Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

Seizure of the Pobuzke Abrasives Plant: How Kyiv Is Cutting Off Financial and Logistical Channels to Russia

The SBU and the prosecutor’s office have seized Ukrainian assets of a Russian businessman suspected of supplying equipment, drones and fuel to units of the Russian Armed Forces. This is not only a law-enforcement action — it is a step toward depriving the enemy of resources and possible nationalization of the proceeds.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 19, 2026 · 3 min read

Seizure of the Pobuzke Abrasives Plant: How Kyiv Is Cutting Off Financial and Logistical Channels to Russia
Абразивний порошок ПЗА у біг-бегах (Фото: llc-pza.com)

In brief — and why it matters

The Podilskyi District Court of Kropyvnytskyi in early February 2026 seized corporate rights and real estate belonging to Russian businessman Vadim Zarubin. The decision by the SBU and the Kirovohrad regional prosecutor’s office has a direct connection to security interests: the investigation indicates that part of the revenues and goods from these enterprises ended up with units of the Russian Armed Forces on Ukrainian territory.

What exactly was seized

The rights to a number of Ukrainian companies were seized, the main asset — Pobuzky Abrasives Plant LLC (100%). Shares were also blocked in Metservicegroup LLC (66%), Ukrmining LTD LLC (100%), Maria Lider LLC (100%), production facilities, land plots of over 13 hectares, several vehicles and two apartments (Pobuzke, Odesa). The court ruling is published in the judicial registry; the text of the notice of suspicion is on the website of the Office of the Prosecutor General.

"The seizure prevents re-registering the property to nominee persons and creates a basis for subsequent nationalization of the assets into Ukraine’s revenues."

— SBU Press Service

Evidence and charges

According to the investigation, from March 2019 to March 2023 Zarubin received more than UAH 9.1 million from the activities of the Pobuzky plant into the account of his individual entrepreneur; funds were transferred to bank cards and were partially directed to support the Russian armed forces. In addition to the Ukrainian companies, the entrepreneur also owns the Russian LLC "Rubin Auto", through which, according to the investigation, income that financed the Russian army flowed.

The investigation accuses Zarubin, in particular, of personally supplying in 2024–2025: vehicles and spare parts, night vision devices, drones, radios, diesel fuel and lubricants, generators, camouflage nets and military ammunition. On 29 January 2026 he was notified of suspicion under Part 4 of Article 110-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Why this is being done: logistics, preventing laundering, a resource for the state

Seizures of this scale pursue three interconnected goals: first, to sever channels supplying the enemy’s combat units; second, to complicate attempts to re-register or move assets through nominee persons; third, to create a legal basis for transferring profits to state revenue or using them for reconstruction and security needs.

Precedents — and why this is not an isolated case

This case fits into a series of court decisions in recent months: in January 2026 the High Anti-Corruption Court satisfied the Ministry of Justice’s claim and recovered into state revenue 25% of the shares of Kryukiv Carriage Works that belonged to Russian national Stanislav Gamzalov. In November the court made a similar decision regarding the Kirovohrad Ore Administration, whose owner was Russian national Sergey Kabargin. Analysts call this the formation of a more resilient toolkit for dealing with hostile assets.

What next and what this means for society

The seizure itself is a temporary measure. The next steps: completion of the criminal proceedings, possible lawsuits by the owner, and potentially the transfer of assets into state ownership or their sale for the benefit of the budget. It is important for citizens to understand: such actions have a direct link to security — they reduce the enemy’s ability to obtain material and technical support, and can also replenish state resources for recovery.

Questions for the authorities and society

Whether these court decisions can be transformed into a stable mechanism for returning stolen or tainted capital to state circulation will depend on the speed of investigations, the transparency of auctions and international cooperation in freezing assets abroad. It will also determine how effectively the state can cut off the financial and logistical flows that feed the aggressor.

Context for the attentive reader: the court decision in Kropyvnytskyi is not just a criminal case. It is an element of a systemic strategy that combines law enforcement actions with Ukraine’s economic and security policy.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026