The Surkis brothers take Poroshenko for Faberge

Kyiv oligarchs Igor and Grigory Surkis filed a claim in London arbitration, which will complicate the life of ex-President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko.

The Kiev online weekly “Mirror of the Week” writes about this, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

The publication notes that in the ownership structure of the 1+1 TV channel owned by oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, the brothers own 24,6%. In 2015, Poroshenko offered to sell this share to them. The Suriks agreed, and, according to the publication, the amount in question was $140 million.

We agreed to sell it in installments for eight years. Poroshenko, “unfortunately for him,” changed his mind after the parties entered into a purchase and sale contract. Negotiations on the purchase of the channel resumed after the nationalization of Kolomoisky-owned Privatbank in December 2016

“Only now Pyotr Alekseevich wanted to buy 25% of the “Pluses” from the Surkises not for his own, but for their money. The fact is that in the process of nationalizing Privatbank, the NBU reset and transferred to its capital a number of obligations (liabilities) of the bank to persons associated with the former owners Igor Kolomoisky and Gennady Bogolyubov. Igor and Grigory Surkis, along with their wives and children, were recognized as persons associated with Kolomoisky.

Due to nationalization, the Surkis family lost more than 248,6 million dollars and 574 thousand euros in the Cyprus branch of the bank as legal entities and another 1,04 billion hryvnia in Ukraine - as individuals.

So, according to the ZN.UA source, it was Surkisov’s Cypriot money that Poroshenko wanted to pay them for their share in “Plusy”. You give us a share, and we will return your money to you from the state bank. The president-buyer voiced the proposal not personally, but through the mouth of Alexander Granovsky. The negotiations conducted by Granovsky, according to the good Ukrainian tradition, were documented and, according to our information, will be presented to the London arbitration as an explanation of the reason for the failure of the initial deal with Poroshenko,” the weekly writes.

The Surkises did not want to pay with their own money for their share and now, according to the publication’s source, “they will do everything to, if not return the money, then at least ruin Poroshenko’s life.”

Since the law governing this agreement is British, it is stipulated that in disputed cases the parties must immediately apply to London arbitration, which is what the Surkises did. The first meeting will take place approximately in May.

At the same time, this lawsuit may change the situation in favor of Kolomoisky in the case of Privatbank, the nationalization of which the oligarch is challenging in the courts. The fact is that the owners of the bank claim that Poroshenko and the then head of the NBU Gontareva blackmailed them with the nationalization of the bank in order to take away assets, in particular the TV channel “1+1”, and then went on the offensive and nationalized the bank in order to profit from the collateral.

The publication's sources say that the Surkises are pursuing solely their own interests. At the same time, with their lawsuit they are essentially playing along with Kolomoisky.

“Of course, the fact that Poroshenko used nationalization for the purpose of profit does not deny that PrivatBank had systemic problems, and nationalization itself was a necessity. But if the Surkises convince the arbitration that the nationalization was the object of speculation on Poroshenko’s part, then it will be much more difficult to prove that Privatbank was nationalized for objective reasons, and the former owners must compensate for the losses caused to it,” ZN summarizes.

Previously, as PolitNavigator reported, The Sixth Court of Appeal, at the request of PrivatBank, suspended the consideration of the appeal against the decision of the District Administrative Court of April 18, 2019 to cancel the nationalization of PrivatBank until the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered the case on the claim of the Surkises.