The review of case No. 761/28820/23 involving frozen assets valued at tens of millions of dollars has effectively come to a standstill at the Kyiv Court of Appeal under the leadership of Chief Judge Yaroslav Holovachov. The latest hearing of the judicial panel was postponed once again—this time until October. The delay has now persisted for over a year, leaving the disputed assets under the operational control of entities affiliated with businessman Oleksandr Yaroslavsky.
The legal battle centers around 100% of the corporate rights of LLC «Credo Solutions.» In 2022, an investigating judge of Kyiv’s Shevchenkivskyi District Court seized the assets, imposing a strict ban on their possession, use, and disposition.
However, on May 8, 2024, the Pecherskyi District Court revoked the transfer of these corporate rights to the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) and handed them over for «safekeeping» to LLC «Ukrainian Metallurgical Company» (UMC), managed by Oleksandr Sokolenko.
According to National Bank of Ukraine data, UMC operates within the DCH Group owned by Oleksandr Yaroslavsky, who is currently wanted internationally regarding an investigation into financial fraud at Ukrtatnafta. The opposing party—publicly referred to as the «Kupriyenko Group»—maintains that transferring the rights to their rivals violated procedure and deprived previous owners of access to business operations and cash flows.
«Hearings are systematically canceled and postponed, with judges taking leave at critical moments. A substantive review of the case has been blocked for over a year.»
Alongside the stalled appeal, questions have reemerged regarding the legitimacy of the court’s leadership. Yaroslav Holovachov has headed the Kyiv Court of Appeal since 2015 and is serving his fourth consecutive term, despite legal provisions limiting court chairs to two three-year terms. His last legally permitted term expired in 2021.
According to an investigation by Hromadske, Holovachov’s family uses luxury Kyiv real estate and premium vehicles valued at approximately $3 million, despite a declared annual family income of around 6 million UAH. This significant disparity between official income and real assets has raised public concern over the court’s impartiality.