There is an opportunity to reboot the ARMA, we just need to work – acting head of the agency Yaroslava Maksymenko

Interview with Yaroslava Maksymenko, Acting Head of the National Agency for the Detection, Tracing and Management of Assets Obtained from Corruption and Other Crimes (ARMA), to the Interfax-Ukraine agency

Authors: Mariia Boltryk, Dmytro Koshovyy

 

Last year, a law on the reform of ARMA was adopted. What did this mean for you in 2025, what have you already managed to accomplish, what has not yet been completed, and what needs to be done this year?

The reform of ARMA is aimed at rebooting the agency’s system, the system of management of seized assets.

In fact, this is a 100% reboot of the institution, aimed at streamlining procedures and ensuring transparency and openness of its activities. The reform covers a wide range of changes - these are not cosmetic adjustments, but large-scale regulatory and legal acts that form a fundamentally new architecture and logic of seized asset management. Different rules and different procedures are being established, the system is being freed from the subjective approach that existed before, and international cooperation is being strengthened, which will contribute to restoring trust in the institution. A separate important area of the reform is the creation and modernization of the register of seized assets. This involves not only systematic software work and database updates, but also the development of a full-fledged modern software product. We must develop a new ProZorro module, adapted to the new architecture introduced by the reform, which will provide separate algorithms for simple and complex assets.

Within six months, we had to identify more than 100,000 assets, build new processes in line with the reform, and effectively rebuild the institution’s management model. And all this in the context of a governance crisis, political turbulence, and inevitable resistance to change.

What was the deadline for these changes?

The deadline was January 30.

Did you manage to complete everything that was required?

We have restored the institution’s governability and developed the regulatory and legal acts. The Council of Europe is conducting an audit of the register of seized assets - this is the foundation for its full modernization. In parallel, we are negotiating with international partners to support this work. Building a high-quality database, ensuring governability and proper structuring of assets is a key and most sensitive element of the reform, around which the greatest number of crisis issues arise.

We are actively cooperating with SE “ProZorro” and electronic marketplaces to create the basic version of the module, while continuing its development in parallel.
At the same time, we are in an active phase of organizational and HR restructuring of the institution in line with the new operational model.

You mentioned more than 100,000 accounting units. Could you tell us a bit more about them?

The initial identification, which we began in November 2025, showed that approximately 68.3% are assets that can potentially be managed; 10.7% require procedural follow-up; 21% are assets that have lost their investment attractiveness (devalued, destroyed, etc.); the rest are objects that currently cannot be managed. They are either located in occupied territories, destroyed, or have other circumstances that exclude the possibility of management.

What can the audit of the register show you?

The audit of the register should show to what extent the system actually fulfills the purpose for which ARMA was created - to find, trace, and recover assets to Ukraine’s economy. The management function is derivative. However, due to the fact that Ukraine has accumulated a huge number of seized assets over the past ten years, the effect of recovering them to the economy can be impressive. That is why it is important that the register functions properly. The speed of decision-making, the effectiveness of management, and ultimately the real economic result for the state depend on how structured, complete, and transparent the asset records are.

And what about direct control, the availability of documents - how does asset identification take place?

During asset identification, we must analyze not only its technical characteristics, but also its legal status, actual use, and the existence of restrictions.

Historically, the system has functioned as follows: there is a court decision, and ARMA obtains physical control only at the moment of transferring the asset to a manager, in order to avoid bearing maintenance costs. The agency does not exercise actual management over all more than 100,000 assets.

In practice, it looks like this: after a court decision, representatives travel to the site, conduct an inspection and documentation, sometimes using drones. However, complex legal situations often arise - for example, when there is a tenant or when restrictions apply only to disposal, but not to use.

These legal nuances create the greatest amount of discussion, as ARMA is not the owner and must act strictly within the limits of the court decision in order to avoid abuse or accusations of exceeding its authority.

So, would it be more logical to transfer the asset to ARMA after the court decision so that you could be responsible for it?

Not exactly. Previously, the system worked in such a way that the asset was transferred after the court decision, and only then did we actually start working with it. The reform changes this logic: now it is first the seizure, then ARMA’s site visit, assessment of the possibility of management, and only after that does the court make a decision on transfer.

This is a classic asset recovery model that operates in other countries. However, there is an important difference - none of them has tens of thousands of assets simultaneously. In Ukraine, this is more than 100,000 accounting units, and such a scale requires a systemic and methodical approach.

Therefore, the issue is not only about legal transfer, but about a thorough audit of the asset as a business object: technical condition, restrictions, actual use. Without this, effective management is impossible.

Sometimes I even ask a rhetorical question: how many assets do the largest private funds in the world manage? Because the volume of assets within ARMA is not only a legal challenge, but also a managerial one.

You mentioned that the new law divides all units, assets into simple and complex ones. Do you already have an approximate understanding of how many are simple and how many are complex?

I would not provide such figures right now, but as part of the reform - and in line with the recommendations of the Accounting Chamber - the first step is to carry out asset identification and divide assets into simple and complex ones. At the same time, it is already clear that most of the assets that in 2025 were put up or prepared for management and did not result in successful competitions are precisely complex assets. Working with them requires a separate approach.

There are also many simple assets - vehicles, apartments, small real estate properties. They are easier to single out and structure, and we plan to complete the primary accounting under the new logic in the near future.

And can all simple assets go for sale?

Simple assets can either be transferred for management or sold - the decision depends on their economic value and the type of asset.

What part will be sold, and what part will remain under management?

There has always been a question addressed to ARMA regarding what we sell and what remains under management. In my opinion, ARMA should not manage the number of assets it currently has. Because of this, most of the assets that have been under the agency’s management for many years should be put up for sale and recovered to the economy. Assets that require investment and capital injection are more appropriate for sale rather than being held under management for years. Management should not substitute ownership or restrain the development of an asset.

If an asset is partially destroyed and requires restoration, businesses are interested in purchasing and investing in it as owners. Investing funds in management, with the risk of losing the asset after the seizure ends, is economically unviable.

A separate area concerns sanctioned and russian assets. It is advisable to expand the legislative possibilities for their sale, regardless of their form - whether real estate or corporate rights.

Is this currently done based on a decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court?

Currently, this involves recovery to state revenue based on a decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court, after which the assets are transferred to the State Property Fund of Ukraine.

So, are you now inclined to believe that some simple assets could be put up for sale?

They could be put up for sale. The proceeds could be placed on deposit or invested in domestic government bonds until the final court decision. In the event of a court decision to recover the asset, the funds would be recovered.

We plan to initiate the relevant legislative amendments, but the key issue here is the clear definition of the legal status of the owner. Without unambiguous regulation of this aspect, the system of sale cannot operate stably and without risks.

There were definitely conflicts between ARMA and the State Property Fund of Ukraine regarding this issue, even after a decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court - particularly concerning how to transfer the asset to the State Property Fund.

To be honest, I did not see this as a conflict - rather, as procedural differences. Seized assets that are not objects of state ownership are managed by ARMA. ARMA cannot manage state-owned property in accordance with the Law. There is no dispute here.

I proposed a model under which the management agreement would remain in force, with only the founder of the management changing - from ARMA to the State Property Fund - after the asset transitions into state ownership.

Still, when do you expect that the audit of these 100,000 accounting units could approximately be completed? Does this task have a final deadline?

We divided this work into several stages. We have already completed the first stage.

We are currently going through the second stage - conducting an in-depth screening of the 68.3% of assets that we are able to manage, dividing them into simple and complex assets, real estate, land plots, and corporate rights.

The most sensitive issue concerns real estate with actual users. If there is a tenant who is lawfully using the property, the question arises as to the appropriateness of management by ARMA and the limits of the agency’s authority.

This is consistent, routine work, and it has a clear planning horizon. However, due to the scale - over 100,000 accounting units - this is not a one-time decision, but a systemic process that requires time.

At present, can a tenant, on general grounds, simply participate in the competition for managing this asset if they want to continue operating? You cannot legally grant them any priority directly?

No. This is an important component. ARMA does not hold the title of owner. The agency’s task is to preserve the economic value of the asset. If there is a lawful user, a complex legal issue of balance arises - between the execution of the court decision, the agency’s powers, and the rights of such a user.

It may seem that the adopted law does not resolve such issues?

A law cannot resolve all issues instantly - it establishes a new framework.

When I came to the institution and saw the scale of the work, it became clear that there were many complex, unregulated, or ambiguously interpreted provisions. That is precisely why the reform was necessary.

A reform begins when the existing system is not functioning. But no reform “eliminates” all problems within five or six months. It sets the direction, the tools, and the new rules.

The key point is that the reboot process has already been launched. This is felt by the market, within the institution, and externally. And it is natural that changes cause resistance - this is a normal sign.

So, in six months, after this period expires, you will see how this law can be improved and propose relevant amendments?

First, the system must start functioning. We will see the first practical results - and based on them, we will make decisions: whether the law or secondary legislation requires adjustment, or whether it is sufficient to continue moving in the established direction.

In addition, an international audit has been launched, aimed at providing an external assessment of the system as a whole and offering recommendations, including potential changes.

You are currently heading ARMA, but we remember that when this law was adopted, a key turning point was whether to liquidate ARMA altogether. Many Members of Parliament supported liquidation, and this was also discussed within the government. In your opinion, is there really a possibility to reboot the agency so that it performs the functions for which it was originally created?

Of course, there is. We simply need to do the work.

How many employees do you currently have, and is that enough to achieve the reform’s goals?

The maximum staff capacity is 300 people in the Central Office and 90 in the territorial bodies. As of today, neither the central office nor the territorial bodies are fully staffed.

The reform requires strengthening human resources, particularly in analytical functions, internal security, control and audit, and monitoring.

In fact, in order to restore trust in the agency, it is necessary to make the rules clear and simple, and the decisions public.

An important area is internal security. This involves controlling the integrity of employees, processes, and managers to minimize conflicts of interest and ensure transparency of the system’s operations.

Regarding financial management, do you transfer anything directly to the budget? Is your task simply to preserve these assets? Can you purchase domestic government bonds?

No, of course, we do contribute to the budget. Funds from the management of seized assets, recovered under court decisions, and customs duty compensations from the sale of uncustomed assets are transferred to the state budget.

For 2025, the total amount of revenues to the State Budget of Ukraine generated by ARMA was approximately UAH 7.35 billion, while ARMA’s operating expenses amounted to UAH 316 million for the year. This means that the agency’s maintenance costs represent less than 5% of the revenue it generated.

And are these UAH 7.35 billion including revenues from the domestic government bond portfolio, or are domestic government bonds accounted for separately?

Domestic government bonds are accounted for separately. As of today, ARMA’s portfolio of military bonds amounts to UAH 4.5 billion in hryvnia equivalent (UAH 3 billion, USD 32 million, and EUR 4 million).

Previously, one of ARMA’s important tasks was to find assets abroad. Is there enough capacity for that now? Were there any results last year?

The international direction is one of the key areas of ARMA’s work. We are systematically strengthening cooperation with INTERPOL, EUROPOL, and the CARIN (Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network), participating in international operations to find assets and joint asset recovery initiatives.

ARMA is actively integrating into the international asset tracing and recovery community. We are developing direct working contacts with relevant agencies in other countries for operational information exchange and coordinated actions.

This approach delivers practical results - both in terms of locating assets and in advancing procedures for their subsequent recovery to Ukraine.

Are there already any concrete results?

For the second year in a row, Ukraine ranks among the CARIN leaders in terms of the number of international requests. This shows that other countries are cooperating with us and that this cooperation is yielding results. Over the year, ARMA sent 639 requests and received 246 responses - twice as many as last year.

We participated in international operations such as “Oscar-Europol” and in the pilot tool “INTERPOL Silver Notice,” processing over 80 requests from 27 jurisdictions, including countries outside Europe. Incidentally, working with countries outside Europe has yielded the best practical results - both in terms of working contacts and asset recovery outcomes.

Regarding high-profile cases, there are currently signs of the discovery of Viktor Medvedchuk’s second yacht, “Amore Mio”. We are working on its identification and the international recovery procedure in cooperation with other jurisdictions.

In addition, for some cases, we are already in the final phase of recovering funds to Ukraine. It is still too early to speak about the final result, but the international track shows tangible progress.

Besides this yacht, are there any other significant cases?

Yes. In the United States, real estate belonging to the family of a Ukrainian official was found, valued at $3.2 million. Real estate of another official was found for nearly $500,000. In Spain, shares in companies of a well-known politician worth over EUR 4 million were discovered. In Montenegro, 12 properties belonging to an official accused by the State Council were found, valued at EUR 12.9 million. In France, a politician’s estate worth EUR 11 million, including a car and apartments, was found. And in Spain, another estate was found.

Do you coordinate with NABU in this work, or does ARMA handle it independently?

Exclusively in coordination with all law enforcement agencies, based on their requests and appeals. In 2025, the total number of such requests amounted to nearly 9,500. At the same time, ARMA actively works with international asset recovery organizations, tracing for assets outside Ukraine. This is one of the agency’s key priorities: recovering what was taken out of the country is no less important than managing what has already been seized domestically.

Has NABU become more active?

Yes. In 2024, we received 27 requests from NABU regarding asset finding and tracing. In 2025, that number increased to nearly 100.

Regarding one of the yachts of Viktor Medvedchuk, it's currently in Croatia, right? What are the legal procedures regarding that case, and why are they delaying the execution of the sale and the transfer of this asset?

The arrest has lost its validity due to the expiration of the deadline. This happened in 2024, and to resume the sales procedure, we need to ensure the re-legalization of the arrest in Croatia. Only after that can we complete the selling process. The Prosecutor General’s Office is actively working on this.

Do you have any timeframes for when this might happen?

We are cautious about giving any specific timeframes because whenever we publicly fix deadlines, the opposing side activates procedural mechanisms to delay the case. The resistance is systemic: they use various tools like changing representatives, filing motions to extend deadlines, and other procedural actions, which essentially slow down the process.

For this reason, when building communication about the cases, of course, I would like to say, “We’ve won everything, we’ll list it and sell it,” but, in reality, the legislative procedures will take time. About half a year, and that’s under a rather optimistic forecast. If we’re talking about some particular timeframes, in February, we expect progress in this case. This will allow us to move forward, but we must work under the jurisdictions of four countries: Ukraine, Croatia, the Marshall Islands, and Malaysia.

Among the cases you mentioned, are there any examples where the money that has already reached Ukraine has been returned?

Previously, there were no such cases. Now, the efficient work that is moving forward in the administrative process (technically, not complicated) is happening in two jurisdictions. It will be completed within a clear timeline. So, for the first time, we’re reaching the final stage – when money is being returned to Ukraine. This is a precedent that will be helpful for future cases.

So, this year, we might have the first example where an asset found abroad will return to Ukraine.

Yes, in the form of financial funds.

What is the reason for ARMA’s refusal to sign the protocol on the results of the auction for the sale of 460 hectares of land located in the Borzhava (the Borzhava meadow) to the auction winner?

An indication of the connection between the involved parties and information about a potential conspiracy received from the law enforcement authorities.

Did law enforcement authorities send you this information?

We identified the signs of connection based on the tools and sources of information available to the agency within its authority. Eventually, the law enforcement and other state bodies also provided information about the signs of such a connection.

Is there no mechanism in “Prozorro” to track such connections at the moment? In the future, how can this situation be prevented? What additional barriers exist?

Previously, “Prozorro” did not have a separate mechanism for checking connections specifically for the selection procedures of asset managers. This particular case became a trigger for institutional changes. The procedure for selecting managers was updated at the beginning of February this year. The relevant changes were approved by the government in February this year, with the active participation of the Head of the Anti-Corruption Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, Anastasia Radina.

So now, to sum up the information about this asset, will it be put up for auction again?

Currently, this is an arrested asset, transferred to ARMA management (there is a valid court decision on the arrest and transfer to ARMA, and the owners have given consent for the sale). However, for further actions, the necessary procedural approvals must be obtained, including the position of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office as the prosecution party, and, also, considering the conditions of the criminal proceeding under which the realization of this asset is taking place.

Has the auction status been canceled yet?

The auction has not been canceled.

Have any participants contested your actions?

I believe the preparations are underway for an appeal.

What is the status of the situation with the Morshyn Mineral Water Plant “Oscar”, as this story has been ongoing for several years?

It has been four years, since 2022, when the assets were transferred to ARMA by court decision for management.

Is it just the “Oscar” plant, or are there other assets involved?

It is the IDS asset group, which includes 8 companies. Corporate rights, as well as arrested trademarks and industrial samples (which belong to the companies that are part of the mentioned group of arrested assets).

This is the largest asset ever transferred under the management of ARMA. Last year, we put it up for auction. At the same time, the procedure was essentially blocked due to 12 identical complaints filed by structures affiliated with the plant.

I want to highlight that, according to the law, structures affiliated with an arrested asset are not allowed to participate in the competition for asset management. However, despite the direct prohibition of participation, technical complaints were filed regarding the terms of the tender documentation, which led to the suspension of the procedure.

In fact, this is about the use of procedural tools to block the implementation of the court's decision.

ARMA reform law clearly states that all procedures that were not completed by January 30, 2026, will be terminated and must be reintroduced under new rules. Accordingly, within the framework of launching the reform and new procedures for selecting managers, this asset will also be re-listed for the competitive process according to the updated procedure.

And if we take the situation with this asset, because it really draws a lot of attention, it has been like that for 4 years. And, maybe, it shouldn't be, and they should pay extra money for management. Because the case demonstrates that there is no particular result, only profit for law firms, and work for the courts. What is the point of this struggle?

Here, we need to separate it into two parts. First, ARMA is executing the court's decision, as the agency does not make any decisions about whether to list or not list the asset, because it does not have such discretion. The court's decision is mandatory for execution, and there can be no selective approach here.

There is no difference between Zakharchenko's house and the other arrested assets in terms of legal category and the assets of the IDS group.

Second is the economic aspect. The task of ARMA is to preserve the economic value of the asset. According to the information we have, active resource withdrawal is taking place from the companies of the IDS group.

We see signs of action that could lead to a decrease in the economic value of the arrested asset. And this directly contradicts the purpose of the arrest, such as to preserve the asset in a condition suitable for further judicial decision. In addition, measures are being taken to block the execution of the court's decision. A crime report has been filed with law enforcement.

Currently, the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine is considering the case regarding the possible seizure of this asset for the benefit of the state. The key question is: in what condition will the state receive this asset if the court makes a positive decision?

Will its economic value – production potential, financial resources, market position – be preserved? Or will the state receive a formal asset from which resources have been withdrawn during this time?

That is why for us it is crucial not to allow the devaluation of the arrested property until the final court decision. Because the seizure for the benefit of the state must mean a real economic result.

I cannot comment on the timing of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine review – this is within the jurisdiction of the court and the Ministry of Justice as a party in the process. The case is complex, with natural resistance, and the schedule of hearings is already planned until the summer in the first instance. This does not mean a quick decision, not to mention a possible appeal.

According to the company's own data, the asset generates dividends, which are funds belonging to sanctioned individuals, and these funds could and should be working for the economy or the defense of Ukraine. For example, through military bonds. If the court rules for the return of the asset, the bonds are redeemed, and the funds are returned. This is a fair legal mechanism.

However, if the blocking of court decisions continues, law enforcement authorities should respond.

For our part, we are launching the procedures for complex assets: the government is forming a commission to select the manager, conditions are being approved, and the asset will be put up for competition. We are obliged to act within the law and ensure the preservation of economic value, regardless of the length of the judicial process.

What other large objects could the agency offer for management?

There are quite a few. These include the company “Cryoin Engineering,” the “Betonbud” Plant, and hotels in Odesa.

This is for this year, right? So, can we expect it this year?

Yes. The plan is that all assets that were listed last year and for various reasons did not conclude with a successful auction will be on the list under the new procedures.

Now there is a tendency to lift arrests or usage bans. Is there a systemic connection here that’s what law enforcement authorities should evaluate? But one thing is obvious: when the rules become stricter, and the possibility of following such a “tendency” disappears, the processes begin to move into a different legal dimension. 

When did this “tendency” start?

Since December. It has become noticeably visible since then.

Especially with those assets that were preparing for active management. From our management perspective, this creates a risk of losing the economic effect on the state. Our task is to document these circumstances and defend our position regarding the preservation of asset value within the legal framework.

So now are these assets simply being managed and used?

There are different situations. If it is about a bona fide user who acts legally and does not decrease the economic value of the asset, this is understandable and justified.

But some cases raise questions. For example, when the lifting of restrictions or change of status occurs precisely at the moment of activating the management or realization of the arrested asset.

You just can't do anything about it?

We don't have control over this. We can express our position in court and provide an opinion on the possibility or impossibility of management.

In the past, some of these issues were partially addressed by private bailiffs. There may be private companies in the market that will take these assets for management under a contract with you.

This is exactly the focus of the ARMA reform. The logic is as follows: a pool of managers is formed, and there can be different entities ready to take on these assets and manage them under a simplified procedure.

Could this be by the end of the year, when you give them these cases?

Yes. I think we have already started the process, but the obvious results will be clearer closer to the end of the year.

Have there been any significant sales recently?

Yes, there have been significant sales. At the end of last year, an arrested vessel and wagons were sold.

Regarding the wagons, some of them have already been sold, and some of them are still in the process of being sold.

Are they hopper wagons?

Various kinds of them. There are different situations: we transfer a pool of wagons for management, and part of them turn out to be destroyed or unsuitable for use. This shows that the actual condition of assets does not always match the formal documents.
Each case in ARMA has its own history. Every asset has a title owner, an actual user, and there is almost always resistance and struggle for the property. Therefore, managing seized assets is not a technical procedure, but a complex legal and practical process where it is important to preserve the real economic value for the state.

Do you plan to participate in the competitive selection for the next Head of ARMA?

The conditions of the competition allow me to participate. The documents have been submitted. The reform has already started, but its most difficult stage is practical implementation. For me, it is a matter of responsibility for completing the reform, from modernizing the registry to fully launching the new model for selecting managers, as well as strengthening the work of returning assets from abroad to Ukraine.
I am convinced that ARMA can be an effective part of the anti-corruption architecture if it works according to simple rules, without selectivity, with clear procedures and public decisions.

What are the next steps?

The plan that has been published includes submitting the documents, passing a test on legislation knowledge, checking general abilities, completing a practical assignment, a professional integrity check, and passing an interview.

Do you currently have any deputy assistants?

No. 

The management structure includes the head, three deputies, and department heads, but during the competitive selection period, objective turbulence arises.

By law, after the new head is elected, the current deputies’ appointments are terminated. This creates a zone of uncertainty for the candidates: people are not ready to take key positions without knowing what the management configuration will look like after the competition ends. This affects not only the processes on the top level. When an institution undergoes transformation, some candidates hesitate due to the risks of change.

At the same time, we are fundamentally strengthening the requirements for professionalism and integrity. Staff renewal is a complex but necessary process.

What is the current status of the mechanism for using seized real estate assets to accommodate internally displaced people after the government approves the procedure in December 2025?

Currently, working meetings are being held, and these issues are being discussed with the government. ARMA has provided proposals regarding assets under the agency's management that could potentially be used for this social purpose. At the same time, key issues remain the same: relocation of people in case the seizure of the asset is to be lifted; unification of the procedure for using seized assets for social purposes; ensuring a balance between the social function and the primary goal of preserving the economic value of the asset.

We are also preparing and processing a set of objects that may be used for temporary accommodation, considering their technical condition, legal status, and maintenance costs.

Is there already a list in progress?

We have prepared a list of seized assets from which we propose to begin the practical implementation of the mechanism for using the property for the needs of internally displaced people or for temporary accommodation. This list was submitted for the consideration of the government yesterday.

Currently, it includes four objects—these are the assets that are advisable to start with, given their condition and legal circumstances.

Where are these located?

Kirovohrad region, Poltava region, Odesa, and Rivne.

When do you plan to start the actual accommodation? Or are you still waiting for the government’s decision?

Actual settlement will be possible after the organizational and financial issues I mentioned earlier have been resolved and the government has made the appropriate decision.

In an optimistic scenario, if all approvals are obtained without delay, we can expect to launch in the second quarter of this year.

At the same time, we understand the processes: the reform, institutional transformations, and wartime. Therefore, we are adopting a realistic approach where, initially, it is important to launch the first objects, then test the mechanism in practice, and scale the overall model.

Can you please clarify what kind of assets these are?

Assets such as hotels, resorts, and there is also one residence house that we are trying to use. We are still working on the implementation model, but the most practical mechanism we see is one where part of the real estate can be reserved for temporary accommodation, while the management of the asset will be done on a commercial basis through an appointed manager.

This approach allows us to combine the social function with the main goal of ARMA, such as the preservation of the economic value of the asset.

We have a significant number of large real estate objects. It makes sense to consider a model where part of the real estate is allocated for social purposes, particularly for temporary accommodation.

At the same time, the management of the asset could be done on a commercial basis, with the social function being implemented through cooperation between the manager and a state-owned enterprise.

This approach allows us to combine economic feasibility with fulfilling the social mission without devaluing the asset.

There was also a bill registered by the members of the Verkhovna Rada regarding the cases of directing seized assets for military needs, rehabilitation, or housing. What are your thoughts on this?

I support initiatives aimed at addressing the social needs of military personnel, veterans, and internally displaced people. The state must use all available resources to support those in need.

At the same time, it is important to understand that the legislation already allows for the use of seized assets for the needs of internally displaced people and veterans. The issue today is not so much the legal norm, but the mechanism for its implementation.
The social goal and the seizure have different natures: the seizure is a temporary procedural measure, while social use requires predictability and stability. That is why we have proposed developing mechanisms that minimize risks, specifically the model of partial use or combining it with a commercial component.