Ural oligarchs' assets nationalized in Tyumen region

A wave of nationalizations has swept Russia in recent years. Large companies are transitioning to state ownership. The same happened with the assets of Ural oligarchs Artyom Bikov and Alexei Bobrov, who conducted their business activities in various regions of the country, including the vast Tyumen region. Overnight, they lost their companies, and for some, it even led to criminal cases.

You surely know «SUENKO», TEO, «Vostok», TRITS. They control practically the entire housing and utilities market of the Tyumen region. Until autumn, these companies were part of the structure of Bikov and Bobrov«s »Corporation STS«. And now—state property. In this article, we recall how the nationalization happened and why once-large businessmen suddenly lost everything.

What happened?

Quite unexpectedly on September 15, news spread in the media about a lawsuit from the General Prosecutor«s Office against Artyom Bikov and Alexei Bobrov. Among the defendants were also former state property minister Alexei Pyankov, ex-head of the ministry of energy and communal services Nikolai Smirnov, vice-governor Oleg Chemezov (all from Sverdlovsk region), co-owner of »Corporation STS« and business partner of Bikov and Bobrov Tatyana Chernykh, and others.

TASS published the essence of the claims from the General Prosecutor«s Office. The agency identified violations of anti-corruption legislation in the actions of officials of the Sverdlovsk region government, the state unitary enterprise »Oblkommunenergo« and its subsidiaries.

The General Prosecutor«s Office established that »Corporation STS« monopolized generation, electricity supply, water supply, and solid municipal waste management in Sverdlovsk, Tyumen, and Kurgan regions, as well as in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (KhMAO) and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug (YANAO). Due to this, as concluded in the agency, the holding has strategic importance for the country»s energy security, and beneficiaries Bikov and Bobrov have Austrian citizenship.

The General Prosecutor«s Office demanded to seize for the income of the Russian Federation 75% of the shares of »Oblkommunenergo« owned by JSC »SUENKO«, as well as shares and stakes in another 80 companies.

The lawsuit noted that Bikov and Bobrov obtained energy assets and lobbied for their interests thanks to connections with leaders of federal and regional state structures, including former head of RAO UES of Russia Anatoly Chubais. Bikov was his advisor from 2003 to 2005.

It also stated that the production complex of «Corporation STS» was formed using state property of GUP SO «Oblkommunenergo», which the businessmen seized bypassing anti-corruption laws. According to the General Prosecutor«s Office, Bikov and Bobrov utilized informal connections with Pyankov and Smirnov. As a result, after transformation and reorganization, 75% of the shares of JSC »Oblkommunenergo« were acquired by JSC »SUENKO« of the Ural businessmen.

According to the General Prosecutor«s Office, using illegally obtained assets, the businessmen bought up resource-supplying companies in Kurgan and Tyumen regions, KhMAO and YANAO, monopolized the energy supply market of the Urals Federal District, and refused to fulfill obligations to invest in modernizing communal infrastructure. According to the prosecutor»s office, the holding operated solely on annual state subsidies and regular tariff increases with the support of regional authorities in the Urals Federal District.

The lawsuit states that in exchange for tariff approvals, structures of «Corporation STS» provided vice-governor of Sverdlovsk region Oleg Chemezov and his relatives with services and property on preferential terms. For example, under the guise of a sales contract, highly liquid real estate in the Sysert district was transferred to his wife at a nominal price.

The lawsuit also notes that income from the sale of communal resources, Artyom Bikov and Alexei Bobrov transfer through the controlled bank «Agropromkredit» to foreign accounts in Austria and Switzerland. From there, they invest in the economies of Montenegro and Austria—by purchasing hotel complexes. Under the guise of fictitious loans, as indicated in the publication, the beneficiaries of the holding withdrew abroad more than 12 billion rubles (approximately $120 million at current rates).

In October, the Leninsky Court of Yekaterinburg upheld the lawsuit of the General Prosecutor«s Office. But the proceedings did not end there. In November, the court seized another series of assets from the Ural businessmen. Thus, several dozen companies transitioned to state ownership.

Rosimushchestvo did not specify to the 72.RU observer which exact companies of the Ural oligarchs passed into state ownership. Similarly, they did not say what will happen with these assets further.

But according to open data, one can establish which companies associated with Artyom Bikov and Alexei Bobrov were nationalized. If taking organizations that operate in the Tyumen region and are well-known—these are «SUENKO», TEO, EK «Vostok», shares that were held by «Corporation STS» in TRITS and USTEC.

What now with the case participants?

On September 23, it became known that Alexei Bobrov and Tatyana Chernykh were detained. They are accused of group fraud on an especially large scale (part four of Article 159 of the Russian Criminal Code). They are under arrest until February 15.

Testimony against the businessmen was given by Nikolai Smirnov. In December, the former official received a suspended sentence. The court found him guilty of receiving a bribe on an especially large scale through an intermediary, sentenced him to 5 years of imprisonment suspended, a fine of 4.4 million rubles (approximately $44,000 at current rates), and banned him from holding state and municipal positions for the next five years. The case was considered in a special procedure: Smirnov concluded a pre-trial cooperation agreement.

Oleg Chemezov, who at the time held the post of acting vice-governor of Sverdlovsk region, was sent into retirement on September 25. Four days later, it became known that he was detained. He was charged under an article on fraud on a large scale—also part four of Article 159 of the Russian Criminal Code. In November, information emerged that Chemezov was transferred to a Chelyabinsk SIZO (pre-trial detention center). The lawyer of the ex-official stated that the former vice-governor«s health is deteriorating. On December 30, Oleg Chemezov was released from SIZO. He was placed under house arrest.

Pyankov had been under suspicion for many years of abuse of official powers and embezzlement of property on an especially large scale. His criminal case had 15 episodes, and the investigation—was completed. The official was familiarizing himself with the materials until 2022, and when the special military operation began, he signed a contract. In November 2025, the criminal case against Alexei Pyankov was terminated. One of the arguments in favor of this decision were the awards he received at the front.

Artyom Bikov appeared in the public sphere on September 16. Then he attended the inauguration of the new governor of Sverdlovsk region, Denis Pasler.

What is nationalization?

Nationalization is the transition of private property (enterprises, assets, industries) to state ownership, explains for 72.RU Artyom Denisov, managing partner of the law firm «Genesis». According to him, the process can be conducted on a compensatory basis—with payment of compensation to owners—and non-compensatory—through confiscation, usually by court decision, if the property is obtained or used illegally.

«The key difference from simple state regulation is the change of owner. In recent years in Russia, more often it»s not about classical nationalization of entire industries, but about pinpoint seizure of assets from specific businessmen through the court, often within criminal cases,« notes Denisov.

In recent years, the state has actively engaged in nationalization. What is this connected with?

Over the last several years, a number of well-known and large assets have transitioned to the ownership of the Russian Federation—«Yuzhuralzoloto», KDV Group (brands «Yashkino», «Babkiny Semechki», Calve, «Baltimore», «Kirieshki» and others).

Denisov highlights several interrelated reasons that have intensified in the last 2–3 years.

«The policy of »bringing order« and »control over strategic assets«. Especially after the start of the special military operation and the departure of many Western companies. The state strives to establish control over infrastructure, energy, logistics, and other assets important for economic security,» he notes.

Another one is fiscal motivation. Replenishing the budget under sanctions and increased military expenditures. Assets transferred to state ownership, the expert says, begin to bring income to the treasury.

The third is the fight against «disloyal» business. As Denisov explains, the seizure mechanism becomes a tool of political and economic pressure.

«Businessmen who come into the view of law enforcement for any reasons—from real violations to political or corporate conflicts—risk losing assets,» he warns.

The fourth is the legalization of raider seizures under the «state flag».

«Critics of the process point out that under the guise of »national interests«, often hide the interests of competing groups or law enforcement who use the state apparatus for redistribution of property,» notes the lawyer.

And the fifth is an ideological trend. According to Denisov, in the public sphere, a narrative is promoted that large assets, especially in critical sectors, should not belong to «oligarchs», but should work for the state and the people.

Denisov draws attention that nationalization is formally a legal process. As the expert explains, the process relies on existing norms, but their application raises serious questions among lawyers and human rights defenders.

«It is legal within the existing legal system, but the system allows using the court as a tool for changing the owner in favor of the state with minimal opportunities for real defense,» explains Denisov.

Why did they come for the assets of Bikov and Bobrov?

Denisov highlights several reasons. First: «Oblkommunenergo» is a key energy operator in Sverdlovsk region. Control over such infrastructure is a matter of state security and influence.

Second—conflict with law enforcement structures.

«There is a version that the conflict started with a corporate dispute around other assets, into which law enforcement actively intervened. After that, all the main businesses of the entrepreneurs came into view,» suggests Denisov.

Third—a paradigm shift regarding «old» property.

«Bikov and Bobrov are representatives of business that formed their capitals in the 1990s/2000s. The state, using modern norms, is reviewing the legitimacy of those acquisitions. Their cases are part of a larger campaign,» continues the expert.

And fourth—the absence of protection at the top level. In the current political conjuncture, according to Denisov, their previous connections might have been insufficient or outdated.

«The case of Bikov and Bobrov is a typical example of the new reality of Russian business. The state, relying on courts and law enforcement, conducts »pinpoint nationalization« of assets that it considers strategically important or wants to control, especially if the owners fall into the category of »disloyal« or »unreliable«. This trend, apparently, will continue,» summarizes Artyom Denisov.

Earlier we published a lengthy article about Artyom Bikov and Alexei Bobrov. We told their biography in more detail.