Ukraine’s Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT) Ministry of Ukraine introduced sanctions against Dmytro Firtash’s Ukrainian Chemical Products (earlier Crimea Titan).
The ministry said in a press release last week that media reported that the Economic Development and Trade Ministry had not imposed sanctions on “the Firtash’s company, which smuggles titanium ore from Ukraine to the occupied peninsula,” despite the petition of military prosecutors.
“This information is not true, and the Economic Development and Trade Ministry many times informed media about it,” the ministry said.
According to the legislation, for violation of the law of Ukraine on foreign economic activity or related laws of Ukraine, as well as for actions that may harm the interests of national economic security, the Economic Development and Trade Ministry can apply special sanctions on companies in the form of an individual regime licensing or temporary stoppage of foreign economic activity.
In accordance with the order of the Economic Development and Trade Ministry dated November 13, 2015, under a request of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine, a special sanction was applied to PJSC Ukrainian Chemical Products – an individual licensing regime for foreign economic activity for violation of Article 1 of the law of Ukraine on the rules of making payments in foreign currency, which is effective today.
The ministry did not issue one-off (personal) licenses for foreign economic operations to PrJSC Ukrainian Chemical Products.
The ministry also received a petition from the military prosecutor’s office of the Southern region of Ukraine, which proposed to apply an ad hoc sanction in the form of temporary stoppage of foreign economic activity to Ukrainian Chemical Products for actions that harm the interests of the national economic security of Ukraine. The prosecutors’ office said that the company sends titanium ore to the occupied territory.
However, the military prosecutor’s office in its repeated petition did not provide for evidence of violating the legislation in the foreign economic activity area and did not mention the laws in this area being violated by the company.
MEDT asked the prosecutors’ office to present this information.
