ARMA deliberately did not take into account the consequences for “Oschadbank” when announcing a competition for the selection of the manager of the “Gulliver” shopping center – mass media

Photo by UNIANThe Agency for Search and Management of Assets (ARMA), announcing a tender for the selection of a manager for the capital shopping center “Gulliver”, deliberately did not take into account credit obligations to state banks, including “Oschadbank”. Experts suggest that this step may indicate corrupt motives and an attempt to satisfy the interests of the future manager. This is reported by UNN.

On October 30, ARMA announced a competition for the selection of the manager of the “Gulliver” shopping and entertainment center. The Agency has set the maximum possible four additional criteria for candidates. Among the conditions that must be fulfilled by the participants of the competition are property with a total value of at least 100 million hryvnias, a professional team, proven experience in managing similar objects, and proven financial capacity.

The Gulliver shopping center building is collateral for a mortgage loan in state banks, including Oschadbank. Among the criteria set by ARMA, there is no mention of the need to repay the loan.

“Oschadbank” is categorically against the appointment of a new manager for “Gulliver” who will not service the loan, and stated that in such a case they will immediately apply for foreclosure on the facility.

Economic expert Oleksandr Okhrimenko suggests that ARMA deliberately did not include credit obligations in the requirements for the manager.

“On the one hand, there is a real problem that Oschadbank may lose this mortgage loan, that is, no one will repay it. On the other hand, today it is impossible to find a manager who will agree to take over the Gulliver shopping center with such debts. It’s just that ARMA… understands that if you take into account the debts of Oschadbank, the agency will not be able to give this “Gulliver” to anyone at all,” he believes.

Economist Andrii Novak, in turn, believes that this approach creates conditions for potential corruption, as a “pre-arranged manager” can benefit.

“The interests of Oschadbank, which lent money to the Gulliver shopping center, must have been taken into account. The fact that they were not taken into account already suggests deliberate corrupt actions in the interests of the new future manager, which has probably already been agreed upon, and this is the task of direct losses also to the state bank. If this happens, it will also set a very negative example for similar situations, that ARMA can make decisions that will cause losses to the state or the owner,” the economist noted.