OW Capital and KVBZ: confiscation, completed transfer and the later V.N.V. release

analysisOn 14 January 2026 the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine ordered 28,669,889 KVBZ shares held by OW, representing 25% of capital and nominal value UAH 21,502,416.75, recovered for the state. The full decision was prepared on 16 January. The issuer’s 17 April disclosure says the judgment took effect on 27 January and that the register received on 15 April changed OW’s interest from 25% to zero and the state’s from zero to 25% of capital, or 25.0717% of voting shares. The earlier 2022 ARMA arrangement was management of the arrested securities account, not a transfer of ownership.

qualification

The ruling is a sanctions confiscation decision, not a criminal conviction. The personal name is redacted in the official judgment; the unique OW identity, ownership and issuer records support the corporate chain without publishing private identifiers. Registry history entries from earlier years cannot postpone or erase the documented 2026 transfer.

response

The court records that the individual did not appear and provided no substantive response. OW also did not appear or supply substantive explanations; the court considered its notice through published notices adequate. The KVBZ representative supported the ministry’s claim despite the company’s formal third-party alignment on the defendant’s side. Nonappearance is not an admission.

outcome

The April issuer disclosure supplies the completed transfer, beyond the January ruling alone. A separate 7 April order lifted the earlier arrest of the 25% stake and took effect on 14 April. The historical OW–KVBZ ownership edges therefore end with the 2026 confiscation and recorded transfer.

analysisThe Ukrainian court found that Gamzalov controlled Inter Cargo Company and, through OW, held the documented interests in ZMK, ENA and Balakovo-Centrolit. It relied on Russian tax payments and specified industrial contracts when applying the statutory grounds for recovery. The judgment discusses ZMK rail-related supply contracts and ENA pump contracts, including a 2017 shipyard contract as well as civil and nuclear-sector customers. ^{1 6}

qualification

These are the court’s findings and reasoning in that sanctions case. Historic contracts are not proof of new shipments in 2026. The court’s aggregate tax calculation is not a payment made by OW itself, nor does the ownership chain establish that every director personally participated in each industrial transaction. The judgment is not generalized here into a criminal conviction of the network.

response

The court records nonappearance and no substantive explanations from OW or the individual, while KVBZ supported the claim. The separate Russian ELZ liability litigation reached a favorable result for its defendants on different claims and must not be conflated with this sanctions proceeding.

analysisThe retained company records identify Instrumentalnyi Zavod (IZ, registration 21073227) and V.N.V. (39564144) as wholly owned KVBZ subsidiaries. Gamzalov’s recorded relationship was an indirect interest through the parent, not an independently established personal holding of all their shares. On 17 September 2026 the Holosiivskyi district court granted V.N.V.’s application to lift the arrest of 100% of its capital. The order explains that the OW-held KVBZ stake had already passed to the state.

qualification

An October directory still showing Gamzalov as V.N.V.’s beneficiary is a stale or unreconciled entry in light of the court and issuer records. A directory’s generic founder label does not convert indirect control into a direct personal shareholding. The release order is not an acquittal on all allegations in the underlying criminal investigation.

response

The prosecutor did not attend and the requested investigation materials were not supplied. The court found no evidence establishing the continuing need for the restriction and granted the company’s request; the order states that it was not subject to appeal.