Ex-head of Ukrenergo detained: why Kudrytskyi faces up to 12 years in prison
28 October 2025 11:54
The State Bureau of Investigation has served a notice of suspicion to a Lviv businessman and detained the former head of Ukrenergo as part of criminal proceedings over the fraudulent misappropriation of tens of millions of hryvnias in the state-owned energy company. This was reported by
The report does not name the suspects, but the details of the case make it clear that we are talking about the former head of NPC Ukrenergo Volodymyr Kudrytskyi and Lviv businessman Ihor Hrynkevych, who was declared a suspect in the misappropriation of UAH 1 billion by the SBI in December 2023.
What Kudrytskyi and Hrynkevych are charged with
According to the investigation, Kudrytskyi, together with businessman Ihor Hrynkevych, who is already in jail, could have seized public funds during tenders for the reconstruction of energy system facilities back in 2018. It is a scheme to overstate the cost of work and the volume of deforestation during the construction of energy highways.
Investigators have opened several criminal proceedings related to his activities during his tenure as the head of Ukrenergo.
How the scheme worked
According to the investigation, in 2018, when Volodymyr Kudrytskyi was Deputy Chief Investment Officer of Ukrenergo, he entered into a conspiracy with representatives of a private company associated with a Lviv businessman who had previously been found by the SBI to have purchased low-quality clothing for the Armed Forces of Ukraine for more than UAH 1 billion.
The parties organized tenders for the reconstruction of the outer fence of substations of the Southern and Western power systems. The tenders resulted in two contracts worth over UAH 68 million.
After signing the contracts, Ukrenergo transferred advance payments to the contractor for more than UAH 13.7 million. The investigation found that these funds were immediately withdrawn through fictitious companies and misappropriated without the intention of performing construction work.
Later, the participants of the scheme conducted a number of financial transactions to legalize the proceeds of crime. In doing so, they used forged documents to register a legal entity that was involved in the scheme as a contractor.
Who is suspected and what articles are charged
SBI officers served a notice of suspicion to a Lviv businessman and detained the former chairman of the board of Ukrenergo on suspicion of fraudulently seizing funds from the state-owned enterprise NPC Ukrenergo.
The Lviv businessman is charged with:
- organization of fraud on a large scale (Part 3 of Article 27, Part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code)
- forgery of documents for state registration of companies (Part 2 of Article 205-1),
- legalization of the proceeds of crime (part 2 of Article 209).
The former head of Ukrenergo, Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, is charged with
- fraud committed by prior conspiracy by a group of persons on an especially large scale (part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Both suspects face up to 12 years in prison with confiscation of property.
Kudrytskyi has been detained, and the SBI is preparing a motion to the court to impose a custodial measure of restraint on him.
The pre-trial investigation is ongoing.
Procedural guidance in the case is provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
Searches and Kudrytskyi’s position
on October 21, SBI officers conducted searches at Volodymyr Kudrytskyi’s place of residence, as well as at the premises of Ukrenergo and its contractors. Back then, Kudrytskyi said that he believed the actions of law enforcement officers were politically motivated.
“The situation looks quite absurd, and I believe that it is not so much caused by procedural necessity as by political overtones. I will say right away that no one suspects me of anything,” Kudrytsky wrote.
However, law enforcement officials are already confirming that he has been detained and an official notice of suspicion is being prepared.
How Kudrytsky was dismissed from his post
Volodymyr Kudrytskyi headed Ukrenergo from 2020 to 2024.
After a meeting of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief’s Staff on August 30, 2024, he was offered to resign.
The official refused, and on September 2, the Supervisory Board of Ukrenergo decided to dismiss him.
Two members of the supervisory board then resigned early, claiming political pressure.
What is known about Kudrytskyi
As a reminder, Volodymyr Kudrytskyi was the Chairman of the Board of Ukrenergo from 2020 to 2024. on September 2, 2024, the Supervisory Board of Ukrenergo decided to dismiss Volodymyr Kudrytskyi from the position of the company’s CEO.
Three state representatives on the Supervisory Board – Yuriy Tokarskyi, Oleksandr Baraniuk and Yuriy Boyko, as well as an independent member of the Board Roman Pionkovskyi – voted for his resignation. Two other independent members voted against the decision.
On the eve of the vote, international donors sent a letter to the then Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal asking him to suspend the process of dismissing the head of Ukrenergo.
After Kudrytskyi’s resignation, Daniel Dobeni, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of NPC Ukrenergo, and Peder Andersen, a member of the Board, also submitted their resignations.
Earlier
Read us on Telegram: important topics – without censorship
The Hrynkevych case
Ihor Hrynkevych is accused of allegedly attempting to bribe one of the heads of the SBI’s Main Investigation Department. He allegedly offered $500,000 for assistance in returning seized property (uniforms for the Armed Forces), which the SBI had kept at customs for several months without a court order.
Ihor’s son, Roman Hrynkevych , was suspected in the case of contracts with the Ministry of Defense to provide the Armed Forces with uniforms. At first, he was accused of allegedly embezzling public funds, and then the charge was changed to complaints about the quality of the uniforms supplied.
Amid the scandal, the Ministry of Defense canceled contracts with Hrynkevych’s company. It is also known that the Ministry of Defense had no complaints about the delivered goods, and at the time of the contract execution, it did not draw up any complaint reports.
