The recent Political Assembly of the European People’s Party in Valencia attracted a slate of high-profile guests. Yet one figure appeared with minimal fanfare: former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko.
His low-profile presence passed largely unnoticed by the media, but closer examination suggests his reasons for being in Spain extended far beyond official party business.
In his brief remarks, Poroshenko struck a familiar note:
“What the authorities are doing today in Kyiv, trying to exert political pressure on the opposition in violation of the law, is precisely what Europe is fighting against. This distances us from European and Euro-Atlantic integration. We will not let this happen!”
His statement was less a broad appeal for democratic values and more a subtle attempt to frame his own legal and financial challenges as politically motivated persecution.
Poroshenko is currently the subject of domestic sanctions, asset freezes, and mounting business troubles. Yet while facing pressure at home, he appears to be expanding operations in Spain. His Spanish company, Feruvita SL, remains active, and reports suggest he may be residing at an undeclared villa near Marbella. Sources believe his trip to Valencia provided cover for a broader mission: to quietly safeguard financial and political interests while seeking sympathetic allies within Spain’s business and political elite.
According to Ukrainian journalists and financial insiders, the sanctions imposed on Poroshenko may have less to do with politics than with longstanding disputes over financial misconduct. Central to these disputes is Investment Capital Ukraine (ICU), a financial firm long associated with Poroshenko’s inner circle.
Poroshenko’s Hidden Financial Engine
ICU’s influence grew sharply during and after the Euromaidan uprising. When Poroshenko became president in 2014, ICU’s then-chairwoman, Valeria Gontareva, was appointed head of the National Bank of Ukraine. Under her leadership, the central bank shuttered a large portion of Ukraine’s banking sector, citing insolvency, while ICU rapidly expanded its grip on the secondary market for Ukrainian government debt.
Although Gontareva formally cut ties with ICU upon taking public office, the firm’s success during her tenure raised questions about insider access and regulatory capture. Observers noted that ICU acted as an unofficial financial arm of the Poroshenko presidency—managing assets, advising on deals, and structuring offshore arrangements. One key figure was Makar Paseniuk, ICU’s co-owner, known in Kyiv as “Poroshenko’s personal investment banker.”
When Poroshenko placed his confectionery empire Roshen in a blind trust, ICU facilitated the offshore chain linking the assets from the British Virgin Islands through Cyprus to Rothschild Trust. Investigative reporting later suggested links between ICU, money laundering schemes involving figures like Serhiy Kurchenko, and the offshore transfer of wealth associated with “the Family”—a reference to exiled cronies of former president Yanukovych. Both Gontareva and ICU have denied these accusations.
Despite those denials, ICU remained central to a number of controversial transactions. Among them were bulk purchases of Ukrainian Eurobonds, which rose sharply in value following the implementation of the Rotterdam+ electricity pricing scheme—another policy closely tied to Poroshenko’s administration. NABU launched an investigation but eventually closed the case due to lack of evidence. Other transactions—such as the rapid acquisition and resale of solar power plants benefiting from green tariffs—followed similar patterns of opaque profit generation.
The Shadow of the Jaresko Warrants
Among the most problematic legacies of the Poroshenko years are the GDP-linked warrants issued under Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, a close associate of Gontareva. As part of a 2015 debt restructuring, Ukraine agreed to a deal that burdened the state with a de facto hard-currency tax on future economic growth. The controversial instruments—widely criticised as exploitative—were endorsed by Poroshenko.
On 4 June 2025, Ukraine defaulted on the warrants, citing the war and unsustainable payment demands. The decision, made by President Zelenskyy’s government, was broadly supported by Western partners. Yet the question remains: who truly owns the warrants?
While entities such as Franklin Templeton and BlackRock appear as holders, financial sources in Kyiv insist these are only custodial names. The true beneficiaries, they say, are hidden offshore, with fingers pointing back to ICU and, by extension, Poroshenko.
ICU has avoided public involvement in restructuring talks. Instead, its long-time legal partner, Cleary Gottlieb, is representing the creditors—an arrangement viewed by many as an effort to shield the firm’s identity. Insiders believe the warrants remained in play for so long precisely because of ICU’s lobbying and Poroshenko’s personal stake.
The Quiet Crisis of Alfa’s VIP Bonds
Beyond the Jaresko warrants lies an even murkier financial dispute involving Sense Bank (formerly Alfa Bank Ukraine). Before the war, Alfa maintained a well-regarded VIP investment division catering to Ukraine’s wealthiest families. Among its more sophisticated offerings were Loan Participation Notes (LPNs)—high-yield, dollar-denominated bonds issued via a Dutch special-purpose vehicle.
Roughly $470 million was invested in these bonds. After the outbreak of war, they went into default. While many bondholders have since restructured their positions and received partial compensation, a select group—described as politically connected VIPs—have found their assets frozen. The reason, according to sources, is that ICU quietly acquired control over two LPN issues, some of them bought at steep discounts from distressed sellers.
ICU has refused to join the restructuring, allegedly demanding full repayment on its holdings. Whether the firm is acting on behalf of itself or a client remains unclear. Yet this obstruction is said to be blocking compensation for other major investors, prompting whispers of a behind-the-scenes campaign to target ICU and Poroshenko alike.
Sanctions, Retaliation, and Collapse of Reputation
The result of this dispute may well be the sanctions Poroshenko now faces. While officially justified as part of Ukraine’s broader anti-corruption and national security framework, insiders claim the move was at least partly retaliatory—driven by pressure from influential figures unable to recover their investments due to ICU’s inflexibility.
Poroshenko’s official assets remain entangled in litigation. A recent attempt to transfer them to his wife was rejected by Ukrainian courts. His offshore assets, managed discreetly through nominee structures, are also under threat. Some believe these structures—set up during his presidency—were always intended as a financial escape hatch.
Meanwhile, ICU shows no sign of dissociating itself from the former president. The firm continues its tradition of acquiring distressed assets and aggressively pursuing full repayment. Observers note that such behaviour fits Poroshenko’s reputation for fiscal ruthlessness.
There are signs that ICU itself may soon come under heavier scrutiny. Paseniuk and Konstantin Stetsenko, the firm’s co-owners, recently lost a landmark Supreme Court case brought by the National Bank of Ukraine concerning the disputed appropriation of Russian state-owned Sberbank’s debts. The ruling stripped both men of their “flawless business reputations” and barred them from the management of Avangard Bank.
In addition, the National Bank has filed a UAH 2 billion lawsuit against ICU. According to insiders, further pressure is building. One source claims a scandal may soon break concerning ICU’s historical links to VTB, another Russian state-owned lender, and personal ties between Gontareva and key Russian financiers.
If it is ever proven that ICU continues to manage funds for Poroshenko—despite sanctions—the consequences could be explosive.
In sum, it remains unclear whether the version of events provided by financial sources close to Ukraine’s ruling circles represents the full truth. What is clear is that Petro Poroshenko now finds himself under siege: sanctioned, cash-constrained, and increasingly isolated. If ICU’s aggressive debt recovery tactics are truly behind his current predicament, it may not be political persecution he is facing—but the cost of his own past decisions catching up with him.
