They were supposed to shoot down “shahids”: who is suspected of what and why

They were supposed to shoot down “shahids”: who is suspected of what and why

Kyiv  •  UNN

 • 219423 views

Who receives weapons for our military and how.

The State Bureau of Investigation has served a notice of suspicion to the former head of a Defense Ministry department and two officials of a state-owned enterprise for supplying 200 low-quality machine guns to the front. The media learned that these are Oleksandr Liev, who served  as the director of the Defense Ministry's Department of Military and Technical Policy, and two officials of an arms import company.  UNN decided to investigate the case and the content of the charges.

What the prosecution says

The Prosecutor General's Office noted in a media release that the defendants "were served with a notice of suspicion of misappropriation and embezzlement of property, obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Part 5 of Article 191, Part 2 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). In addition, the heads of the state-owned enterprise were also notified of suspicion of forgery (part 2 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

According to the PGO report, 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 not properly labeled and of poor quality.

"When used in combat conditions, these machine guns were out of order and could cause significant damage to the military," the OGPU said in a statement

Later, the State Bureau of Investigation, which is leading the investigation, clarified that the investigation began in 2023 and is still ongoing. According to the SBI, some of the machine guns were not capable of continuous firing.

UNN, relying on its own sources, collected information behind these official reports.

The essence of the case and what Liev has to do with it

As we managed to find out, it is a contract of March 2022 between the Ministry of Defense and the State Enterprise "Spetstechnoexport" (part of the state-owned company "Ukrspetsexport") for the supply of 400 DShK machine guns of 12.7 x 108 mm caliber and another 26 machine guns of the KPVT type, as well as various ammunition and shells.

For reference
DShK - 12.7 mm Degtyarev-Shpagin machine gun of 1938 model - is a Soviet development, which was adopted in 1939 and since then analogues of this weapon have been used by many armies of post-Soviet and post-socialist countries. The Ukrainian army also uses them. The DShKM is a modernized version.
KPVT - 14.5 mm Vladimirov tank machine gun - a modified version of the infantry machine gun. It has also been in service with Ukrainian defenders for more than a decade.

The total cost of the weapons to be delivered exceeded 6 million euros, and the cost of machine guns was more than 193 million UAH. The order was to be delivered through Ukraine's Spetstechnoexport by the Slovak company XXeurop s.r.o., which specializes in the supply of various types of military equipment and its modernization.

The signatory on behalf of the customer, i.e., the Department of Military-Technical Policy, Development of Arms and Military Equipment of the Ministry of Defense, was its then director Vladislav Shostak.

Within a few days, the MoD made an advance payment of 97% of the contract amount. The delivery was supposed to be made as soon as possible, but, as UNN learned , the process began to drag on. However, in May 2022, the contractor still delivered 200 12.7 mm DShK machine guns (manufactured by the Slovak company Kolarms s.r.o., which supplies weapons to the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and other countries. DShK machine guns from this manufacturer are also in service with the Slovak army), which were deployed in the arsenal of one of the military units.

Image

The batch of weapons did not have the so-called forms (a document that records the movement of weapons, the history of their stay in military units, the results of combat checks, information on possible repairs, etc.) Therefore, the entire batch was initially accepted by a military unit in Ukraine for temporary storage.

Subsequently, in June 2022, Spetstechnoexport partially provided documents for a batch of machine guns delivered, and offered to return the funds to the Ministry of Defense for the undelivered batch (200 pieces).

Already in August, Oleksandr Liev became the acting head of the Department of Military Technical Policy, Development of Armaments and Military Equipment of the Ministry of Defense. These machine guns were still stored in the warehouse of the military unit, as they did not have all the necessary forms, and therefore could not be transferred to our military for their intended use.  

As Liev himself explained in an open letter published on his Facebook page , the acceptance of weapons is handled by military personnel who understand the specifics, not by employees of the Department of Military and Technical Policy.

"They wrote that the machine guns were accepted in terms of quality and there are no questions about them. But there are comments that the forms are missing," Liev said.

As we have learned,  the commission of the military unit where the machine guns were stored did indeed draw up an act stating that they were DShKM machine guns. It should be noted that an interlocutor in the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in a comment to UNNsaid that Slovak-made DShKM machine guns were approved for use in the Armed Forces.

Subsequently, the act mentioned above was signed and certified by representatives of the Department of the Ministry of Defense, and only after that it was handed over to Liiev for signature.

It should be noted that the function of the head of the Department does not include the need to personally inspect weapons, which, as we all understand, were purchased in large quantities at that time, and even now.

Finally, when the forms were received, the commission from the military signed the act, and the Department's staff visualized it, Liev signed the final documents on the adoption of machine guns into service.  

"At that time, the Shahids flew and there was a command to urgently transfer everything in the warehouses, everything of large caliber, to the troops. I contacted the STE company (Spetstechnoexport  - ed.) and demanded that they immediately make these forms and provide them to the military unit. They did it, brought the forms, gave them to the military unit, and then the military unit wrote me a letter saying that the machine guns were accepted, no comments. And my employees of the Department prepared an acceptance certificate and I signed it," Liev describes this situation in his open letter.

In early 2023, machine guns were handed over to our defenders to fight the "Shahed" with which Russia began to attack our country en masse.

Over time, some military units began to receive complaints that the machine guns had defects and could not fully perform their functions. This was the basis for the opening of criminal proceedings.

But a number of questions arise. Why is Liiev charged with embezzlement and misappropriation? In whose favor? Especially since the contract was signed by the previous head of the Department. Why is he charged with obstructing the legitimate activities of the Armed Forces? Wouldn't it have been obstruction not to hand over machine guns that were lying dead in the warehouses, while "chessmen" were flying to Ukraine, especially since the commission from among the military themselves had no complaints about the condition of the machine guns? These questions remain unanswered.

What is happening now

On January 14, Liiev was served with a notice of suspicion. On January 17, the court was supposed to choose a preventive measure. However, the trial did not take place - Judge Olena Shevska postponed the hearing.

"I packed my things in the morning and left for Poltava at 5:30.

The Zhovtnevyi District Court of Poltava scheduled for 10:00 a.m. the consideration of the prosecutor's motion to impose a preventive measure in the form of detention for 2 months. (...) The prosecutor did not come to the hearing.  The hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor's absence. The hearing is scheduled for Monday at 13:15," Liev explained on his Facebook page the reasons for the postponement. 

In the same message, Liev denied the accusations against him and also noted that the measure of restraint in the form of detention was unmotivated, as he did not plan to hide or influence the investigation.

And here again the question arises: if the procedural supervisors, represented by prosecutors, request the most severe preventive measure and, apparently, justify it by the fact that the suspect may escape, why did the prosecutor not appear in court?

We managed to contact Liev's defense counsel, Markiyan Bem, who confirmed that the motion filed by the prosecution indicated that the suspect might engage in improper procedural behavior.

"We arrive at the court hearing in advance to find out that the prosecutor decided not to appear in court, asking the court to postpone it because he had more important cases that were being considered that morning. Firstly, this is a very strange behavior of the prosecutor, who, apparently despite the fact that he wrote the motion, does not consider it either urgent or seriously considers the risks that Oleksandr (Liev - ed.) will resort to some kind of improper procedural behavior. And secondly, this situation is obviously in our favor, because even though the prosecutor did not come, we fulfilled our duty, we appeared in court. We arrived in the courtroom, the judge started the hearing, we declared our readiness to consider the case, and only because the criminal procedure does not allow considering such issues in the absence of the prosecutor, and the fact that the prosecutor filed a corresponding motion, this was the only reason for postponing the hearing. At the same time, the prosecutor did not provide any details in this motion, it was a one-page motion in which the prosecutor simply said in general terms that he had an important high-profile case in which he had to be present, and therefore he could not come," the lawyer said.

He also noted that there was more than one prosecutor in the case, and it was probably possible to choose another one from the group of prosecutors who could represent him in court. And there were no obstacles to this.

This situation raises the question: don't prosecutors themselves realize that there are more questions than answers in the case?

We're watching. To be continued...