a number of court cases related to the refusal to satisfy the claims of creditors, including the Ministry of Defense, the National Health Service of Ukraine, the Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine, Naftogaz Trading, and the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority. In addition, the bank is mentioned in the materials of the criminal proceedings No. 42017000000000445 dated February 17, 2017, which indicates that in 2017-2018, the management of Dmitry Firtash's regional gas companies could illegally withdraw funds through the bank, which led to a significant increase in the debt to Naftogaz.
"So, it is obvious that canceling guarantees in all cases is not the best way to position a financial institution in the market. Unless we are talking about a business model. [But then the National Bank - as well as NABU - should take a closer look at this to minimize the risks for depositors, as well as for businesses that still work with the financial institution," the article says.
In parallel with the proceedings against the bank, Ukrenergo is trying to recover funds not only from the financial institution but also directly from United Energy. However, the court hearing held on May 8 again yielded no results. The court once again adjourned.