Why does the botanical garden smell suspicious? New details emerge about the scandal involving "KSM Group" and the lands of the National Academy of Sciences.
"It has never happened before, and here we are again" — this refers to the situation surrounding the potential development of the Grishko Botanical Garden in Kyiv. The "close ties" between the National Academy of Sciences (which oversees the botanical garden) and the developer "KSM-Group" (linked to the Kopystyra family) have once again led to scandals regarding the transfer of valuable land plots and real estate from a state institution to a commercial firm.
After news surfaced about the possible development, the official land users of the botanical garden – the administration of the Botanical Garden and the leadership of the NAS – attempted to downplay the situation, suggesting that nothing serious had occurred. They claimed that the contract with the developer, signed back in 2018, had not yet been executed, construction had not started, and discussions were only about the renovation of auxiliary structures of the garden itself. Furthermore, they asserted that the existing contract would allegedly be terminated following the publicity.
However, the unclear "secrecy" surrounding the contract between the Grishko Botanical Garden and the developer "KSM-Development" (part of "KSM-Group"), along with previous similar cases, raises concerns that this time the participants in the scheme might have been caught "red-handed." There is information that prosecutors from the Specialized Environmental Prosecutor's Office have initiated an investigation into the legality of the investment contract and, consequently, the intentions to develop the protected lands of the Grishko Botanical Garden.
"Telegraph" investigated this story and uncovered several hidden pitfalls.
Hidden Nuances
The formal owner of the land plot where the Grishko Botanical Garden is located is the state, represented by the Kyiv City State Administration. Meanwhile, the right of permanent use of the plot belongs to the National Botanical Garden named after N. N. Grishko of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.
The plot, which covers nearly 130 hectares with a cadastral number of 8000000000:82:102:0060, falls under the category of natural reserve and other nature protection lands. Therefore, the only construction that is permissible there is for the operation and maintenance of the buildings and structures of the botanical garden.
Moreover, the Grishko Botanical Garden itself is classified as a "non-profit organization," which inherently does not imply profit from its activities, raising questions about the legality of any investment contracts aimed solely at profit.
That is why the information about possible residential development, which appeared on the website of the State Audit Office on January 9, 2025, raised reasonable questions from the garden's management and public outrage.
State auditors assert that "contrary to a direct legislative prohibition, the land plot of the National Botanical Garden on Sadovo-Botanical Street (formerly Timirazevskaya), 1 in Kyiv became the subject of an investment contract. The contract provided for the construction of residential and non-residential buildings, part of which was to be received by the botanical garden".
From the auditors' statement, it can be inferred that after the contract's execution, the Botanical Garden was to receive only part of the area in the new development. In other words, logically, the other part could well be allocated to the investor.
In response to the scandalous information, the management of the botanical garden and the NAS had to react. Initially, the deputy director of the garden, Mykola Shumyk, stated on "Suspilne" that the contract supposedly only involved arranging the economic zone, not building residential houses. Subsequently, a statement from the National Academy of Sciences emerged, indicating that the NAS recommended to the botanical garden to terminate the contract with KSM-Development LLC due to its non-fulfillment.
Just a day later, the director of the botanical garden, Natalia Zaimenko, held a press conference. She also emphasized that according to the contract, nothing new was planned to be built on the garden's territory, and only renovation was anticipated. Specifically, according to her, the renovation was supposed to involve the first building of the botanical garden, where a seed fund bank, an administrative office, a dormitory, and garage facilities were planned to be located. Additionally, she mentioned that she considered the contract to be non-existent.
"The investor was supposed to provide information on which specific objects were to be renovated within 12 months after signing the contract. This information was never provided to us. There was no supplementary agreement. The investor was to provide us with project documentation, which we also did not see. Therefore, we believe that this contract, according to current legislation, is considered non-existent. And by the resolution of the NAS presidium, this contract will be terminated," Zaimenko stated.
She even claimed that she would not mind disclosing the text of the contract, but immediately clarified that she cannot do so yet due to the alleged confidentiality of the document.
Incidentally, "Telegraph" officially approached the National Botanical Garden named after Grishko with a request for the contract text, and we will inform our readers about the institution's response.
Overall, such "secrecy" surrounding a regular commercial contract raises many questions. After all, if the NAS and the botanical garden's management assert that the contract only provided for the renovation of buildings, then the selection of a contractor for such services should clearly have gone through a competitive procedure via the Prozorro system, as stipulated by the Law on Public Procurement. Currently, there are many other procurements by the National Botanical Garden named after Grishko in the Prozorro system, including for engineering and construction works, but the mentioned contract with KSM is conspicuously absent.
On the other hand, the term "investment" in the contract title directly indicates a different relationship between the botanical garden and "KSM-Development" than just "ordering work for renovation." In this case, the legal relations between the customer and the investor are regulated, among other things, by the Law on Investment Activity. Its provisions explicitly stipulate the acquisition of ownership rights and the disposal of the objects into which the investor has invested money. Thus, paragraph 5 of Article 7 of this law states that "The investor has the right to own, use, and dispose of the objects and results of investments, including reinvestments and trading operations on the territory of Ukraine, in accordance with the legislative acts of Ukraine."
In other words, in this case, the mere fact of concluding such a contract seemingly indicates that the management of the Grishko Botanical Garden intentionally wanted to transfer ownership of part of the property located on the garden's territory to an outside commercial firm. This, in turn, opens up opportunities for "KSM" as an investor to make certain demands.
Furthermore, considering that, according to GASU data, the botanical garden has already received part of the funds from the investor (auditors note that "the institution received cash, services, and other goods from the investor (including tulip bulbs and soil) worth 2.6 million UAH"), this could imply quite likely judicial prospects when "KSM" demands to be recognized as a co-owner of the Grishko Botanical Garden property.
Lawyer and civic activist Oleg Simoroz, commenting to "Suspilne" on this issue, noted that the investor would have the opportunity to claim compensation for lost potential profit through the court.
"Firstly, the National Academy of Sciences could be obliged to pay a substantial compensation under this contract… And given that this is an investment, the compensation could be calculated based on unrealized residential development. And the second point: the developer could extend the contract in court, arguing that he duly fulfilled his obligations, while the other party did not," believes Oleg Simoroz.
It is evident that a legal challenge from the developer could be anticipated in the event of a unilateral termination of the contract by the Botanical Garden, which has already been announced. The developer is unlikely to easily give up a lucrative piece of land that they have already set their sights on. Especially since "KSM-Group" has considerable experience in "developing" land plots under the management of the NAS and its subordinate enterprises, which the developer accessed through similar "investment contracts."
"Telegraph" reached out to "KSM-Group" for comments on this issue from an authorized representative, but so far the developer has not rushed to respond.