Court decision: brief and important
On December 31, the High Anti‑Corruption Court (HACC) approved a plea agreement with the head of energy trader United Energy, Andriy Korotkevych‑Leshchenko. He was given an agreed sentence — three years of imprisonment with a one‑year probationary period — and a number of obligations that have practical significance for restoring fairness in the energy market.
"The High Anti‑Corruption Court on Wednesday, December 31, approved a plea agreement..."
— Press Service of the High Anti‑Corruption Court (HACC)
Terms of the agreement
Under the agreement, the suspect undertook to fully reimburse UAH 185 million in damages caused to the state company Centrenergo, to cooperate with the prosecution in exposing other crimes, and to transfer UAH 2 million to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The criminal charges were brought under articles related to complicity in abuse of official position.
What the investigation found
"According to NABU, in 2020 Centrenergo concluded contracts to sell electricity in favor of United Energy, which won the auctions..."
— NABU
According to the investigation, in 2020 United Energy won auctions to purchase electricity, but because it failed to take the contracted volumes it would have had to pay penalties. To avoid liability, retrospective additional agreements with Centrenergo were arranged that removed the clause on an allowable 5% deviation from the contractual volume. This allowed the trader to effectively take any volume of electricity without penalty.
Context and connections
Investigators also note that United Energy supplied electricity to enterprises linked to Ihor Kolomoisky — meaning the case has not only an economic but also a political dimension regarding market transparency. In addition, NABU is investigating separate episodes concerning the sale of electricity in 2022 totaling more than UAH 716 million, for which the funds were not received.
Consequences for the energy market
The return of UAH 185 million and active cooperation with the investigation are an important precedent for law‑enforcement practice in the energy market. First, these are concrete funds that can partially compensate the state company's losses. Second, the agreement signals that accountability is attainable even for large traders. Third, attention to contractual mechanisms (for example, provisions on volume deviations) pushes toward strengthening regulation of electricity trading.
What’s next
The key question is whether the suspect’s cooperation will lead to the exposure of other figures and whether the funds will actually be returned. This is also a test for the system: declarations of responsibility must evolve into transparent procedures that prevent similar schemes from recurring. It will be important to monitor the fulfillment of the agreement’s terms and new episodes of NABU’s investigation.
"The details of closing these episodes and the functioning control mechanisms will determine whether this becomes an isolated case or a step toward a sustained cleansing of the market."
— energy sector analysts
