The Lviv Court of Appeal has upheld the seizure of a massive property complex in Kyiv involved in the investigation into the illegal acquisition of assets from the liquidated JSC All-Ukrainian Stock Bank (VAB Bank). The court dismissed an appeal filed by «Auto Hub Kyiv» LLC, which sought to regain control over 14 real estate objects totaling more than 9,000 square meters.
The restrictive measure imposes a complete ban on the alienation, disposal, and use of the property.
The case centers on a large industrial and administrative site located at 20 Peremohy St., Kyiv. The property was formerly owned by VAB Bank and is currently registered under «Auto Hub Kyiv» LLC (formerly known as «Oil Hub Kyiv» LLC).
The court order covers 14 distinct real estate assets, including:
Production building No. 2 (3,937 m²);
Auxiliary workshops block (1,405 m²);
Car wash facility (864 m²);
Administrative and amenity building (565 m²);
A central spare parts warehouse, forging and welding block, service station, gas station, and other facilities.
The criminal proceedings have been active since October 2021. Law enforcement authorities have charged the suspects with multiple severe offenses, including abuse of power, misappropriation of property, and money laundering.
According to investigators, officials from «Oil Hub Kyiv» conspired with representatives of the Deposit Guarantee Fund (DGF) and the management of VAB Bank to illegally seize the property complex. In late 2024, the targeted real estate assets were officially designated as material evidence in the ongoing criminal case.
In court, representatives for «Auto Hub Kyiv» LLC demanded the property seizure be lifted. They argued that the company had acquired the assets legally, and claimed that the operational freeze halts their business activities and prevents them from paying employee salaries.
Conversely, the prosecutor argued that maintaining the asset freeze is critical, as the property could eventually face special confiscation in favor of the state.
The judicial panel sided with the prosecution, stating:
«The ban on the use of these assets is a proportionate measure necessary to prevent potential damage or artificial depreciation of objects that serve as material evidence in criminal proceedings.»
The appellate court’s decision has entered into legal force. However, the property owner retains the right to file a new motion to lift the asset freeze under Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should new circumstances arise.