A billion in the pocket: how Yuriy Osmak acquired the Ice Terminal complex from a state bank for just 3% of its real value

Ukreximbank, a state-owned bank, has long sought to organize the sale of the “Ice Terminal” refrigerated logistics complex under clear market conditions.

This complex, initially valued at 20 million dollars and pledged as collateral for a loan of more than one billion hryvnias to the company International Seafood Group, was effectively removed from mortgage at a bargain price by the former debtor-owner. The key beneficiary of this scheme — Yuriy Osmak — is now attempting to erase inconvenient investigations from the information space.

Nevertheless, the truth about how the state “gifted” 50 million dollars remains unchanged.

Auction at Gunpoint — Osmak Kept Ukreximbank Out of the Bidding

The story began on June 6, 2019, when the Ukrainian Specialized Forestry Exchange held an auction to sell the Ice Terminal complex. The problem was that a day earlier the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv had imposed an arrest on the sale of the debtor’s property within a criminal case. In other words, the auction took place while the asset was under arrest — but this did not stop anyone.

Ukreximbank, realizing the complex could be sold for pennies, decided to participate and paid guarantee deposits totaling 18 million hryvnias. However, representatives of the state bank were physically prevented from entering the auction. On the day of the sale, the perimeter of the facility was blocked by “titushky,” effectively eliminating competition by force. As a result, the bankrupt’s property was sold at a price wildly disproportionate to the debt: instead of one billion hryvnias — only 28.2 million, about 2.8% of the outstanding amount.

The winners were the companies Megan Alliance and Tyner Union. State registries link them to Yuriy Osmak, who is listed as the ultimate beneficiary of Ice Terminal, International Seafood Group, and Seafood Group. In simple terms, Osmak became the “old-new” owner of the complex — the asset was sold to related parties for a fraction of its value.

Insider Liquidator and Manipulative Judges

How did arrested property even reach auction? Only the liquidator could remove the arrest record — the very person legally obligated to protect the creditor’s interests, namely the state bank. Ukreximbank managed to remove this “friendly” liquidator, but the acting liquidator continues in court to insist on the legality of the auction, effectively acting in the interests of the new “buyers,” not the state.

In May 2020, Judge Cherednichenko granted a motion to lift the arrest on the property, arguing that “no damage was caused to state interests represented by Ukreximbank,” since the guarantee deposit had been returned. The logic was striking: if 18 million was refunded, the loss of a billion was apparently not considered damage. The owner’s legal representative did not even attend the hearing.

On December 11, 2019, the Commercial Court of Kyiv Region declared the auction results invalid. However, the winning companies and the auction organizer flooded courts with appeals. On September 18, the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal was scheduled to review another complaint from the nominal bankrupt entity, raising questions about whose interests the judicial system is actually protecting.

Rotten Fish and Fake Certificates

Yuriy Osmak is not a new figure. Since the early 2000s, his companies have appeared in court cases. An industry association he headed was accused of spreading disinformation to redistribute the imported seafood market. Authorities reported that tons of parasite-infested fish were sent for processing and that veterinary certificates had been falsified.

Lawyers representing Osmak’s group reportedly moved quickly to block publication of damaging information through lawsuits — a familiar pattern: first questionable business practices, then legal pressure to silence journalists. Now, critics say, the scheme has expanded to include the takeover of a billion-hryvnia state asset through court manipulation and physical intimidation.

Why Ukreximbank Did Not Fight for State Funds

Six years later, the situation appears even more cynical. Ukreximbank had the full legal toolkit to defend public funds but did not use it. Court records show no systematic effort to recover the collateral or overturn the auction results. This was not a case of losing in court — it was a lack of meaningful attempts to fight at all.

The state lost roughly one billion hryvnias, about 50 million dollars at the exchange rate of that time. These losses were not caused by war, force majeure, or business failure but by a scheme in which a strategic asset passed to related entities for a negligible price while debts were quietly written off.

This raises unanswered questions: who decided not to pursue recovery? Bank management, supervisory bodies, government representatives — or decision-makers at a level where no paper trail is left?

Internet Cleanup

In recent months, journalists — including the outlet Znaj.ua — report a stream of complaints from Yuriy Osmak demanding the removal of a 2020 article detailing his alleged role in the case.

Why now? When old stories resurface with specific figures, dates, and names, it becomes harder to explain how a state bank allowed tens of millions of dollars to slip away without resistance. Osmak is attempting to cleanse the information space of inconvenient facts. But such efforts, critics argue, do not change the public’s right to know about corruption schemes, manipulation, and questionable methods used by powerful business figures.