Ministry of Finance welcomes the judgment of the High Court in London in its high-stakes, long-running litigation against PrivatBank’s former owners

On 30 July 2025, PrivatBank secured a landslide win against its former owners. The proceedings took place at the High Court in London, and had been ongoing since 2017.

In a judgment handed down today, the High Court in London found the two men to have misappropriated almost USD 2 billion from the Bank via a “a highly complex loan recycling scheme which operated for the ultimate benefit of the Individual Defendants”. 

The judgment fully upheld PrivatBank’s claims. The amount the former owners will be required to pay will be determined at a further hearing scheduled for October 2025 and is likely to be well in excess of USD 2 billion. 

Minister of Finance of Ukraine Sergii Marchenko stated:

"The Bank’s comprehensive victory is a step toward restoring justice and was achieved, first and foremost, in the interests of the citizens of Ukraine and the Government of Ukraine as the shareholder of PrivatBank. Once again, we see that the state is capable of successfully defending its position and interests on the international stage. I congratulate the Bank’s team, legal advisors, and everyone involved who made this positive outcome possible."

Background:

PrivatBank is a state-owned bank that was nationalized in December 2016. In December 2017, the Bank filed a claim in the High Court in London against its former owners Ihor Kolomoisky and Gennady Bogolyubov, as well as three English and three British Virgin Islands companies. The substantive hearing of the Bank’s claim took place from June to November 2023, and the judgment was handed down on 30 July 2025.

In the proceedings, the Bank alleged that the former owners were responsible for the unlawful misappropriation of USD 1.9 billion in 2013–2014 through loans that were used to divert funds from the Bank and make payments to companies under fictitious supply contracts. The defendants denied knowledge of the scheme, claimed the loans had been repaid, and argued that the statute of limitations for bringing the claim had expired.

The full text of the court’s judgment