In February, the Crimean collaborators approved a package of property to be ‘nationalised’ in order to ‘get rid of the Nazi heritage on the peninsula ’. Earlier it was announced that this list would include more than seven hundred objects. We interviewed local entrepreneurs to find out who has already said goodbye to their assets and who still has all the surprises ahead of them.

The self-proclaimed Verkhovna Rada of Crimea voted to ‘nationalise’ a number of properties ‘owned by the enemies of Crimea and Russia’ on the anniversary of the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The approved list includes more than 720 movable and immovable property items, including the Krym Brewery, which last year was recognised as one of the largest taxpayers on the peninsula.

‘The whole department was laughing at this statement. It takes imagination to decide to nationalise a brewery five months after it has already been taken away. After all, their temporary administration from the sovmin (occupation government - Ed.) was here in October last year. Are they going to nationalise it again?’ wonders Veronika, an employee of the plant.

According to her, her colleagues were quite amused by the explanation of the self-proclaimed speaker Konstantinov, who said that the purpose of nationalisation was to prevent Crimeans from ‘working against their sons’. Presumably, he was referring to the Ukrainian assets of the plant's owner, Valery Zubko. But somehow it turned out that Konstantinov himself also had a business in Ukraine, just like the brewery owner. Moreover, until recently, he had supported the plant's management in every way possible and did not care about its work ‘against his sons’.  

In addition to the Krym Brewery, the Nemo dolphinarium chain, the Zeleny Mys sanatorium and resort complex in Alupka and other property owned by the family of Lviv businessman Oleh Henshaft, as well as unnamed properties associated with the family of former human rights commissioner Lyudmyla Denisova, were subject to ‘nationalisation’. The former ombudsman has a huge business empire in the temporarily occupied territory, run by her two daughters, Oleksandra Kvitko and Olena Titarenko, and her husband, Oleksandr Denisov.

‘There is not a single hint that the ‘nationalisation’ fits at least within the framework of the Russian law,’ says Konstantin, a lawyer from Simferopol. According to him, the Russian constitution does not enshrine the concept of ‘nationalisation’. The general understanding of this phenomenon is described in the Civil Code as ‘the transfer of property owned by individuals and legal entities to state ownership’. It can be carried out only by adopting a special law with mandatory compensation for the value of property and other losses, and all disputes are resolved by the court.

‘We don't see any special laws, compensation or court decisions. The whole procedure of deprivation of property rights is a vote of deputies who have no authority to determine the fate of someone else's property. Their decision is legally null and void, even in the wild Russian realities. Another beautiful thing is the transfer of property to the local council of ministers. Also without law, without procedure and without specifics on the procedure for accepting and transferring all these assets. Pure robbery with no limits!’ explains Konstantin.

‘Crimean officials do not care about the lack of legal grounds,’ says Yulia, an employee of the occupation Ministry of Property and Land Relations. According to her, there is official documentation that regulates all these processes in detail, and the fact that they contradict the law does not bother anyone. ‘There is a revenue part of the budget and a plan to fill it. And the figure is difficult to achieve. But there is a position of Moscow that the plan must be fulfilled by any means necessary. The most effective way is to privatise state-owned property. But we have sold all the liquid options over the past ten years. So now we are going to nationalise some more, so that we have something to sell and the plan will be fulfilled,’ explains Yulia.

Crimean entrepreneurs - even those who have never had assets on the mainland - are preparing for the worst, rightly assuming that the concept of ‘enemies of Russia and Crimea’ is a rather stretching one. The owner of a hotel in Sudak says that the demand for cryptocurrency transactions has grown significantly, as many people are looking for a way to safely and discreetly move their savings outside the zone of Russian influence. ‘How was it before? You got some money and invested it in the construction of a new facility. Got some more and invested it in the decoration. Then you invested in furniture. You’ve been investing all the time in development. And now I see how bravely they have started to take away money here and there, under the pretext that you are pro-Ukrainian, and I decided that I will not invest for now. If they take it away, it won't be so bad,’ the hotelier says.

Ilyas, the owner of several service stations in Yevpatoria, agrees with this opinion. He believes that at any time, ‘nationalisation’ can be directed against anyone whose business brings in any income, and Crimeans will not be able to protect their property. Ilyas is convinced that because of this raider campaign, not only will no adequate investor risk entering Crimea, but the locals will stop investing in the development of their own businesses.