State Property Fund head submits dismissal request

Head of Ukraine’s State Property Fund Dmytro
Sennychenko has submitted his resignation, he told journalists on Nov. 18. He
assured them that the resignation was his own initiative and is in line with
his initial plan to work for the fund for about two years (he has been at the
position since September 2019). The request needs to be satisfied by the
parliament for Sennychenko to be dismissed.

Sennychenko also stressed that his decision is not related
to the privatization of First Kyiv Machinery Plant (Bolshevik),
Interfax-Ukraine reported. The version of the fund’s head being dismissed due
to the “scandalous” privatization auction of the Bolshevik plant,
which occurred in late October, was spread by former journalist and MP Sergii
Leshchenko on Nov. 16. This version has been confirmed by nv.ua news site which
wrote on Nov. 18 that “the scandal has been noticed in the presidential
office.” Among other versions listed by nv.ua, the dismissal is related to poor
privatization performance. Another version was offered by lb.ua news site on
Nov. 16: “dissatisfaction of some politicians regarding privatization, which
started successfully, but can have an ambiguous effect on the rating of the
government.”

Under Sennychenko, the State Property Fund initiated
small privatizations via open electronic auctions that allowed the fund to
generate UAH 3.3 bln of privatization proceeds in 2020-1H21, which is 4x more
than in the previous two years. There were delays with the so-called large
privatization, but it finally started in October with the sale of the Bolshevik
plant. Nevertheless, privatization plans were still under-performed by 81% in
2020 and about the same amount in 1H21.

Alexander Paraschiy: Sennychenko
proved to be the most efficient privatization manager since 2014, so it will be
hard to find an adequate substitution.

Any reasons for the dismissal, from dissatisfaction
over “too active” privatization, to dissatisfaction over “too slow”
privatization and questions about the success of the Bolshevik plant
privatization, look possible and are not mutually exclusive. Most likely,
dissatisfaction with the result of the Bolshevik deal, expressed by various
media, was the last straw. Notably, the Antimonopoly Committee initiated its
investigation into a possible conspiracy among Bolshevik auction participants –
on Nov. 2, less than a week after the auction. On Nov. 17, the Committee also
reported that it did not grant permission to the privatization winner to
acquire the Bolshevik assets, which might be a bold step towards the
cancellation of the privatization results.