Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

NBU revokes "Professional Insurance" license: recapitalization from unconfirmed sources and implications for the market

A Kyiv-based insurance company in August 2024 increased its statutory capital to UAH 48 million but failed to verify the sources of the funds — the National Bank revoked its license. We explain what this means for clients and why the regulator is tightening oversight.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

December 31, 2025 · 2 min read

NBU revokes "Professional Insurance" license: recapitalization from unconfirmed sources and implications for the market

In brief — why this matters

Money and trust are the foundation of the insurance market. When the regulator uncovers questionable recapitalization operations, it is not just a matter of a single company: it is a signal of risks to clients and to the system. The National Bank of Ukraine revoked the license of the Kyiv insurer “Professional Insurance” on the evening of December 30 — the decision is linked to the company’s failure to confirm the sources of the funds used to top up its statutory capital.

What happened

In August 2024, “Professional Insurance” registered an increase in statutory capital from UAH 8 million to UAH 48 million. The company initially recorded the changes and later applied to the NBU for approval — the regulator refused.

The NBU determined that the insurer’s owners — Roman Kuzmenko and Yevhen Vasylenko — purchased OVDP (domestic government bonds), then sold them to other insurers and directed the proceeds to increase the capital. The regulator noted that the sources of the funds were not confirmed and initially gave the company time to remedy the situation until the end of 2024. No remedy took place — ultimately the license was revoked.

"The sources of the funds used to purchase the bonds were not confirmed."

— National Bank of Ukraine (regulator’s decision)

Why it matters — risks and context

Prudential requirements exist to guarantee that an insurer’s capital is real and sustainable. When capital increases occur through complex transactions between related parties, it raises the risk of immediate withdrawal of funds and leaving clients without coverage.

This story is not an isolated episode. The NBU has already said that from 2026 it will begin designating systemically important insurers, and pressure for transparency and accountability in the sector is increasing. For the market this means: tighter supervision, a possible reduction in the number of weak players, and higher standards for those that remain.

What clients should do and what to expect

First, if you have contracts with “Professional Insurance,” check the status of your policy on the NBU website or call the company. After the license is revoked the company cannot enter into new contracts and is not allowed to make changes that increase its obligations.

Second, follow official NBU announcements — the regulator provides detailed information on the next steps to protect policyholders’ rights and on settlement mechanisms.

Brief conclusion

This case is an example of how non-transparent financial schemes undermine trust in the insurance market and force the regulator to act more decisively. For consumers it is a signal: choose companies with transparent accounting and a solid reputation; for the market — prepare for stricter requirements and a cleansing of the sector.

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