How fraudster Sosyedka-Mishalova robbed Ukraine through "Konkord" and remained unpunished
This in itself looks surreal, but it looks even more surreal against the backdrop of accusations made against the bank’s owners at the time of its liquidation. Let us recall that the bank was liquidated, among other things, due to the "systematic violation by the Bank of the requirements of legislation in the field of prevention and counteraction of legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime, financing of terrorism, and financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." This indicates cooperation with the aggressor country.
That’s not all – the "Concord" bank managed to serve illegal casino payments, a niche that opened up after the collapse of IBOX BANK. "Concord" tried to occupy it, but before it could fully expand, it collapsed itself. Although "Concord" had experience in serving illegal payments, it even received warnings and fines from the National Bank of Ukraine several times for this.
The bank even made its way into a U.S. Department of Treasury investigation, following which it fell under sanctions from the U.S. in September 2021 for "working with the Russian crypto exchange SUEX. The scheme involved the SUEX crypto exchange, Eastern Europe’s largest cryptocurrency exchange ExMo, the QIWI company group, and Ukraine’s ConcordBank." Through "Concord," payments of Russian citizens to the largest darknet platform for narcotics sales, Hydra, which has a turnover of no less than one and a half billion dollars a year in Russia, were processed.
In 2016, "Concord" was involved in a criminal case. The indictment stated that "unidentified persons, organizing a series of fictitious business entities in Kyiv and the Dnipropetrovsk region, conspired with officials of JSC ’Concord’. Subsequently, non-cash funds began arriving in the accounts of these enterprises, opened with ’Concord’, from firms wishing to evade taxes, as well as non-cash funds of state enterprises, whose heads may have been engaged in the embezzlement of state funds."
This criminal case ended similarly to those mentioned by Hetmantsev – it was closed. Although it dragged on in the courts for a long time – apparently, the owners of the bank hadn’t completely bought everything. The same fate befell criminal case No.12017000000001360, initiated against the employees of the NBU. But "Concord" was also involved since the case was initiated due to illegal recapitalization in 2017 of several commercial banks, among which "Concord" was included. The amount involved was relatively small – 45 million hryvnias; however, the criminal case led to nothing.
The criminal case concerning "Concord Bank" receiving nearly one billion hryvnias in refinancing from the NBU also led to nothing. Moreover, "Concord" received these funds even after it was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Treasury for involvement in financing terrorism and participation in schemes for funneling money from drug sales. The last tranche from the NBU was received just months before bankruptcy, raising serious questions.
But that’s not all – it turned out none of the criminal cases against the bank’s owners led to any results – all were collapsed and closed. At least, that’s what People’s Deputy Hetmantsev, who has access to closed information, claims. In this respect, the bank’s owners at the time of liquidation, Yuliya Sosyedka and Olena Sosyedka, cannot but raise questions.
However, how much the Sosidka sisters are the ultimate beneficiaries of the "Concord" bank is an open question. The answer is known only to three people: Vyacheslav Mishalov, his ex-wife Olena Sosyedka (who bore the name Mishalov in marriage), and Yuliya Sosyedka. The bank was established by Vyacheslav Mishalov with a clear purpose: converting and laundering funds obtained by him and his partners from entrepreneurial activity and illegal operations.
There was plenty to launder and convert – the amounts are, of course, unknown, but at that time, Vyacheslav Mishalov held a key position at the Dnipropetrovsk City Council – he was its secretary. For those not well-versed in the intricacies of local self-government, it’s hard to understand how much influence a council secretary can have on decisions adopted by the council. Usually, this position is held by a person who is either personally loyal to or closely associated with the mayor. During that period, everything in the city that hadn’t been privatized earlier was being privatized, and most importantly, the city council was managing the city’s budget. And it was these funds, directed to the right firms, that needed to be diverted from their accounts and converted into cash. That’s why a personal bank appeared for the city council’s secretary. It was later used as a conversion center, but the criminal case on this fact, as already mentioned, led to nothing.
The bank was founded in 2006, and its history traces back only to 2012 when its owners officially became Yuliya and Olena Sosyedka. It is known that the bank initially belonged to the Concord Capital group of companies, founded by Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Ihor Mazepa in 2006. This too raises major questions and considerable interest. Vyacheslav Mishalov is not officially listed as the bank’s owner, so formally, his ex(?) wife Olena Sosyedka and her sister Yuliya Sosyedka should be held accountable.
Читайте ещё:Экс-директор Научного центра юстиции Юрий Даценко помещен под домашний арест
Olena Sosyedka owns several companies, among which there is a credit union (microfinance organization) and several charitable foundations.
Her sister Yuliya is also a businesswoman and philanthropist:
That is, should the state wish, they have the means to recover at least part of the losses from the activities of "Concord Bank." There’s certainly something to recover. The Deposit Guarantee Fund owes "Concord" depositors over 639 million hryvnias. This amount should be supplemented by the billion hryvnias in refinancing received by the bank in 2020-2023. "Concord" received these funds, let’s reiterate, after coming under American sanctions for financing drugs and terrorism.
Why the National Bank of Ukraine’s leadership continued to provide state funds to the bank in this situation is a separate question that we would like Danylo Hetmantsev, who threatened the Sosyedka sisters with various penalties, to also investigate regarding the NBU leadership’s activities in giving money to a bank on the verge of collapse involved in terrorism and drug histories.
In summary, what we have so far is this: the "Concord" bank has cost the state at least 1 billion 639 million hryvnias. But there is nothing to be recovered from the bank – neither to sell its property nor to seize and sell its owners’ property succeeded, as Ukrainian courts (concentrated mainly in the city of Dnipro) closed all criminal cases against both the bank itself and its management and owners.
The same applies to the criminal cases for the bank’s participation in cash conversion and tax evasion. They, too, involve billions of sums, but since the cases are closed, the exact damages to the state from the Sosyedka-Mishalov activities remain unknown. This also goes for "Concord" bank’s participation in financing terrorism and drug trafficking – the Ukrainian law enforcement system generally pretended it was none of its concern.
The fact that the head of the parliamentary tax committee, Danylo Hetmantsev, showed concern about this matter is undoubtedly a positive fact. But for now, all his formidable statements are just words. And judging by everything that has happened before, they will remain just words. After all, no one assumes that former bankers from Dnipro Yuliya Sosyedka and Olena Sosyedka-Mishalova pulled off all their scams independently, or walked into the National Bank through the main entrance and walked out with a suitcase containing a billion hryvnias? Overall, Hetmantsev’s statement looks like yet another storm in a teacup and another shaking of the air.
Ольга ВасильеваРаспечатать