Story
Where did the history of the Black Sea Shipping Company begin? Steamships sailed on the Black Sea until 1833. They were used primarily not for transporting passengers, but for delivering mail, so in 1831 the steamship Neva opened navigation between Odessa and Constantinople. This flight sent 107 letters, distributed in Constantinople “without money.”
On May 16, 1833, a joint stock company was established Black Sea Steamship Society to establish “permanent relations” between Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
The article by Doctor of Historical Sciences E. Kudryavtseva “Postal communication Constantinople - St. Petersburg in the first half of the 19th century” states: “...In the “Project on the establishment of a society” it was assumed that the Black Sea Fleet would have 3 steamships - 2 for postal transportation and one for towing ships to the Bosphorus." The company was approved for a period of 10 years, but problems arose much earlier. Already in 1838, only one steamship remained to transport mail, it was decided that four steamships with a capacity of at least 250 hp each should be ordered. , so that in wartime they can be put to useful use in the navy.”
The delivery of mail in 1833 by the Constantinople post office was so important because in that very year the Russian Black Sea squadron was stationed in Constantinople, which came to the aid of the shaken power of the then Turkish Sultan.
The most modern steamships for that period were ordered from England. The names of these ships are “painfully familiar”: “ODESSA”, “CRIMEA”, “CHERSONESS”, and later they were joined by “BESSARABIA”, “THUNDERBEARER” and “VLADIMIR”.
These are the famous steamship frigates that heroically fought in the Crimean War and were sunk by their crews in the Sevastopol roadstead in August 1855.
After the war, only eight steamships remained in the fleet.
After the Crimean War ended, the Black Sea Steamship Society did not resume its activities.
Created with state money, the Black Sea Steamship Society, which included militarized ships that became high-speed ships of the Black Sea Fleet in the first days of the war, could in no way “...satisfy the economic needs of the vast southern region...”.
Already in 1856, the first large shipping company on the Black Sea was organized - the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade (ROPiT). At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, shipping companies in the empire appeared and disappeared, but there was a circle of super-shipping companies, and of them the following were actively working in the south: ROPiT, Dobroflot, Azov-Black Sea Shipping Partnership, Batum-Tuapse Railway, Rostrans, Russian-Danube Steamship Company, Trade and Commission Partnership "Sosiete" and others. Any self-respecting shipowner had his own representative office, management or office in Odessa, and the port of Odessa became the base for hundreds of ships.
With the outbreak of the First World War, mobilization took place, during which this entire armada became combat transports, minesweepers, and messenger ships.
In the Black Sea-Azov basin, after the end of the civil war, there were 49 transport ships suitable for operation. After establishing final control over the coast, the Soviet government began restoring the shipping company.
On June 13, 1922, the Council of Labor and Defense of the Republic established the state shipping companies Baltic, Northern, Black Sea-Azov and Caspian in the system of the People's Commissariat of Railways and entrusted the general management of their activities to the Central Board of the State Trade Fleet.
The ChMP was again created by the end of 1922 as the Black Sea-Azov Shipping Company. After the Great Patriotic War, due to the increase in transportation volumes, the Black Sea, Azov and Georgian Shipping Companies were created on its basis.
The history of the participation of sailors and their ships in the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people against the fascist invaders in the Black Sea-Azov basin was of a heroic nature.
In 1993, by decree of the President of Ukraine, the joint-stock shipping concern "Blasko" was created. Vinnitsky Alexander was appointed head of it.
In 2008, the Black Sea Shipping Company celebrated its 175th anniversary. The intervention of the Prosecutor General's Office, the Security Service of Ukraine and the Ministry of Transport and Communications prevented the sale of the last liquid assets of the Black Sea Shipping Company.
On December 23, the Supreme Economic Court decided to send for re-examination to the court of first instance (Economic Court of the Odessa Region) seven cases on the sale of the most liquid real estate of private enterprises at a reduced cost.
As the weekly "Comments" reported last week, back in December 2008, the ChMP concluded several agreements, the essence of which was 10/29/2009 "Salvation" of the ChMP was postponed for six months 04/01/2008 "Black Sea Shipping Company" should be liquidated - V. Rabotnev 07/21/2008After Upon completion of the reorganization, it is planned to withdraw the most liquid assets from the ChMP - "Ukrmorrechflot" 09/05/2008 ChMP: another attempt at "pre-privatization" 04/11/2008 The Ministry of Transport and Communications predicts the privatization of the Black Sea Shipping Company by 2009, in that third-party companies have assumed obligations to repay debts to creditors shipping company, and in return they were supposed to receive his real estate. Thus, ChMP transferred to Transbud-SU 5 LLC and Gallery Development LLC its debt to Shipping Company Ukrtanker CJSC in the amount of UAH 6.4 and 8.2 million. respectively. At the same time, the parties agreed that in return “Gallery Development” would take control of one of the most tasty morsels of the state company - the inter-voyage base for ChMP sailors, with an area of more than 13 hectares, which is located in Odessa on the street. Varlamova, 30 (Arcadia district). In turn, Transbud-SU 5 receives ownership of the administrative building of the ChMP in the center of Odessa on the street. Deribasovskaya, 4 with a total area of 4.6 thousand square meters. m.
According to a similar scheme, ChMP ceded warehouse complex No. 1 to Trans Oil Logistic LLC (Odessa, Nalivnaya St., 2-A), which consists of an administrative building, workshops, warehouses with a total area of 16.2 thousand square meters. m. Non-residential buildings in Odessa on Primorskaya, 3 (2.8 thousand sq. m) and Zhukovsky, 11/Polskaya, 20 streets (more than 2.5 thousand sq. m) were also transferred to this company. Trans Oil Logistic received these assets because it assumed obligations to repay only UAH 7.5 million. ChMP's debts to Castrol Marine Oil GmbH. By the way, the same creditor appeared in the agreement between the shipping company and the Medinfarm private enterprise, to which 3 million UAH were repaid. debt to Castrol, they got administrative and warehouse premises in Odessa on the street. Primorskaya, 11/13.
No less attractive assets went to Indochina LLC: the Odessa Gulfstream cafes, the Black Sea Yacht Club and the Black Sea Yacht Club ChMP, in exchange for the repayment of UAH 2.8 million. the shipping company's debts to Castrol Marine. Transbud-Avto LLC and Ukrzdravnitsa LLC followed the same path, which cost a little more than 2 million UAH. debts, the ChMP received ownership of its motor vehicle fleet (boxes, warehouses, administrative buildings), as well as the Odessa boarding house for fleet veterans.
But in July 2009, ChMP refused to transfer these assets, which gave these companies grounds to go to court demanding recognition of their ownership rights. And just three weeks later, the Economic Court of the Odessa Region, in two stages (August 3 and 7), issued seven decisions by which these claims were satisfied. In turn, the ChMP challenged these decisions in the Supreme Economic Court. On November 30, the Supreme Court of Ukraine accepted the shipping company’s appeals and scheduled their consideration for December 23.
On the eve of the VHSU meeting, there were concerns about a positive result for the ChMP. Firstly, why didn’t the private enterprise appeal to the regional economic court of appeal according to the prescribed procedure? And secondly, it looked quite strange that the Supreme Court of Ukraine appointed the consideration of seven such serious cases on one day, in one room (No. 326), by one panel of judges. Moreover, five minutes were scheduled for the consideration of each case, starting from 10.15 to 10.45. As a source in the Ministry of Transport and Communications told tbu.com.ua, on the eve of the meeting there was a threat that in this way the court could legalize this sale.
But the participation in the court hearing of representatives of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Transport and Communications has so far made it possible to make a decision in favor of the ChMP. The VHSU sent these cases for re-examination to the court of first instance, i.e. Economic Court of the Odessa region.
However, it is worth noting that the August decisions of the regional court clearly contradict another decision of this judicial body. Let us recall that since February 2006, the private enterprise has been in the process of reorganization, and the reorganization plan was approved in August 2008 by the Economic Court of the Odessa region. At the same time, the court appointed Vladimir Shnyakin as the manager of the reorganization, instead of the ex-president of the ChMP, Evgeniy Kozhevin, who was appointed to this position back in 2004 by the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Moreover, the reorganization procedure involves paying off creditors by selling at auction the objects provided for in the reorganization plan. But not through the assignment of debts, which even the Ministry of Transport and Communications learned about three days before the above-mentioned meeting of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
By the way, the redevelopment plan defines a different value for the real estate in question. Thus, the inter-voyage base of sailors in terms of reorganization is estimated at 347.3 million UAH, and with the assignment of debt at 8.2 million UAH. A boarding house for fleet veterans with a cost in terms of refurbishment of 9.8 million UAH. should have gone for 89.9 thousand UAH. They wanted to sell the ChMP motor vehicle fleet at a cost of 3.3 million UAH for 2.1 million UAH. The administrative building on Deribasovskaya Street, 4, with a planned cost of 26.7 million UAH, could have gone for 6.5 million UAH. At the same time, the confirmed debt of the private enterprise to creditors is about UAH 36 million. And back in early 2008, creditors were ready to renounce their claims if they received only one property - a four-story building on Deribasovskaya Street, 4.
In addition, as we have already reported, V. Shnyakin made two attempts to sell off private enterprises in November 2008 and September 2009. But in violation of the procedure for conducting such auctions. In particular, with regard to the last attempt, at the end of September, the Black Sea Transport Prosecutor's Office issued a protest against “illegal actions to organize an auction for the sale of the property of GSK ChMP.”
The reason for the protest from the prosecutor's office was the message about the auction, published on August 21, 2009 in the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda in Ukraine. At the same time, the announcement does not indicate the names of the objects for sale, their location, starting price, conditions of sale and operation, the amount that buyers must pay in the amount of 10% of the initial cost of the object, the time and place of personal acquaintance with the object, the location of the auction. These violations of the procedure were also brought to the attention of V. Shnyakin by the regional branch of the State Property Fund in the Odessa region. Thus, the requirements of Article 15 of the law “On the privatization of small state-owned enterprises (small privatization)” were violated. In addition, in violation of the law, the sale was not agreed upon with the Ministry of Transport and Communications, and at the time of filing the protest from the prosecutor’s office, an expert assessment of the ChMP’s property had not been carried out.
V. Shnyakin made a similar attempt to sell assets on November 24, 2008, when he placed an advertisement in the Odessa newspaper “Announcement” about holding an auction on December 26. Moreover, a significant part of the real estate offered for sale was not included in the redevelopment plan.
As we see, the situation has been brought to the point of absurdity. After all, the private enterprise has every opportunity to pay off such a minor debt. But in violation of the law, the reorganization procedure has been ongoing for two years beyond the stipulated time frame. In addition, the question arises why the State Property Fund has not yet conducted an expert assessment of the real value of the private enterprise’s property, so as not to give further grounds for dubious assignments of debts.
As stated in an open letter from veterans of the Black Sea Shipping Company to the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Vladimir Lytvyn and leaders of parliamentary factions, veterans of the Black Sea Shipping Company appeal to the mentioned persons in order to “put an end to the plunder and the destruction of the state shipping company “ChMP.” “Since 1992, when the president of the State Shipping Company “ChMP” V.V. Pilipenko was illegally removed. and appointed the first president of independent Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk Kudyukin P.V. – the collapse of the ChMP began. During the presidency of Kravchuk and Kuchma, the main collapse of the “ChMP” occurred and none of them was held accountable, but they are the guarantors of the constitution and must protect state property, the people gave them such rights,” the veterans note. As the letter says, until 2008 nine presidents of the company were replaced, and the last president, Evgeniy Kozhevin, “did a lot to protect the company’s state property: he revealed schemes for the illegal sale of ships, the shipping company’s frivolous debts, for which in 2006 they tried to remove him from the management of the company, but, at that time, the government did not allow to do this.” “However, on February 26, 2008, a raider (there is no other way to call it - author’s note) takeover of the company. At the time when the president of the company went to the Ministry of Transport of Ukraine to report, he was arrested at the station in Kiev and at the same time management of the company was seized,” say veterans of “ChMP.” “Mr. Kozhevin E.N. led GSK” ChMP" for more than 3 years and there were no complaints against him, and suddenly a criminal case arose in order to remove him from the management of the company and sell the remaining property of the company for next to nothing and finally destroy GSK, the largest company in the world that gave net profit more than a billion dollars a year to the state budget,” they note. “At the expense of GSK ChMP, the Ilyichevsky and Yuzhny ports were built, providing them with first-class equipment, and funds were also allocated for the modernization of the Odessa seaport. OVIMU (now the Odessa National Maritime Academy) equipped with modern simulators, a large number of top-class specialists were trained, significant funds were received into the city budget, and so on,” the letter emphasizes, the authors of which believe that the company’s bankruptcy is currently “created artificially and reflects corruption in the highest echelons of power to enrich their own pockets and destruction of the Ukrainian fleet." “The Azov Shipping Company has already been destroyed and the Ukrainian Danube Shipping Company is being artificially destroyed. Ship repair enterprises are being downsized, dockers and ship repairers are losing their jobs. Our shipyards do not build ships for the Ukrainian fleet. Our maritime educational institutions train specialists for shipowners of other countries, and not for their native Ukraine. Our seafarers, forced to work for foreign shipowners, do not have production experience in Ukraine, which affects the calculation of pensions. There is no state program for the development of the navy in Ukraine as a maritime power, and the destruction of the State Marine Corps "ChMP" is a slap in the souls of those veterans and sailors who invested their work in the development of the fleet and the training of highly qualified specialists," the letter emphasizes. "Many veterans They need medicines and medical care, since they receive meager pensions from 600 to 800 UAH for their entire working career. Previously, we, veterans, were provided with all possible assistance by GSK "ChMP", now - by sympathetic maritime organizations. Veterans with pain in their hearts learn that the Palace of Culture of Sailors and the Inter-flight Base of Sailors, as well as other property of the ChMP are already put up for sale, but when creating the Inter-flight Base of Sailors, many veterans put it in order, repaired it and now some thief, otherwise there is no you name it, for false debts he will receive for free what the veterans created,” the letter says. “Why don’t you, Mr. President, stop this chaos, because you promised the revival of the “ChMP” as a guarantor of the constitution? And what did you do, Madam Prime Minister, when during your premiership, in our opinion, with your direct instructions from the Minister of Transport Joseph Vinsky, the bankruptcy of the company began for its final destruction? We are ashamed of you, Vladimir Mikhailovich (Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Vladimir Lytvyn - editor's note), that you, as the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Ukraine, did not react to what was happening with the State Joint-Stock Company "ChMP", emphasize the veterans of the company. Since the independence of Ukraine, according to the authors letters, the personnel policy of the industry of the Ministry of Transport does not stand up to any criticism - persons who have neither experience in transport nor sufficient qualifications are appointed as Ministers, and the maritime industry is managed by simply mediocre people. “Dear sirs, veterans of the State Construction Committee of the ChMP, (and we think, that we will be supported by veterans of the Azov Shipping Company and the Ukrainian Danube Shipping Company), we appeal to you, as the leaders of the country, the deputies whom we elected, with a request to show your courage and conscience, to immediately pass a law to stop the bankruptcy of the State Joint Stock Company "ChMP", the return of property, which has already been sold, the return of Evgeniy Kozhevin to the position of president of ChMP, to assist in the development of GSK ChMP, to appoint worthy specialists to leadership positions in the maritime industry on a competitive basis with the participation and recommendations of the associations of captains and mechanics of the Black Sea basin. We propose to create a “Fund for the Rescue of GSK ChMP” and appeal to all seamen of Ukraine, shipowners of shipping companies, crewing companies, ports of Ukraine, the seafarers’ union and ordinary citizens of Ukraine with a request to make their feasible contribution to pay off creditors. Our sailors should work in the national fleet of Ukraine and be protected, and not be captured by pirates. We hope for your decency, honor and conscience in protecting the GSK ChMP and the maritime industry of Ukraine, for God himself gave Ukraine access to the sea, making it a maritime power,” says the letter sent to the first officials of the country on behalf of the meeting of veterans “ Black Sea Shipping Company" The intervention of the Prosecutor General's Office, the SBU and the Ministry of Transport prevented the sale of the last liquid assets of the Black Sea Shipping Company. Black Sea Shipping Company again wants to be privatized
ODESSA, 18 fierce. /Bogdan Dimovsky - UKRINFORM/. The state-owned shipping company "Black Sea Marine Steamship" will again try to privatize. Oleksandr Kozlov, head of the regional branch of the Ukrainian State Fund for the Odessa region, reported this today, reports a UKRINFORM correspondent.
According to O. Kozlov, the fact that the private enterprise is in the process of reorganization is important for the preparation of the property before sale. As it became known, in the days of appointments, the new core worker of the reorganization of the private enterprise is Vladlen Gorobchenko.
It seems that, in the end, the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled on court decisions that granted commercial structures the right to control the shipping industry, which was estimated at about 400 million UAH. In late 2009, the court continued the reorganization of the enterprise.
In 1991, the ChMP had 350 vessels in its main fleet. In 1993, the joint stock concern "Blasko" was created, which included the company's vessels on its balance sheet. Most of them have been sold. For the rest, the fleet of DSK "ChMP" will become 6 units.
Heads of ChMP
- F.I.Matveev
- - - B.M.Zenko
- - - P.P. Koval
- - - G.Ya.Magon
- - A.S. Polkovsky
- - - S.I. Tyomkin
- - - G.A. Mezentsev
- - I.G. Syrykh? (Sovtanker?)
- - - P.M. Makarenko
- A.E. Danchenko
- - - A.V. Goldobenko
- O.K.Thomas
- - S.A.Lukyanchenko
Crusader Coin Ancient coins are of great value as a source of information about past times. They concentrated the spirit, the aroma of those eras that will never return. Touching an ancient coin, a person is transported back in time. I experienced a similar feeling when I first picked up a medieval crusader coin - a penny for the County of Tripoli. The campaigns of the knights in Palestine, which pursued the goal of liberating Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher from Muslims, and their founding of Christian states in the Eastern Mediterranean had a strong influence on the development of the medieval world. In the “Latin East”, in Palestine and Syria, the crusaders in the 11th-13th centuries created four states - the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Edessa and the County of Tripoli. They all minted their own coins, the images and inscriptions of which mixed European, Islamic and Byzantine design elements. Sailing practice on the ship “Malakhov Kurgan” ended at the end of August 1967. The last port of call was Syrian Latakia. This city, like Beirut located to the south, was practically not damaged by the “Six-Day War”; peace and tranquility reigned here, active business and trade activities were carried out. At the request of the first mate, the ship's agent organized a bus tour of the ancient city for the crew. The ship's cultural fund had accumulated enough funds for the event, and they should have been spent on the current voyage so as not to be deposited for the future. At the appointed time, a tour bus arrived on board the ship and the crew members, free from shifts and work, set off on an exciting journey. - The history of Latakia dates back to ancient times. - began the story of the young guide Fatima, a final year student at the Faculty of Humanities at Damascus University. - The city was founded by the Phoenicians and named Ramita. The commander of Alexander the Great, Seleucus I, renamed the polis in honor of his mother, calling it Laodicea. In the Middle Ages, Latakia, as well as the entire Middle East, was ruled alternately by Arabs, crusaders, Egyptian and Ottoman sultans. The guide showed well-preserved Roman buildings - the city arch tetrapylon and the remains of an ancient colonnade, as well as several Christian churches of Byzantine times and medieval Muslim mosques. After visiting the historical sights, the bus made a stop at the popular beach of Shatt al-Azraq, which translates as “Côte d'Azur”. At the end of the excursion, the guide gave the sailors an hour of free time so that they could make purchases at the city bazaar - souk. In search of a memorable souvenir about Latakia, I came across an antique shop, where in a pile of old trash I noticed a small round silver object. - Is this a coin? – I asked the owner. - Yes. Crusader coin. - he answered. The Arab merchant liked the camera hanging on my shoulder. – Let’s trade: I’ll give you a coin, you’ll give me a camera. On the eve of the flight, at the Dynamo store on Sovetskaya Armiya Street (now Preobrazhenskaya) I bought a simple Smena camera for 12 rubles. I planned to photograph my first meetings with foreign countries. The flight was ending, and this task was practically completed. After buying the gifts, there was no money left and, in order not to miss out on an interesting coin, he agreed to the Arab’s offer. Returning to the ship, I began to study my acquisition using the catalogue. The reference book reported that the denomination of my coin was a penny; it was minted in the Middle Eastern city of Tripoli around 1275 - 1287. I expected to receive more detailed information in Odessa from an experienced specialist in medieval numismatics, Professor P.O. Karyshkovsky. With the return of the ship from the voyage, I went to the history department of Odessa University, where the professor headed the department of history of the ancient world and the Middle Ages. - That's right, the seller didn't deceive you - this is a Crusader coin. - said Pyotr Osipovich. The professor knew Latin well and easily translated the legends on the coin. - On the obverse the name of the issuer is indicated “SEPTIMVS BOEMVNDVS” - Bohemond VII, and on the reverse the place of mintage is “CIVITAS TRIPOLIS SVRIE” - the State of Tripoli in Syria. - But Tripoli is not in Syria, but in Lebanon. – I asked again. - That’s right, this is now, but in the Middle Ages the borders between states were different. The name of the mint is indicated in order not to confuse the Syrian Tripoli with the city of the same name in northern Africa. - What do the images on the coin mean? - The cross in an openwork frame on the front side of the penny is not only a symbol of the Christian faith, but at the same time the coat of arms of the county of Tripoli. The three fortress towers on the reverse side represent part of the Crusader castle. – the professor answered. Karyshkovsky explained which fortress, in his opinion, is depicted on the coin. Some numismatists believe that this is the famous citadel of Krak des Chevaliers, the stronghold of the Order of the Hospitallers in Syria. But the professor had a different opinion. - The castle of Krak des Chevaliers was not part of the jurisdiction of the County of Tripoli, and therefore could not be depicted on a Tripolitan coin. I believe that the reverse of this penny depicts the towers of the Chateau Saint-Gilles fortress, which was located in the city of Tripoli, the capital of the county of the same name. This castle was named after Count Raymond of Saint-Gilles, leader of the First Crusade and founder of the fortress. By the way, this fortress has been well preserved to this day. - said Pyotr Osipovich. The professor gave comprehensive information regarding the history of my coin and the tragic fate of the state that minted it. The County of Tripoli arose in the north of modern Lebanon during the First Crusade. After the capture of the cities of Byblos and Tripoli by the army of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, and the conquest of Beirut and Sidon by King Baldwin I of Jerusalem, the entire coast of Phenicia, as well as a significant part of the mountainous regions of the country, fell into the hands of the crusaders at the beginning of the 12th century. The coastal and mountainous areas north of Byblos became part of the county of Tripoli, and Beirut and Sidon became vassals of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Under Count Bohemond VI, the state of Tripoli in 1268 began minting its own coins - grossos. The Count and his successor Bohemond VII issued silver coins in two denominations - pennies and half-pennies. The average weight of a penny was 4.2 g, and for a half penny it ranged from 1.9 to 2.1 g. At the beginning of his reign, Bohemond VII minted coins that were almost indistinguishable from his father’s grosso, but the silver standard in them was lower. The County of Tripoli existed for almost two centuries - from 1105 to 1289. After the death of Bohemond VI in 1275, civil strife broke out in the state. The top of society split into two camps, in one were the widow of Count Sibylla and the secular knighthood, led by the young and ardent Bohemond VII, in the other - Bishop William of Tripoli and his supporters, who were supported by the Knights Templar. Bohemond VII captured the residence of the Templar Order in Tripoli and personally killed the Genoese governor, an ally of the Templars, with a dagger. Under Bohemond VII, the crusaders no longer fought with the Muslims, but preferred to buy peace with them for money. The conclusion of a peace treaty with Sultan Baybars cost the County of Tripoli 20 thousand gold bezants. Bohemond VII was childless, and after his death in 1287, the new ruler of Tripoli, named Lucia, came into conflict with the city commune. The head of the commune turned to the Mamluk Sultan Kelown for help. The Grand Master of the Templar Order, Guillaume de Beaujeu, warned the residents of Tripoli about the danger, but they did not believe it. The Kelowna army took the city by surprise, the Mamluks broke into the county capital and street fighting broke out. Templar commander Pierre de Moncada had the opportunity to escape on a galley sailing to Cyprus, but chose to remain in Tripoli and died with a sword in his hands, like the rest of the city’s defenders. Thus, in 1289, the history of the County of Tripoli ended tragically. - If I were asked to name the most beautiful coin minted by the Crusaders in the Holy Land, I would choose the Tripolitan penny of Bohemond VII. – Karyshkovsky summed up his story. - The design of the coin amazes with its harsh beauty, brevity and expressiveness. Today this small coin on the European numismatic market costs good money - 300 euros and more. It is also dear to me as a memory of my sailing practice on the ship “Malakhov Kurgan” and my first acquaintance with foreign countries.
However, the epic with the plunder of the former pearl of the USSR passenger merchant fleet did not end in 1992. It continued over the next two decades. Having realized in the two years of Ukraine's independence the scale and fantastic prospects for corrupt enrichment on the assets of the Black Sea Shipping Company, high-ranking men decided to approach their "deriban" systematically.
First of all, they decided to replace the head of the ChMP, Viktor Pilipenko, with their own, more reliable person.
The official reason for his dismissal was that he combined two positions - the head of the ChMP and the head of the State Department of Maritime Transport of Ukraine, created in November 1992, to which the functions of state regulation of the fleet were transferred.
Initially, it was planned to appoint Alexander Vinnitsky, captain-mentor of the Black Sea Shipping Company's navigation service, as president. However, behind-the-scenes political levers were put into play.
Not without the help of the former mayor of Odessa, Eduard Gurvits, in November 1992, the ChMP was headed by the hitherto little-known Pavel Kudyukin, who had previously headed the Vessel Traffic Control Center in the Odessa port.
Despite the great losses suffered by the Black Sea Shipping Company during the period of its leadership by Pilipenko, it was still a powerful enterprise.
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development - UNCTAD - the total deadweight of the Ukrainian merchant fleet as of January 1, 1993 amounted to 6.177 million tons.
Moreover, the share of the Ukrainian merchant fleet in the world merchant fleet was about 1%, which allowed the country to take 25th place in the ranking of the largest maritime countries in the world. By the way, 17 years later, in 2010, the deadweight of the domestic fleet totaled only 904 thousand tons, which dropped Ukraine to 72nd place in the ranking.
Consequences of "corporatization"
The second step towards the “deriban” of private enterprise assets was its privatization. For this purpose, in August 1993, by decree of President Leonid Kravchuk, the joint-stock shipping concern Blasko was created on the basis of the Black Sea Shipping Company.
As an annex to the decree, Kravchuk approved a list of enterprises included in the structure of the concern and subject to corporatization. Each division of the concern was incorporated separately and received the status of an independent legal entity.
The concern's personnel department became known as JSC "Blasko-crewing", the bunkering department - "Blasko-bunker", the bulk carrier fleet department - "Blasko-bulk", the information department - "Blasko-inform".
Since Kravchuk’s decree contradicted the then-current Constitution and the privatization laws adopted in 1992-1993, the Verkhovna Rada vetoed the decree, but the president did not repeal it. He issued a new decree, which allowed the concern to continue its work, despite the veto of parliament.
When creating ASK Blasko, President, First Deputy Prime Minister Efim Zvyagilsky, Deputy Prime Minister Valentin Simonenko, Director of the Department of Sea and River Transport Yuliy Kruk and Kudyukin’s team pursued far from state goals.
At first glance, their intentions were good: to give fifty ships to the management of “subsidiaries” companies specially registered abroad to search for cargo, collect freight and pay the expenses of a fleet of experienced managers.
And thereby - to increase the efficiency of the use of vessels and infrastructure of the ChMP.
To implement this task, at the end of 1993, a presidential decree on double reflag was issued. For example, a ship is registered in Cyprus for financial purposes, and then the national flag is returned to it in Odessa.
The shipping company's fleet then cost about a billion dollars. By the decree on double reflagation, the management of Blasco received not only the right of a national carrier in their home ports, but also the opportunity to pledge ships abroad if necessary.
What this led to is known: the state lost control over its own fleet. As a result of violations of the law, the courts found themselves, as it were, in “double” ownership - both of the state of Ukraine and of individuals or legal entities who managed to obtain foreign registration.
Thus, under the guise of fleet reorganization, a scam was carried out to move the most profitable private sea vessels to offshore zones.
The management of the vessels was fragmented between different companies, which were not subordinate to the ChMP. According to sources, for a certain bribe, such an agreement was drawn up that at the end of its validity the state would lose these ships.
Secured by Ukrainian courts, managers “authorized” by the management of the concern received multimillion-dollar foreign loans, which, due to conditions known in advance, were impossible to return to investors.
For example, to the English company Silver Line Ltd, some of the ChMP vessels were transferred with the right of subsequent redemption. Some ships had to work off loans, and on such terms that these loans could never be worked off, since freight rates were underestimated and operating costs were too high.
As a result, the ships became unprofitable, they were saddled with huge debts that the shipping company could not pay. After this, the ships were seized and sold at auctions at reduced prices.
Huge sums in the form of “bonuses” or “kickbacks” for sold Ukrainian ships were transferred to Swiss bank accounts opened in the names of relatives or dummies of officials and management of JSC Blasko.
In two years, under this scenario, Ukrainian ships were arrested in ports around the world. The most modern, comfortable and competitive ships have become the object of the hunt for foreign companies. The state did nothing to free the ChMP ships.
Deputy commission
At the beginning of 1994, the Verkhovna Rada decided to inspect the Black Sea Shipping Company. An investigative deputy commission was created under the leadership of Yuri Karmazin, the former prosecutor of the Primorsky district of Odessa.
He explained: the audit began because the concern’s activities were suspiciously unprofitable.
According to him, ordinary employees of the concern did not receive salaries for three to four months, and this became a common practice.
Also during the audit it turned out that Blasko's foreign currency accounts in Ukrainian banks were empty. All of the concern's currency was deposited in English and German banks.
The commission found that Blasko's management, violating legislation and NBU instructions, made decisions to illegally open accounts in foreign banks to hide foreign currency earnings and evade taxes.
Such accounts were opened in Dresdner Bank in Hamburg, Chemical Bank in Frankfurt am Main, British banks Hambros, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland.
According to the commission, the management of the concern entered into contracts that were unprofitable for Ukraine on the transfer of profitable vessels to the management of foreign shipping companies. Of the 228 ships, half were transferred to foreign firms.
Under most contracts, the company paid its foreign partner 200 thousand German marks per year for the management of one vessel, regardless of the financial result of this management.
The commission also found out that Pavel Kudyukin established too high standards for foreign currency travel allowances at the shipping company. In addition, according to the commission, this decision of the president of Blasco-ChMP caused significant damage to the shipping company.
The commission found that the company's managers, while abroad, received large sums from foreign companies. For example, in 1993 in Germany, Kudyukin himself received 65 thousand German marks in cash from the German company Transocean Tours, allegedly for travel expenses.
The commission received information about the unjustified use of the concern's funds. By order of Kudyukin, from the currency accounts of the settlement center of ASK Blasko-ChMP Mostok and the company Blasko-UK in 1993-1994, about $2.5 million
The Blasko representative office in Kyiv was supposed to operate in this center. However, such a center was not built. It is unknown where the money went. According to Karmazin, the total amount of debts of Blasko-ChMP exceeded $300 million.
The commission also found an interesting document. In 1994, Kudyukin issued to German citizens - employees of the company Dr. Vagner Ohrt partners Günther Wagner, Wolfgang Ohrt and Volker Hertlig - power of attorney to manage the financial resources and material property of the concern.
According to the members of the commission, with this power of attorney Kudyukin granted foreigners more rights than he himself had. The commission considered: since Kudyukin transferred to foreigners the right to dispose of state property of Ukraine, the issuance of this power of attorney was an encroachment on the economic sovereignty of Ukraine.
Strange condemnation of Kudyukin
In September 1994, the Ministry of Transport removed Kudyukin from the post of president of JSC Blasko-ChMP and fired him from the concern. However, Kudyukin ignored the decisions of the Ministry of Transport and continued to perform his duties.
It is known that Kudyukin filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Transport, and the court reinstated him in his position.
However, in October, the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine sent an order to the Department of River and Sea Transport to relieve Kudyukin from his position.
Only after this Kudyukin left his position.
Based on data from the parliamentary commission, on January 24, 1995, the Prosecutor General's Office opened a criminal case against him.
Although during Kudyukin's reign the shipping company lost only thirteen ships, most of the fleet ended up unknown where, operating under the flags of different countries. Another 60 ships were under judicial arrest.
After the detention of Kudyukin, President Leonid Kuchma abolished the JSC Blasko-ChMP and ordered the creation of the State Shipping Company Black Sea Shipping Company on its basis.
Kudyukin was accused of abuse of official position and misappropriation of foreign currency funds. However, Kudyukin was tried in Nikolaev, and not in Odessa.
At first he was accused of stealing 456 thousand German marks, which threatened him with 12 years in prison, but then, through the efforts of interested parties, he was convicted only of housing fraud. As if more than 70 ships had not been squandered.
The list of violations alone, which were announced in November 1998 in the Nikolaev regional court, where his case was heard, contained hundreds of pages and was read out over the course of six hours.
On November 11, the Supreme Court issued a decision on Kudyukin’s cassation appeal against the verdict of the Nikolaev Regional Court.
He was sentenced to ten years in prison with confiscation of property, foreign exchange earnings and securities worth 1.3 million German marks placed in German banks, as well as compensation for private losses - 456 thousand German marks.
On March 23, 2000, Kudyukin, who had served half his sentence, was released from prison for health reasons. Kuchma declared him an amnesty.
It is interesting that after his imprisonment, in 2002, First Deputy Prosecutor General Nikolai Garnik brought new criminal charges against Kudyukin.
The first episode was the embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to an Italian company during the renovation of the ChMP administrative building on Deribasovskaya.
The second was the misappropriation of more than 100 thousand German marks transferred to his personal account in one of the banks in Bremen as compensation for an order for the installation of navigation equipment from the Lloyd Werft company on the motor ship Belorussia.
The third was receiving a large bribe for those times for allowing a Cypriot company to use the ship "Peter the First" as a floating ophthalmology clinic.
However, thanks to the suspicious favor of Kuchma, the new case against Kudyukin was closed.
http://www.epravda.com.ua
DESTROYED FLEET. How the Black Sea Shipping Company, the world's largest shipping company, was defrauded and why no one went to trial. Requiem.
As of 01.01. In 1995, the Black Sea Shipping Company had 221 vessels on its balance sheet, plus 53 vessels as part of joint ventures between Vietnam and Greece. The number of employees of the ChMP was 32 thousand people, of which 27 thousand were sailors. It was the world's largest shipping company. The dramatic reduction in the Ukrainian fleet occurred due to the massive transfer of vessels to offshore companies. This is how they deprived the Black Sea Shipping Company...
Only in 1996-1997, the Ministry of Transport issued permission to transfer the following vessels to offshore companies: “Captain Soroka”, “Captain Polin”, “Petr Smorodin”, “Mikhail Stelmakh”, “Vasily Matuzenko”, “Vladimir Gavrilov”, “Roman Karmen” ", "Captain L. Soloviev", "Petr Yemtsov", "Captain Slipko", "Captain Chirkov", "Aldebaran", "Ivan Shepetkov", "Captain Dzhurashevich", "Captain G. Baglay", "Nikolai Chernyshevsky", “Yakov Bondarenko”, “Boris Andreev”, “Mechanic Bardetsky”, “Captain V. Trush”, “Kremenchug”, “Grigory Petrenko”, “Pavel Mizikevich”, “Peter Aleinikov”, “Engineer Yamburenko”, “Leninsky Pioneer” , “Valentin Zolotarev”, “Valeria Barsova”, “Vinnitsa”, “Brest”, “Agostinye Netto”, “Nikolai Cherkasov”, “Zhitomir”, “Izvestia”, “Alexander Ognivtsov”, “Knud Jespersen”, “Ernesto Che” Guevara", "Captain Mezentsev", "Engineer Ermoshkin", "Stepan Artemenko", "Captain Medvedev", "Peter the First" - a total of 42 vessels.
All named vessels were written off from the balance sheet of GSK ChMP and physically transferred to offshores. As a result of this policy of the Ministry of Transport, as well as the constantly changing leaders of GSK ChMP (in 5 years - 6 leaders), the world's largest shipping company, the Black Sea Shipping Company, disappeared from the face of the earth.
It is unlikely that anyone will be able to remain indifferent after reading this brief information. First of all, there comes pain and misunderstanding of how it could happen that Ukraine voluntarily abandoned an entire squadron of modern sea vessels. Many will see behind the numbers a phenomenon, an entire system that allows huge funds to be “washed out” from the state budget, and state property to be stolen with impunity...
For a long time, the problem of fighting corruption has been rising in Ukraine, wave after wave. It rises and breaks, leaving behind almost no trace, not even foam. As a result, corruption in Ukraine as a phenomenon is recognized at all levels of government, but there are no specific corrupt officials. Why?
In many ways, the answers to these rhetorical “Why?” give the conclusions of the Accounts Chamber, whose auditors in almost every audit identify the special “approach” of the highest-ranking officials to the legal field of managing state cash flows and state property.
Abuses are committed under the “cover” of regulatory and administrative acts issued ostensibly in pursuance of legislation on budget issues, but in fact contradicting current legislation. After the creation of such, so to speak, a regulatory framework, financial flows, now legally, are directed not to socio-economic transformations and the purposes provided for by the Law on the State Budget, but to satisfy purely selfish personal interests.
How this happens in reality, there is a need to illustrate with one episode, or rather subsystem - the system of illegal appropriation of state-people's property.
The President of Ukraine gave an official instruction to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to take a number of drastic measures to overcome the crisis in the country's fisheries industry, and within three months to develop and approve a Program for Renovating the Ukrainian Fisheries Fleet for the period until 2005. The program was developed and approved.
On January 17, 2002, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the National Program for the Construction of Ukrainian Fishing Fleet Vessels for 2002 - 2010 by the Law of Ukraine, which was signed by the President.
The need to develop the Program, as noted in this document, is due to the deplorable state of this fleet, “a catastrophic decrease in its quantitative and typical composition, which gives rise to an aggravation of a complex of economic, social and other problems, and negatively affects the state of food supply for the population of the state.”
What about the Program for Renewing the Ukrainian Fisheries Fleet for the Period Until 2005? No one remembered it because of its complete failure, and no one was or will be held responsible for it. On the contrary, the new National Program will be implemented by the same “specialists” from the same former Ministry, then the Fisheries Committee, and now the Fisheries Department. But these are details, administrative pranks. Over the past ten years, there have been over three hundred such “programs”.
Let us return to one of the points of the above-mentioned Order of the President of Ukraine, for the implementation of which ten times more budgetary funds were spent than on the Program itself. Here it is: “to provide financing for the completion of the construction of nine fishing trawlers at the Black Sea Shipyard with subsequent leasing to fishing enterprises of Ukraine” (duration - during 1997 - 1998).
Implementing it, Prime Minister of Ukraine V.P. Pustovoitenko signed an order dated August 20, 1997 No. 460-r, in which he approved the proposal proposed by the Chairman of the State Fisheries Committee of Ukraine Shvedenko N.N. an illegal scheme to create a state fishing company in the offshore zone - the British Virgin Islands - under the name "Fishing Company S.A." For the completion of ships at the Black Sea Shipyard, the Ministry of Finance was instructed to issue, under its guarantees, bank foreign currency loans to the newly created Company in the amount of almost 11 million US dollars.
An interesting point is that the order, and not the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, was issued “with the aim of bringing the state-owned enterprise Black Sea Shipyard out of a crisis.” As the UNIAN agency reported on January 29, 2002, this plant was in the process of bankruptcy. Well, well... “Brought out” of the crisis.
But let's go back to the state fishing company in the offshore zone and try to figure out what this phenomenon is and why it was created. Everyone is well aware that moving a business to offshore zones pursues, first of all, such a basic goal as tax evasion and their maximum reduction. In our case, the Government creates a state offshore company, which is tantamount to the desire of the state to avoid paying taxes to itself. This is exclusively Ukrainian know-how.
In world practice, free economic zones, technology parks, and the like are being introduced to create preferential financial regimes for the support and development of certain strategic projects, industries or territories. But in such zones, all interested business entities can take advantage of preferential conditions. In our case, the Government created an exclusive in the form of an eternal tax holiday for one company specially created illegally.
But the end justifies the means, and on September 4, 1997, Fishing Company S.A. was registered in the British Virgin Islands. Based on the order of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Finance (Mityukov I.A.) provided guarantees, and the offshore company at the State Savings Bank of Ukraine received a preferential foreign currency loan in the amount of 10.6 million US dollars for a period of one year. Sources of loan repayment in the signed and implemented loan agreement between the State Savings Bank and Fishing Company S.A. have not been determined. And as time has shown, it was no coincidence.
Using government funds, this offshore company purchased two trawlers from the Black Sea Shipyard. What did the state receive in return?
This question was answered by the board of the Accounting Chamber, which on December 15, 1999 reviewed and approved the Report on the results of an audit of the use of budget funds by the offshore fishing company “Fishing Company S.A.” Here are some of the Board's conclusions:
“...the current legislation of Ukraine does not provide for the registration of state-owned enterprises in offshore zones. By its decisions regarding the registration of the state enterprise "Fishing Company S.A." in the offshore zone, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the State Committee for Fisheries violated Art. 5, 6 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enterprises”, Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Entrepreneurship”, as well as Art. 2 and paragraph 28 of Art. 4 Decree of the President of Ukraine dated November 6, 1997 No. 1250/97 “On the regulations on the State Fisheries Committee of Ukraine.”
A company that is legally and actually removed from the control of government bodies is a non-resident; it received state budget money illegally. State Fishery Committee (N.N. Shvedenko) and the Ministry of Finance (I.A. Mityukov) no measures to repay the loan by Fishing Company S.A. did not undertake.
As a result:
The introduction of a settlement scheme through the company "Fishing Company S.A.", which was registered in an offshore zone, caused budget losses totaling $2.5 million due to the company's failure to pay taxes and other mandatory payments, and shipbuilders - value added tax, since trawlers were exported;
Attracting credit resources from the State Savings Bank for lending to Fishing Company S.A. in foreign currency, in the absence of a mechanism for repaying foreign currency loans, resulted in bank losses (in the form of an unrepaid loan and interest on the use of credit resources as of October 1, 1999) in the amount of about 42.4 million hryvnia;
The implementation of this project by the Cabinet of Ministers and the State Fisheries Committee of Ukraine practically led to the loss by the state of two trawlers worth $8.54 million.”
The conclusions of the board of the Accounts Chamber were sent to the Cabinet of Ministers. Having gone through the system of all the resolutions and instructions of the Prime Minister, the First Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance - the consideration and preparation of the response fell to the level of those executors who were precisely supposed to ensure the legality of the creation of the company, the efficiency of using budget funds, whose visas were at their disposal The Cabinet of Ministers, crossing out the provisions of three laws of Ukraine.
As a result, the Accounts Chamber received a response signed by Deputy Minister of Finance V.V. Reguretsky, which states that: “... the creation of a fishing company is based on the laws of Ukraine” and discusses the effectiveness of the current “project”.
Indeed, when you manage the entire budget of the country, is 42.4 million hryvnia of budget funds really money? But are two trawlers really property?! The reaction of the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine, to which the findings of the Accounts Chamber were also sent, was different:
“... regarding compliance with the law when creating and registering the fishing company “Fishing Company S.A.” We report the following:
The Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine conducted an investigation into this matter in 1999. Based on its results, a submission was made to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to eliminate violations, including regarding the creation and registration of a company in an offshore zone. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has considered the issue, but in fact the violations have not been eliminated.
In this regard, the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine carried out an additional inspection, as a result of which a letter was sent to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the need to urgently take measures to unconditionally fulfill the requirements noted in the submission and eliminate the identified violations. However, the government responded with reference to legal acts and noted that the creation of the company was carried out in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine.”
As we can see, there is a system in place in which an official who has committed abuses is tasked with recognizing them and preparing measures to correct and punish himself. Naturally, first of all, he will deny the very fact of abuse, inventing cunningly wise replies. And the management giving instructions, as a rule, does not have time to study and dive into the problem. After all, most of them are semi-politicians, semi-professional specialists. And no one bears any real responsibility.
Having received conflicting answers to the conclusions of the board of the Accounts Chamber from the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Finance, and the Prosecutor General's Office, the auditors of the Accounts Chamber constantly monitored this problem, repeatedly drawing the attention of the highest executive authorities to the illegality of their actions.
And the actions were as follows:
The Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, instead of demanding the company to repay the debt to Sberbank for the loan it received, in December 1999 turned to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine with a proposal, agreed with Sberbank of Ukraine, to restructure the debt of the offshore company to the bank as of March 1, 2000. Isn't this an example of a proper program-targeted attitude towards budget money?
The restructuring of the debt took place by registering it in accordance with the order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated December 21, 1999 No. 1456-r with treasury bills in the amount of 46.8 million hryvnia. A small, perhaps, but significant detail, this is one of the last orders signed by Prime Minister V.P. Pustovoitenko, who, by Presidential Decree from December 22, 1999. relieved of this position.
Despite the fact that the specified debt, in violation of Art. 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On State Internal Debt” was not included in the state internal debt; in 2000-2001, 26.7 million UAH were paid from the State Budget of Ukraine. to repay the company's obligations to Sberbank. This already happened under the new government, which was headed by V.A. Yushchenko, but under the old Minister of Finance - I.A. Mityukov.
The illegal actions of the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine led to the fact that, due to the offshore company’s failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement with Sberbank regarding the payment of funds to it in the amount of UAH 46.8 million, debt obligations to pay the loan were automatically transferred to the Ministry of Finance, and subsequently - to the state budget. Let us note that at this time the results of the company's financial and economic activities allowed it to independently, albeit not yet fully, fulfill its debt obligations (the Company's income for 1997 - the first half of 2001 amounted to $2.4 million).
But the offshore company had no intention of paying off the loan. You remember, the loan agreement “accidentally” did not specify the source of its repayment. As a result, as first the minister, then the chairman, and now the director of the fisheries department N.N. Shvydenko believes, no one owes anyone anything, although everything was paid for with the money of the state budget, i.e. taxpayers' money. But what about the property that was actually purchased with public funds, especially since during this time the company acquired two more trawlers? Who do they belong to?
Documents available at the Sevastopol Sea Fishing Port indicate that the 100% owner of the vessel “Captain Rusak” is already the company “Fishing Fox Ltd.”, registered in Cyprus. The vessel "Alexander Buryachenko" belongs to the company "Fishing Lion Ltd.", registered in Cyprus, and the owner of the vessel "Professor Mikhail Alexandrov" was the company "Fishing Seal Ltd.", which is also registered in Cyprus, which is an offshore zone.
Where is our “state” offshore company “Fishing Company S.A.” from the British Virgin Islands, what does she own?
The results of a repeat audit conducted by auditors of the Accounts Chamber revealed that today, according to the order of the State Fisheries Committee, the property of the company “Fishing Company S.A.” pledged against a foreign loan in the amount of $5 million for a period of 3 years at 10 percent per annum, taken by the International Fishiries Pool (Livingstone Sippsng Inc.), which, in addition to Fishing Company S.A., also included others, and unprofitable fishing companies. This gives grounds for the conclusion that there is a real threat of losing the vessels of the Fishing Company S.A., which were actually purchased at the expense of the state budget.
In December 2001, the board of the Accounts Chamber, based on the results of monitoring and additional verification, considered this issue a second time and made a decision, taking into account the government’s practice of considering previous conclusions of the Accounts Chamber, as well as the fact that the state budget expenses for the implementation of this project already amount to UAH 59 million ., and the state does not receive any income, while there is also a real threat of loss of ships purchased with public money, send materials on this issue directly to the President of Ukraine to take measures to preserve state property.
The President of Ukraine clearly responded and posed the question to the next Prime Minister: “Who will be responsible? and instructed to “deal with such activities.” Following the instructions of the President of Ukraine, the government created a Special Commission to consider this problem.
Meetings of this commission were held twice in January and February 2002 within the framework of the government committee on reforming the agricultural sector, however, its final document did not provide clear, intelligible answers to the two main questions posed by the Accounts Chamber in a letter to the President of Ukraine:
First. Why does an offshore Company, which is identified as the borrower of the loan in all documents, operate profitably, but does not repay the loan, but rather uses these funds to increase its own assets?
Second. How is it necessary to formalize the state's rights to watercraft that were actually purchased with public money, ensure their operation for the benefit of the state and not lose this state property?
At the commission meetings, timid statements were made about the lack of legislative regulation of the procedure for registering companies in offshore zones, which could lead to dire consequences. However, they drowned under the exalted pressure of representatives of those departments that from the very beginning initiated this project and carefully supported it.
As a result, under persistent pressure from the State Fisheries Committee and the Ministry of Finance, the emphasis was once again shifted in a completely different direction, which was the reason for the conclusions made that do not have a convincing legal and economic nature, but, on the contrary, are based on dubious, undocumented information and , so-called expediency.
Here are the commission's findings:
“...The implementation of government decisions on this issue ensured the work of the shipbuilding plant, the receipt of payments from it to the budget, the preservation of domestic technology for the construction of large-tonnage fishing vessels, and the result of the company’s activities is immediate and direct investments in the economy of Ukraine in the amount of about $ 22 million, the creation of 570- ty new jobs for seafarers.
Members of the government committee on reform of the agricultural sector, having examined the materials of the Special Commission to study the issue of the creation and operation of the company “Fishing Company S.A.”, having heard its report, agreed with the conclusion that the State Fisheries Committee and the Ministry of Finance, when using state budget funds, acted within the framework of the regulatory framework.” .
What “legal framework”, may I ask?! Is it not the one that was created by order of the Cabinet of Ministers and replaces the laws of Ukraine? In which you can ignore everything and everyone, guided by only one goal - to break off a larger piece of the budget pie, while firmly knowing that you won’t have to answer.
The interest of the officials of the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Agro-Industrial Complex, the Ministry of Economy, who by all means support the authors of this project from among the leaders of the State Fisheries Agency, is of corporate interest. The same deliberately untrue arguments are used, the main ones of which boil down to the following two points. The first is to convince everyone about the seemingly state Ukrainian status of the company “Fishing Company S.A.”
But let's note the following. The current legislation of Ukraine does not provide for a combination of the status of a state enterprise with the status of a non-resident, which this company actually is, and which operates in accordance with the legislation of another state, where this company is registered.
This company is not registered in the Unified State Register of Enterprises and Organizations of Ukraine, the purpose of which is to ensure unified state registration of entities. It includes only the representative office of this company in Ukraine, as the property of a legal entity of another state.
The trawlers owned by the company were not registered in the State Ship Register of Ukraine, in accordance with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Code of Ukraine, and certificates of ownership of the vessels and certificates of navigation under the State Flag of Ukraine were obtained fraudulently.
The General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine also states that the company was actually created, registered and operates in a territory not supervised by the prosecutor's office. So what kind of state company is this?!
By the way, according to the Memorandum of Incorporation and Articles of Association dated September 4, 1997, according to the laws of the British Virgin Islands, the name of the registered company is “Fishing Company S.A.”, and not “State fishing company “Fishing Company S.A.” as it is arbitrarily interpreted in all its documents by the State Fisheries Committee, and after it - all other departments.
The only documentary evidence of ownership of this company constantly appears as a Certificate for 50 thousand shares worth $50 thousand (the shares, by the way, were not issued), issued in the name of the State Fisheries Committee of Ukraine. But what is it worth when:
These property rights of the State Fisheries Committee are not taken into account as part of its assets. The State Property Fund of Ukraine knows nothing about them either;
The State Fishery Committee did not transfer funds in the amount of $50 thousand to the company, i.e. there is no documentary evidence of the fact of the financial transaction itself to repurchase shares;
The financial rights of the State Fishery Committee that are not properly formalized are estimated at $50 thousand, and this is as much as 0.3 percent of the company’s assets, which are already estimated at $14.5 million;
The State Fisheries Committee, as the owner of the certificate, had the right to receive dividends in favor of the state, but did not receive a single penny for 1997 - 2002.
The second argument of the Accounts Chamber apologists is generally from the realm of fantasy, since it boils down to the fact that although the company received a foreign currency loan in the amount of $10.6 million, it should not return it.
A thorough analysis of all documents, starting with the feasibility study of this project, confirms that the credit (borrowed) nature of its financing was envisaged, which means the need to return the funds received. At the same time, the emphasis was placed precisely on the payback of the project, through a significant increase in the supply of fish products, primarily to such budgetary institutions as the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and others.
The State Fishery Committee itself, by order dated September 12, 1997 No. 4-4-19/63, identified the company as the borrower of the loan, which it received in accordance with the loan agreements from the Savings Bank. Another thing is that the company did not intend to repay the loans received, and the heads of the State Fishery Committee and the Ministry of Finance did this for it at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine.
Back in 1999, the Ministry of Finance acquired all the rights of a creditor in relation to the company and, accordingly, the right to make claims against the debtor, but never used these rights in the interests of the state. And the amount of claims against the company is 59 million hryvnia.
An interesting situation has developed, as you can see. A non-resident offshore company actually received a gift from “rich” Ukraine in the form of three new modern fishing trawlers, each of which, under the most unfavorable circumstances, has the ability to bring in more than $1.5 million in net profit per year. It is unknown to whom it brings, but it is known for sure that it brings profit for four years in a row. And it is also known for certain that it is not the state.
Is no one in Ukraine able to find out who receives these state-owned incomes and influence the cessation of the so-called experiment, which is ruinous for the state? Auditors of the Accounts Chamber can solve this problem. But for them, the revenue part of the state budget is “taboo”, also one of the purely Ukrainian know-how in the system of budget control. One can only imagine what kind of financial resources, not controlled by state regulatory bodies, serve someone’s personal, and not at all state, interests.
It has reached the point that even the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine, in connection with this position of the government, is forced to inform that it has already exhausted the powers granted to it regarding bringing the status of this company into compliance with the legislation of Ukraine. And the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine twice submitted a proposal to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine back in 1999 that violations of the current legislation took place during the creation of the company.
One gets the impression that the bitter lesson of the disappearance of the mighty fleet of the Black Sea Shipping Company has not taught anyone anything, although some elements of insight are emerging. I will quote several phrases from a letter from Deputy Prime Minister Leonid Kozachenko, received by the Accounts Chamber on March 28, 2002, which confirm our worst assumptions:
“...re-registration of (the company) in Ukraine is premature, since before registering a company in Ukraine it is necessary to pay off with non-resident creditors of Ukraine. To do this, the company needs to obtain loans in Ukraine in the amount of 35 million hryvnia. In addition, the company’s vessels are secured by loans received from non-residents of Ukraine. The above makes it impossible to obtain loans in Ukraine.
...Taking into account the above, we believe that the most realistic way to solve the problem of re-registration of the company is to operate it on the current terms until the end of September 2004 without concluding agreements to obtain new loans secured by ships.
... After making full payments for the loans received, it will be possible to resolve the issue of registering a company in Ukraine. Relevant instructions on this issue have been given to the Ministry of Agrarian Policy.”
But this is in the future, and today the implementation of the “Fishing Company S.A.” project, through specially developed “rules of the game”, has made it possible to almost legally rob the state. At the same time, the level of fish production volumes from 2000 to 1990 was 33.5%, and per capita fish sales in 2001 in Ukraine amounted to... 59 grams per month.
But why am I writing about this, because almost everyone knows about the position of the Accounts Chamber and the position of the leadership of the executive branch. There were more than enough articles in the media on this issue.
But on the other hand, one cannot remain silent - a state with access to two seas should not turn into a coastal state. It’s painful and insulting for the country!
Ukraine continues to sell off its largest state-owned enterprises; the State Property Fund of Ukraine decided to auction off the Black Sea Shipping Company; the decision to privatize it was made on January 11, 2017. An announcement about this was posted in the official publication of the foundation, Privatization Vedomosti.
According to sources, the pitiful remains of the private enterprise are planned to be sold for approximately $3 million.
The state enterprise Ustdunaivodshlyakh, which specializes in the construction of water structures, is also subject to privatization.
Ukraine has lost the oldest shipping company on the Black Sea - a source of pride for millions of its citizens. In May next year, the ChMP could celebrate 185 anniversary of its founding (in 1833, the joint-stock Black Sea Steamship Society was created to establish permanent relations between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The shipping company’s base port is the city of Odessa), but the company is unlikely to live to see its anniversary.As of 1990, the Black Sea Shipping Company (BSC) was the largest in Europe and the second in the world. It consisted of more than 400 ships of various classes with a total displacement of 5 million tons. Since 1991, i.e. Since the collapse of the USSR, the ChMP passed to Ukraine. By 2006, the number of ships had decreased by more than 20 times.
The saddest story of the death of the Black Sea Fleet is associated with the disappearance of about 300 ships (with a home port of Odessa) from the list of the Black Sea Shipping Company during 1993-2001.
27 thousand sailors worked in the ChMP, 22 thousand of them are now sailing under a foreign flag and will never return here. If they come to Odessa, it’s either to visit their family or to visit.
The Black Sea Shipping Company had financial problems almost from the first days of Ukraine's independence. Back in 1993, attempts were made to corporatize the company, but they were stopped.
The shipping company's fleet was steadily shrinking, and its debts, on the contrary, were increasing. Since 2006, the company has been undergoing a reorganization procedure.
Today, the Black Sea Shipping Company has only one vessel left - the self-propelled pontoon "Parutino".
Let us recall that the State Property Fund also put up for sale the Odessa Port Plant (OPZ). Last year, both attempts failed - the auction did not take place due to a lack of applications.
Thus, Ukraine, as a maritime power, ceases to exist - another page of its history - the history of the Black Sea Shipping Company was sent to waste. The current leadership of the country is doing everything to destroy the economy of a once prosperous state, sell off its assets, and doom the people to poverty and extinction.
Additional information about the company
Business support services. Sea transportation of passengers and cargo. Specialized warehouse services. Warehouses and storage areas. Photocopying and xerography services
Detailed information about the company
Business support services. Sea transportation of passengers and cargo. Specialized warehouse services. Warehouses and storage areas. Services of agents, intermediaries for sea vessels, supply organization (procurement, acquisition, delivery), outsourcing services, open storage areas, bonded customs warehouses (for storing duty-unpaid cargo), warehouses for storing dry products, cars and vehicles, machine tools, production equipment, warehousing and storage of goods on pallets, distribution supplies of semi-finished metal products including cutting and slitting services, photocopying, xerography, electrostatic printing (xerography, photocopying)
Company headings
Business and finance
Printing and design
Transport and transportation
Services
Company on the map, directions
Black Sea Shipping Company, state - brief profile of the company
The company's areas of activity are “Business and Finance / Management, Printing and Design / Printing Houses, Transport and Transportation / Sea Transportation, Services / Warehousing Services.” The Black Sea Shipping Company, a state-owned company, is located at 1 Lanzheronovskaya St., Odessa 65026 in the region of Ukraine, Odessa. You can contact company representatives at the following telephone numbers - +380 48 7251327 +380 482 348499 Fax: +380 48 7251327 Fax: +380 482 348499. Email address for contacting the administration - [email protected].
