The Morshynska Case in HACC: How a Two-Year Delay in Confiscating IDS Ukraine Assets Threatens Billions in Budget Revenues

On November 9, 2026, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) will hold another hearing on the confiscation of Ukrainian assets belonging to sanctioned Russian oligarchs—specifically, the corporate rights of the IDS Ukraine group, which includes the Morshynska, Myrhorodska, and Alyaska bottled and mineral water brands. The Ministry of Justice's lawsuit was filed back on September 25, 2024, and as of the preparation of this material, the legal process has been ongoing for over two years. The case is in its final stages: according to participants, only a few hearings remain before a final verdict is reached. However, the very fact that the proceedings have stretched on for months beyond established norms highlights a systemic issue regarding the speed of the anti-corruption court in cases involving major assets.

Statutory Deadlines Exceeded by 25.5 Times

According to Article 283-1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the consideration of a lawsuit regarding the application of sanctions through the recovery of property into state revenue should take no more than 30 days in the first instance, and appeal proceedings no more than 15 days. Until July 2023, these deadlines were even shorter: 10 and 5 days, respectively. Thus, the two-year review of the IDS Ukraine case exceeds the statutory first-instance deadline by 25.5 times. For comparison, the median for completed HACC proceedings is just over 32 days, meaning a typical sanctions case is resolved in about a month. Even when the first instance meets the deadline, delays often occur at the appeal stage: in the case regarding the assets of Oleg Deripaska and the Mykolaiv Alumina Plant, the first instance issued a ruling in 34 days, but the HACC Appeals Chamber review took four months. A similar pattern was observed regarding credit claims for the Ocean Plaza shopping mall (Ethoder Investments case), where appeal proceedings stretched for nearly three months, and in the case of the Kalush Pipe Plant of PJSC Polyplastic, where the first instance reviewed the claim for over four months instead of one.

Context: 79 Out of 83 Cases Already Completed, Revenues Exceed UAH 2.7 Billion

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the Ministry of Justice has filed 83 lawsuits for the confiscation of assets belonging to sanctioned individuals. Decisions have already entered into legal force in 79 cases. The state has seized the corporate rights of 135 companies, hundreds of real estate properties, and vehicles, with total proceeds from the sale of sanctioned property exceeding UAH 2.7 billion. The longest ongoing proceeding in the HACC remains the VS Energy case—the confiscation of eight regional power distribution companies (oblenergos), hotels, and metallurgical plants. The lawsuit was filed in June 2023, the case materials exceed 230 volumes with over one hundred third parties involved, and proceedings are now in their third year. The IDS Ukraine case is comparable in asset volume to this proceeding, which experts say explains the objective complexity of the process, though it does not dismiss questions regarding compliance with procedural timelines.

Parallel Track: ARMA and External Manager Prioritas

While the HACC judicial panel continues to review the case on the confiscation of corporate rights and their transfer to the State Property Fund, the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) is concurrently running a procedure to find an external manager for IDS Ukraine's assets. According to RBC-Ukraine, this procedure was accompanied by a series of scandals and accusations, including reports regarding potential ties between the ARMA tender winner and Serhiy Mindich. A key question remains open: which will happen faster—will the HACC decide to transfer the assets directly to the State Property Fund for subsequent nationalization and budget crediting, or will the process stall, causing the assets to fall under the external management of the private company Prioritas? The profile of the latter raises additional questions: the company has a staff of three people and a statutory fund of 1,000 hryvnias. According to ARMA's plan, Prioritas is supposed to preserve the asset until the HACC makes a final decision.

Risks of International Lawsuits and Financial Burden on the Budget

According to lawyer and former ARMA deputy head Pavlo Velykorechenin, transferring the asset to external management in this situation creates several significant risks for Ukraine. First and foremost is the risk of international lawsuits from British shareholders of IDS Ukraine, who, as previously reported, intend to apply to international courts. The financial burden of potential compensation will ultimately fall on the state budget, which is especially sensitive as the wartime economy requires fast and stable revenue replenishment. Thus, dragging out the process in the HACC not only delays the inflow of funds from a billion-dollar enterprise but also potentially increases the state's long-term financial liabilities to foreign investors.

What's Next

The hearing on November 9 will be another stage in a multi-year process. If the HACC issues a final confiscation ruling in the near future, the assets of the IDS Ukraine group will be transferred to the State Property Fund, and funds from their subsequent sale or management will be credited to the state budget. Otherwise, if delays continue, the assets are likely to be transferred to the external manager Prioritas, which experts estimate will only postpone the final decision and increase pressure from British shareholders preparing international lawsuits. At a time when 79 out of 83 sanctions cases have already been completed, the Morshynska case remains one of the few where the outcome is still undetermined, and its delay directly impacts budget replenishment during a critical period for the country.