Preventive measure and nature of the suspicion

The former Minister of Agrarian Development, Mykola Solskyi, has been ordered held in custody with the alternative of bail set at UAH 63.7 million. This was reported by Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko.

"The suspects tried to sell 7,000 tonnes of non-existent corn by forging documents: on paper the grain elevator was filled, while in fact it remained empty."

— Ruslan Kravchenko, Prosecutor General (Office of the Prosecutor General statement)

Case details

Investigators believe the scheme involved the sale of non-existent grain through the Volytsia-Agro grain elevator. An expert examination confirmed total damages of UAH 63.7 million. In addition to the ex-minister, charges were also announced against the agricultural enterprise's director and its technical manager; motions for similar pretrial measures have been filed with the court in their cases. The pretrial investigation is ongoing.

This episode echoes a wider scandal in the Kyiv region: Volytsia-Agro faced questions about a possible shortage of more than 100,000 tonnes of grain and losses of at least USD 30 million, which raised risks for traders and the company's solvency.

Why this matters for citizens and the market

This case has three layers of impact. First, it concerns the legal accountability of officials. Second, the reputational blow to domestic traders and grain elevators could complicate export contracts. Third, given possible drops in yields (due to weather and war), any distortions in the supply chain quickly transmit into domestic market prices.

"Due to heat, frosts and the war, Ukraine's harvests of key crops may decline, leading to possible shortages and rising prices."

— Denys Marchuk, Deputy Head of the All‑Ukrainian Agrarian Council (interview with LIGA.net)

What’s next — legal and market perspective

The court has decided the issue of preventive measures, but the case is far from over: investigators must prove the channels used to sell the fictitious grain, each suspect's involvement, and how the damage arose. For the market, it is important that the process is conducted transparently and swiftly — this will restore counterparties' trust and reduce export risks.

Conclusion

This story is not only a criminal report about specific individuals. It tests control and accountability mechanisms in the agricultural sector during wartime, when every tonne of grain and every contract has strategic significance for the economy and the country's security. Whether the system can hold the guilty accountable and restore market trust is a question whose answer will affect prices and partnership decisions in the coming months.