The former head of a Defense Ministry department and two heads of a state-owned enterprise are suspected of misappropriation and embezzlement of property, as well as obstructing the lawful activities of the Armed Forces. UNN reports this with reference to the Office of the Prosecutor General.
According to UNN , it is the former head of the Department of Military Policy, Development of Arms and Military Equipment of the Ministry of Defense Oleksandr Liev, who has previously been suspected of embezzling almost 1.5 billion hryvnias in a scheme involving officials of the Ministry of Defense and the heads of the Lviv Arsenal during the purchase of ammunition.
Under the procedural supervision of the Prosecutor General's Office, the former head of a department of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and two heads of a state-owned enterprise were served notices of suspicion of misappropriation and embezzlement of property, obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Part 5 of Art. 191, Part 2 of Art. 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). In addition, the heads of the state-owned enterprise were also served a notice of suspicion of forgery (part 2 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
It is reported that in 2022, the Department of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine signed contracts with the state-owned enterprise for the supply of 400 DShK machine guns for a total of UAH 193 million.
However, the state-owned enterprise delivered only 200 large-caliber machine guns. All of them were without proper labeling and of poor quality, the Prosecutor General's Office said.
When used in combat conditions, these machine guns would malfunction and could cause significant damage to the military
It is noted that because of this, the state suffered losses of 193 million UAH in damages.
The issue of choosing a measure of restraint for the suspects is currently being decided.
Recall
In January 2024, Liiev and his accomplices were served with a notice of suspicion of embezzling almost UAH 1.5 billion for the purchase of shells for the Armed Forces.
However, the High Anti-Corruption Court failed to impose a measure of restraint on him . The court ruled that the prosecutor did not have the authority to apply to the HACC with a request for a preventive measure.