High Court rocked by leaked ruling in $1.9bn Ukraine bank fraud case against former owners
A staggering $1.9 billion ruling has detonated at London’s High Court—just as news emerged the judgment may have been leaked before it was officially handed down.
In a dramatic morning at the Rolls Building on Tuesday, Mr Justice Trower declared former Ukrainian banking tycoons Igor Kolomoisky and Gennadiy Bogolyubov jointly and severally liable for the misappropriation of almost $1.92 billion from PrivatBank, Ukraine’s largest commercial bank.
But before the dust could settle on the landmark financial judgment, the judge stunned the courtroom by revealing he’d received disturbing correspondence the night before. A confidential draft of the judgment—meant solely for authorised legal representatives—appears to have leaked onto social media in Ukraine and possibly surfaced via a corporate service provider in Cyprus.
Embed from Getty Images“I’m very alarmed,” Justice Trower told a silent courtroom. “If there has been a leak, which it looks like there might have been, the court takes that very seriously indeed.”
The judge’s concerns centred on a draft of the ruling that had been confidentially shared with involved parties ahead of formal release—a standard procedure meant to allow legal teams to prepare for consequential issues. That draft, it seems, may have ended up in unauthorised hands.
The exact path of the leak remains unknown, with even the solicitors who flagged the issue insisting they had “no idea how it occurred.” Mr Justice Trower confirmed he would require formal witness statements from all solicitors authorised to view the judgment, verifying that they’ve personally spoken with their clients and ruled them out as the source.
“When this has happened in the past,” the judge added, “normally it is fairly apparent where the leak has come from. It is not immediately obvious in this case.”
The ruling is a major victory for PrivatBank, which was nationalised in 2016 after a massive black hole was discovered in its accounts. Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov, who controlled over 80% of the bank before its collapse, have consistently denied wrongdoing.
PrivatBank alleged the two men engaged in a complex scheme to siphon vast sums through sham loans and offshore entities. The court found them liable for repaying $1,911,877,385—subject to adjustment for any actual assets transferred in the process.
Tim Akkouh KC, representing PrivatBank, told the court the claimant’s side had already spoken with their representatives and could confirm they were not responsible for any leak.
The implications of the apparent breach of court confidentiality are now a separate concern. The court is expected to continue examining the potential leak alongside discussions about costs and further legal directions.
The case has drawn significant attention not just for its financial magnitude, but for the high-profile names at its centre. Kolomoisky, once a prominent figure in Ukrainian media and politics, has been under increasing scrutiny from international investigators and media.
Legal experts say the leak could have serious consequences if found to have originated from within the UK legal process, potentially triggering sanctions or disciplinary measures against any responsible parties.
As the consequential matters continue, the court’s focus will be split between finalising the fallout from the judgment—and uncovering who might have tried to get ahead of it by leaking it first.
