I have already written about the fact that the Kernel Group is seeking to recover an amount equivalent to 1.75 billion hryvnia from the state-owned “Sens Bank.” The largest sunflower oil operator in Ukraine, owned by Andriy Verevskyi, is seeking to recover these funds through the Kyiv Commercial Court.
The lawsuit was filed not by the Ukrainian company Kernel, but by the Cypriot company Etrecom Investments Limited, which is part of the group. Formally, the $39 million lawsuit was filed jointly against “Sens Bank” and the Cypriot company Greatford Limited, which, according to the plaintiff, are required to make payments on so-called LPN bonds.
The trick is that Greatford is a shell offshore company that is subject to sanctions and effectively has no funds. In my opinion, the real goal of Etrecom, acting in Verevsky’s interests, is to collect the debt specifically from the state-owned bank. And this is despite the fact that this debt has already been restructured, and the Dutch company E.M.I.S. Finance B.V. has committed to repaying it in 2029.
The scheme has been crafted so skillfully that it could actually work.
If that happens, it will create serious problems for both “Sens Bank” and its owner—the state.
The intrigue lies in the fact that this $39 million has absolutely nothing to do with either “Sens Bank” or the state. The debt arose after one Cypriot offshore company transferred bonds issued by the Dutch company E.M.I.S. to another. I have written about these bonds on numerous occasions, primarily in the context of the ICU Group. The crux of the matter is that these securities were sold to clients of what was then the privately owned “Sens Bank.” This was not a banking product—these were bonds issued by a Dutch company that offered higher returns because the funds raised were transferred to the bank as a loan, and the bank then lent that money to its clients.
After the bank was nationalized, these bonds effectively became “stuck.” At the same time, E.M.I.S. proposed redeeming them in 2029 and successfully carried out the restructuring. Dozens of Ukrainian families agreed to the new terms.
However, as with any rule, there were exceptions. ICU owners Makar Pasenyuk and Kostyantyn Stetsenko blocked the restructuring of two tranches, since they controlled the majority of votes in those tranches. After that, they began, figuratively speaking, to “squeeze out” the holders of small stakes by buying up LPN bonds at a steep discount, only to agree to the restructuring later. The result was an extremely unpleasant situation that cost ICU not only its reputation but also real money. Despite this, the blackmail continues.
What does Kernel have to do with this? Andriy Verevskyi is behaving in much the same way as Makar Pasenyuk—with the difference that he restructured his own stake and has now decided to extract money from “Sens Bank.” In fact, this column is dedicated to describing this scheme.
Kernel is trying to get funds from the state-owned “Sens” simply because it doesn’t want to wait another three years. If a minor miracle happens in court, it will be possible to receive 1.75 billion UAH right now.
But what would be a stroke of luck for Veretskyi would turn into a problem for the state-owned bank. If Kernel wins the case and recovers 1.75 billion hryvnias, these funds will most likely have to be covered by the state budget. And this could be followed by an avalanche of new lawsuits—already amounting to billions of hryvnias. Not only will the government’s agreements with the IMF and the EU be at risk, but so will Ukraine’s state budget itself.
That is precisely why I consider this case a matter of national importance that the Ukrainian government must address. The Ministry of Finance is already involved in the proceedings, representing the interests of the state as the owner of “Sens Bank.”
It’s not hard to guess that the outcome of the case depends largely on the judge’s position. And this is precisely where, in my view, Kernel has a hidden trump card. The fact that Judge Svitlana Pogribna is presiding over this case is by no means a coincidence.
WHO IS JUDGE POHRIBNA?
In 2012, she became a judge, transitioning to the judicial system from private notary practice. From a professional standpoint, this seemed rather illogical, since the work of a notary—if done honestly—is usually much more lucrative and involves far fewer risks. In 2018, Pogribna successfully passed all the vetting procedures as part of judicial reform, confirmed her status, and continued to serve as a judge on the Poltava Regional Commercial Court.
In December 2025, she was seconded to the Commercial Court of Kyiv for a one-year term. The procedure was entirely official: one year of work in the capital, followed by a return to the Poltava region.
On the one hand, Judge Pogribna inspired a certain sympathy in me. She is 61 years old, with only four years left until retirement. Judging by her frequent sick leaves, her health isn’t in the best shape. In particular, she had just returned from yet another sick leave to hear the case in question.
Her financial disclosure statement is also unremarkable. All of her real estate is located in Kharkiv. She drives a Nissan Juke, which she recently purchased on credit. She does not own a house near Kyiv or apartments in Dubai or Spain. Outwardly, there is no hint that she belongs to the so-called “higher judicial caste.” Rather, she gives the impression of a solid, mid-level professional.
One might assume that Judge Pogribna finds herself in a rather vulnerable position in Kyiv. It’s a foreign city, with different rules of the game and influential judicial elites in the capital.
However, two things caught my attention. The first is the more-than-strange Kernel v. “Sens Bank” trial. The second is the far more interesting facts from Svitlana Pogribna’s own biography. Let’s take it one step at a time.
THE COURTROOM CAROUSEL
The next hearing in the case of Kernel’s lawsuit against “Sens Bank” is scheduled for June 30 at the Kyiv Commercial Court. Judge Svitlana Pogribna will preside over the case. And there are far too many strange coincidences in this trial.
The plaintiff is Etrecom, a member of the Kernel Group. The defendants, in addition to “Sens Bank,” include Greatford Limited—a company linked to “Sens Bank” even before its nationalization. Thus, two Cypriot offshore companies are facing off in a Ukrainian court. The subject of the dispute is LPN bonds issued by a Dutch company. It was precisely these securities that were used at the time to settle “Sens Bank’s” debt to Kernel.
Now, a large oligarchic group is seeking to obtain funds from the state-owned bank based on these already restructured securities—even though this debt has absolutely no connection to the current “Sens Bank.”
But the most interesting part is something else. How exactly did this case end up with Svitlana Pogribna?
The fact is that judges do not select cases on their own. While in the U.S. a lottery system may be used for this purpose, Ukraine employs an automated case-assignment system. And it appears that this very system may have been circumvented through the use of a so-called judicial “carousel.”
I carefully read the rulings (the first and second) issued following the preliminary court hearing. I noticed that the attorneys from Greatford, who are simultaneously representing the interests of the state-owned “Sens Bank,” filed a motion to recuse Judge Pogribna.
The ruling paints a rather interesting picture. It appears that Kernel’s lawyers sought to ensure that the case would be heard specifically by Svitlana Pogribna.
To that end, they filed a lawsuit. But as soon as the case was assigned to a different judge, difficulties immediately arose. On two occasions, the plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s orders. In both instances, the plaintiff allegedly attempted to remedy the deficiencies in the complaint and requested an extension of the deadline; however, each time, he “failed” either to correct the deficiencies or to pay the court fee properly. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint without consideration.
Subsequently, the complaint was refiled, and the automated case assignment system assigned a new judge. This happened twice, until the case was assigned to Svitlana Pohribna.
She was already the third judge in this case. And suddenly, all the difficulties disappeared—the complaint began to meet the requirements of the law.
It is no surprise that Greatford’s attorneys saw this not as a coincidence but as deliberate action. However, Judge Pogribna herself found no grounds for doubt and denied her own recusal request.
Of course, all of this could indeed have been an unfortunate coincidence or a simple misunderstanding. Kernel’s attorneys may simply not have fully understood the procedural requirements for filing a lawsuit, even though they made a good-faith effort to comply with them.
However, I would like to point out one simple fact: any manipulator always denies the very fact of manipulation. If for no other reason, then because judicial practice provides for liability for the abuse of the automated case-assignment system. Filing multiple identical lawsuits or repeated petitions may be regarded as a sign of procedural abuse.
However, according to Judge Pogribna, Etrecom acted impeccably.
In my view, Greatford’s attorneys simply lacked sufficient evidence. But they drew attention to an obvious fact: Etrecom filed and withdrew similar complaints until the case was assigned to a specific judge.
It is clear that Judge Pogribna herself did not see any manipulation in this. Why is that, all of a sudden?
Therefore, for me personally, the question of whether procedural mechanisms might be used to influence the automatic assignment of cases remains open.
How can we determine who is right in this situation?
The judge has her status, professional reputation, and, overall, a fairly unremarkable background on her side. In her view, the plaintiff did not manipulate the system but merely corrected deficiencies in the complaint. And her appointment as the judge in this case was simply the result of automatic case assignment. Furthermore, the defense has not provided any evidence that Pogribna has a personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
Common sense is on the defense’s side, suggesting that such coincidences are rare.
An objective assessment of the situation is possible only after answering one fundamental question: has Judge Svitlana Pogribna previously heard cases related to the Kernel Group?
THE HISTORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KERNEL AND JUDGE POGRIBNAYA
Spoiler: Yes, she has.
I managed to find several court cases in which Svitlana Pogribna issued rulings involving companies belonging to the Kernel Group. And these rulings, in my opinion, were quite favorable to the group’s companies. I’ll cite just a few examples.
(1)
First and foremost—the 2021 ruling in the case brought by the prosecutor’s office against Pridniprovskyi Krai LLC. It was a fairly typical land dispute for that time.
In state registries, the company is listed as belonging to Andriy Veretskyi through the same offshore entity, Estron.
In addition, various publications about the Kernel Dnipro Cluster confirm that the company is part of the group’s regional structure.
At first glance, it may seem that the decision was made in favor of the prosecutor’s office and the Chornukhy Village Council, which allegedly returned valuable land plots to community ownership. It would appear that this decision ran counter to the interests of “Prydniprovskyi Krai.”
However, it is worth taking a closer look at its content.
Judge Pogribna returned only 190.588 hectares out of 393.9 hectares of land to the Chornukhy District State Administration. The remaining plots remained in the use of Kernel’s subsidiaries.
The judge formally annulled the lease agreements, but at the same time did not dismantle the mechanism that allowed the group to continue using most of the land.
Furthermore, nothing is known about any criminal law consequences of this case, although such consequences could theoretically arise.
(2)
Another example is the 2024 ruling in a lawsuit filed by Khorobor Agro against its counterparty.
For a long time, “Khorobor Agro” did not position itself as a separate public entity of Kernel, but was corporately linked to the agricultural company “Druzhba-Nova,” which is part of the Kernel Group.
Currently, Andriy Verevskyi is listed as the owner of “Khorobor Agro” in the state registry.
(3)
Another case involves a ruling by the Poltava Regional Commercial Court on a lawsuit filed by Govtva LLC.
According to state registries, this company also belongs to Andriy Verevskyi through the offshore company Estron.
The ruling, issued by Judge Pogribna, turned out to be extremely favorable to Kernel. The court forcibly extended the lease agreements for 16.91 hectares of land until 2036.
It appears that the Kobelyaky City Council did not particularly object to this and participated in the proceedings more as a formality.
In effect, the court legalized the lease agreements, eliminating potential risks of future claims from government agencies or law enforcement authorities.
(4)
And finally—the 2025 ruling in the case of Ukrzaliznytsia’s lawsuit against the “Poltava Grain Receiving Enterprise.”
Andriy Verevskyi is also the owner of this enterprise.
Formally, “Ukrzaliznytsia” won the case—the court ordered the enterprise to pay the debt under the lease agreement.
However, Judge Pogribna reduced the late fees, penalties, and other additional charges by half.
On the one hand, such decisions are quite common in disputes involving “Ukrzaliznytsia.” On the other hand, it is unlikely that this decision can be called disadvantageous for Verevsky’s company.
INTERIM CONCLUSIONS
These are only the court decisions I was able to find. It is quite possible that there are many more.
Thus, Judge Svitlana Pogribna is not merely familiar with the structures of the Kernel Group.
At various times, she has issued rulings that can be considered quite favorable to Andriy Verevsky’s companies.
And it is precisely this circumstance that fundamentally changes the perception of the current case against “Sens Bank.”
If a judge has repeatedly heard cases involving the plaintiff, doubts about her impartiality inevitably arise. It is surprising that she did not recuse herself.
After all, the law explicitly stipulates that a judge must recuse herself if there are circumstances that could cast doubt on her impartiality, indicate a personal interest, or in any other way affect the objectivity of the case.
In my view, in this case, such circumstances at the very least warranted further evaluation.
It is no less surprising that these facts did not receive attention from the Kyiv Commercial Court itself. After all, such a situation creates reputational risks for both the court and Kernel.
Judge Pogribna’s motivation remains unclear to me.
It is evident that she is not deeply integrated into the capital’s judicial community, as she was seconded to Kyiv from Poltava for only one year.
It appears that her two predecessors found procedural grounds to effectively avoid hearing this case. Pogribna, however, agreed to hear the lawsuit filed by an offshore company seeking to collect debts from the State Bank of Ukraine that arose even before its nationalization.
It can be assumed that this servant of Themis no longer sees her future professional plans as tied to a career as a judge.
In early June, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Vsevolod Knyazev was sentenced to five years in prison with confiscation of property for assisting Ferrexpo owner Konstantin Zhevago.
Neither his long-standing reputation, nor his victory in an open competition involving international experts, nor his professional standing could save him. As a result, Knyazev was forced to testify against individuals whom the investigation considers his accomplices, as well as against the oligarch himself.
And this was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, Judge Pogribna may prove to be a much easier target for law enforcement than Knyazev.
From the investigation’s perspective, this case is quite straightforward. And it will become even clearer if the judge rules in Kernel’s favor in the dispute against “SENS Bank.”
I would hate to think that at 61, Svitlana Pogribna decided to become a “convenient” judge for big business.
The motivation of Kernel’s owner, Andriy Verevsky, also remains unclear to me.
Of course, $39 million is a compelling argument. But is it compelling enough to risk the reputation of a group with multibillion-dollar assets?
After all, if I was able to find a connection between Kernel and Judge Pogribna, law enforcement agencies could very well do the same.
For many years, Verevsky has been building his business empire while remaining as low-profile as possible. He is accustomed to resolving issues not through open conflict with the state, but through quiet agreements and the gradual establishment of his own influence within government institutions.
And suddenly—an open attack on the state during wartime.
Did Mr. Veretsky really believe he was untouchable? Did he decide that he had learned to evade not only political risks but also any consequences?
Frankly speaking, his behavior increasingly reminds me of another figure of our time—Makar Pasenyuk from ICU.
Let me remind you: together with his business partner, he did more than just—in my opinion—embezzle hundreds of millions of hryvnias that actually belonged to the Ministry of Finance. When this scheme became the subject of public debate, he decided to sue the government.
The outcome is well known: a lost lawsuit, serious damage to his reputation, and a single question that remains hanging in the air: What on earth was that all about?
Who we are: About us, Contacts. How we write news and our principles: Editorial code. We did our best. If you found this valuable – please support us.
To request a correction, please send an email.