Court temporarily blocks transfer of IDS Ukraine assets to "Prioritas"

Court ruling on asset transfer

On 29 September, the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court issued a ruling temporarily prohibiting ARMA from signing a contract with the competition winner, LLC "Legal Bureau 'Prioritas'", and transferring the seized assets to its management. This company was designated by the ARMA commission as the winner of the selection for the manager of IDS Ukraine assets on 21 September. The IDS Ukraine group includes "Morshynska", "Myrhorodska", and "Alaska".

According to company data, the group controls over 40% of the bottled water market, and its consolidated revenue in 2025 reached 7.4 billion hryvnia. In contrast, the winner's charter capital, according to registry data, is one thousand hryvnia.

Competition requirements and provided experience

Among the qualification requirements for competition participants was at least three years of experience in providing property for lease. Lawyer Markian Bem, a partner at "Nazar Kulchytskyi and Partners" Law Firm, explains that "Morshynska" is several companies with complex production, logistical, and management processes, so they must be managed by a qualified manager.

To confirm its experience, "Prioritas" provided lease and sublease agreements. However, an analysis of the documents revealed that the lessor and lessee were structures headed by the same person.

Contracts between related parties

In the first contract, the lessor is LLC "Legal Bureau 'Prioritas'" represented by director Zhanna Yefremova, and the lessee is the "Prioritas" Law Firm represented by Lesia Stupnytska. Both of these structures are headed by the same person — Zhanna Yefremova. The subject of the lease was a multifunctional device, two laptops, a desk, and a shelf. It was this document that the company used as proof of its ability to manage a business with billion-hryvnia revenue.

The second document is a sublease agreement for a 100-square-metre office, concluded in December 2024. The parties remained the same: the "Prioritas" legal bureau leased the premises to the "Prioritas" law firm.

Markian Bem emphasises that both contracts were concluded between related parties with one owner. In his opinion, these deals are most likely fictitious.

Discrepancies in document dates

The sublease agreement is dated 1 December 2024. However, clause 3.4 of the same document states that the lessor uses the premises based on a lease agreement dated 1 January 2025. This means that the sublease was concluded a month before the main lease agreement it references.

Bem allows that the manager might explain this as a typo. At the same time, the lawyer believes that such a discrepancy indicates that the contracts were prepared at the last minute, specifically for the competition.

Anastasia Radina, head of the Anti-Corruption Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, also paid attention to the dates. She spoke about a handover act dated 1 December 2024, which references a power of attorney dated 1 January 2025. According to the deputy, ARMA explains this as a possible typographical error. Radina does not agree with this interpretation:

"Посилання на документ, якого просто не мало існувати на момент підписання акту, – це ніяка не друкарська помилка. Це дуже ймовірна ознака підробки документів". (A reference to a document that simply could not have existed at the time of signing the act is not a typographical error. It is a very likely sign of document forgery.)

Recommendation letter from own company

Another piece of evidence of experience was a recommendation letter from LLC "TERRA INCOGNITA GROUP". The sole founder of this company is precisely "Legal Bureau 'Prioritas'". In other words, the recommendation was signed by a director who was, in effect, appointed by "Prioritas" itself. Markian Bem believes that such a letter from a related party has no value whatsoever.

Journalists from "Stop Corruption TV" visited the address of LLC "TERRA INCOGNITA GROUP" to find out on what basis the recommendation was issued. No one was present on site: the office administrator explained that the premises had flooded and repair work was ongoing. The questions were left in the company's mailbox.

Reaction of authorities

Journalists sent requests to ARMA and the Economic Security Bureau. In particular, they asked how the competition winner's documents were verified. There are no official answers to these questions yet.