Recent Posts
- Ukraine recovery should be based on development of territorial communities, innovations, involvement of professional domestic community – results of ESUR forum 29.06.2023
- Ukraine repatriates five more seriously wounded Russian POWs 10.04.2023
- Rada intends to include history of Ukraine, foreign language in final certification for general secondary education 10.04.2023
- Rada terminates protocol on joint anti-terrorist measures in CIS territories for Ukraine 10.04.2023
- 100 Ukrainians, incl defenders of Mariupol, returned according to swap procedure – Yermak 10.04.2023
Representatives of ex-owner of Finance and Credit Bank Zhevaho in court announce his residence in Dubai
KYIV. Sept 27 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Former owner of Finance and Credit Bank Kostiantyn Zhevaho currently resides in Dubai (the UAE), the businessman’s lawyers said during the examination of his dispute with the Deposit Guarantee Fund by the High Court of Justice in England.
"(Mr. Zhevaho) is a citizen of Ukraine who, although temporarily residing in Dubai, usually resides in Ukraine, where he has a permanent place of residence," reads the text of the decision at the disposal of Interfax-Ukraine.
The fund among its arguments indicated the registration address of Zhevaho in London in February, but in April it was changed to Dubai, the document says.
The ex-owner of the Finance and Credit Bank expressed his intention to participate in the consideration of cases in Ukrainian courts and submit to their jurisdiction.
As reported, in February of this year, the Deposit Guarantee Fund initiated a lawsuit to recover $582.5 million from Zhevaho, three English companies and one British citizen, accusing them of operations to withdraw funds from the bank. Hearings in the case were held behind closed doors in July 2021.
The High Court of Justice in England ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Zhevaho’s Deposit Guarantee Fund case, so the fund was also denied a worldwide seizure of assets. Although, as the judge said, if the jurisdiction was recognized, he would have satisfied this requirement, but not on such draconian conditions as requested by the plaintiff, and would have demanded a reciprocal obligation of the plaintiffs to compensate for damages.
