They were supposed to shoot down "Shaheds": who suspects Liev and why
Kyiv • UNN
The SBI suspects the former head of the Ministry of Defense Department and two officials of supplying low-quality machine guns to the front. The contract for 400 machine guns, worth UAH 193 million, was partially fulfilled.
The State Bureau of Investigation announced suspicion to the former head of one of the Departments of the Ministry of Defense and two officials of the state enterprise for supplying 200 low-quality machine guns to the front. Media reported that it was Oleksandr Liiev, who served as acting director of the Department of Military-Technical Policy of the Ministry of Defense, as well as two officials of the enterprise engaged in arms import. UNN decided to investigate the case and the content of the accusations.
What the prosecution states
The Office of the Prosecutor General, in a statement to the media, noted that the defendants were "notified of suspicion of misappropriation and embezzlement of property, obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Part 5, Article 191, Part 2, Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). In addition, the heads of the state enterprise were also notified of suspicion of official forgery (Part 2, Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)."
From the content of the OPGU's statement, it follows that in 2022, the Department of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine concluded contracts with the state enterprise for the supply of 400 DShK machine guns for a total amount of UAH 193 million. However, the state enterprise supplied only 200 heavy machine guns. All of them were without proper marking and of low quality.
"During combat use, these machine guns failed and could cause significant harm to servicemen," the OPGU statement said.
Later, the State Bureau of Investigation, which is conducting the investigation, clarified that the investigation began in 2023 and is currently ongoing. As reported by the SBI, some of the machine guns were unable to conduct continuous firing.
UNN, relying on its own sources, gathered information behind these official reports.
The essence of the case and what Liiev has to do with it
As we managed to find out, it is about a contract from March 2022 between the Ministry of Defense and (State Enterprise "Spetstechnoexport" (part of the structure of the state company "Ukrspecexport") for the supply of 400 DShK machine guns of 12.7 x 108 mm caliber and another 26 KPVT-type machine guns, as well as various cartridges and shells.
Reference
DShK – 12.7 mm Degtyaryov-Shpagin heavy machine gun of 1938 model – a Soviet development 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. DShKM – modernized version.
KPVT – Krupnokalibernyy Pulemyot Vladimirova Tankovyy (Vladimirov Heavy Tank Machine Gun) 14.5 mm – a modified version of the infantry machine gun. It has also been in service with Ukrainian defenders for several decades.
The total cost of the weapons to be supplied exceeded 6 million euros, and the cost of the machine guns themselves was over UAH 193 million. The order was to be delivered through the Ukrainian "Spetstechnoexport" by the Slovak company "XXeurop s.r.o.", which specializes in the supply of various types of military equipment, as well as its modernization.
The signatory from the customer, i.e., from the Department of Military-Technical Policy, Armament and Military Equipment Development of the Ministry of Defense, was its then-director Vladyslav Shostak.
Within a few days, the Ministry of Defense made an advance payment of 97% of the contract amount. The delivery was supposed to be made as soon as possible, however, as UNN learned, the process began to drag on. But in May 2022, the contractor still delivered 200 DShK 12.7 mm machine guns (produced by the Slovak company Kolarms s.r.o., which supplies weapons to the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and other countries. Also, DShK machine guns from this manufacturer are in service with the Slovak army), which were placed at the arsenal of one of the military units.
The batch of weapons did not have so-called forms (a document that records the movement of weapons, the history of their presence in military units, the results of combat checks, information about possible repairs, etc.). Therefore, initially, the entire batch was accepted by the military unit in Ukraine for temporary storage.
Subsequently, in June 2022, "Spetstechnoexport" partially provided documents for the batch of delivered machine guns, and regarding the undelivered batch (in the amount of 200 units), they offered to return the funds to the Ministry of Defense.
Already in August, Oleksandr Liiev became the acting head of the Department of Military-Technical Policy, Armament and Military Equipment Development of the Ministry of Defense. The specified machine guns were still stored at the military unit's warehouse, as they did not have all the necessary forms, and therefore could not be transferred to our military for their intended use.
As Liiev himself explained in an open appeal he published on his Facebook page, military personnel who understand the specifics, not employees of the Department of Military-Technical Policy, are responsible for accepting weapons.
"They wrote that the machine guns were accepted by quality and there were no questions about them. But there are remarks that there are no forms," Liiev said.
As we learned, the commission of the military unit where the machine guns were stored indeed drew up an act stating that these were DShKM machine guns. It should be noted that a source in the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, in a comment to UNN, reported that Slovak-made DShKM machine guns are approved for operation in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Subsequently, the act mentioned above was signed and also endorsed by representatives of the Ministry of Defense Department, and only after that was it submitted to Liiev for signature.
It should be noted that the head of the Department's functional duties do not include the need for personal inspection of weapons, which, as we all understand, at that time, and even now, were purchased in large quantities.
Finally, when the forms were received, the commission of military personnel signed the act, and the Department's employees endorsed it, Liiev signed the final documents on the acceptance of the machine guns into service.
"At that time, 'Shaheds' flew in, and there was an order - urgently transfer everything that is in warehouses, everything that is large-caliber, to the troops. I contacted the 'STE' company ('Spetstechnoexport' - ed.) and demanded that they immediately make these forms, provide them to the military unit. They did it, brought the forms, gave them to the military unit, after which the military unit wrote a letter to me stating that the machine guns were accepted, there were no remarks. And my Department employees prepared the acceptance-transfer act, and I signed this act," Liiev himself describes this situation in his open appeal.
In early 2023, the machine guns were handed over to our defenders to combat the "Shaheds" with which Russia began to massively attack our country.
After some time, complaints began to arrive from some military units that the machine guns had shortcomings and could not fully perform their functions. This became the basis for opening a criminal proceeding.
But a number of questions arise. Why is Liiev accused of misappropriation and embezzlement? In whose favor? Especially since the contract was signed by the previous head of the Department. Why is he accused of obstructing the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? Wouldn't it be an obstruction not to transfer machine guns to the military, which were lying "dead weight" in warehouses, while "Shaheds" were flying into Ukraine, especially since the commission of 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 notified of suspicion. And on January 17, the court was supposed to choose a preventive measure. However, the court did not take place – Judge Olena Shevska postponed the hearing.
"In the morning, I packed my bags and left for Poltava at 5:30 AM.
At 10:00 AM, the Zhovtnevy District Court of Poltava scheduled the consideration of the prosecutor's motion to choose a preventive measure for me 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 non-appearance. For Monday 13:15," Liiev explained the reasons for the postponement on his Facebook page.
In the same message, Liiev rejected the accusations against him and also noted that the preventive measure in the form of detention was unmotivated, as he does not plan to hide or influence the investigation.
And here again the question arises – if the procedural leaders, in the person of the prosecutors, are petitioning for the strictest preventive measure and, apparently, justifying this by the fact that the suspect may flee, then why did the prosecutor not appear in court?
We managed to contact Liiev's lawyer, Markiyan Bem, who confirmed that the motion filed by the prosecution indicated that the suspect might resort to improper procedural conduct.
"We arrive at the court hearing in advance to find out that the prosecutor decided not to appear at the court hearing, asked 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, obviously contrary to what he wrote in the motion, does not consider it urgent, nor does he seriously consider the risks that Oleksandr (Liiev - ed.) will resort to some improper procedural conduct. And secondly, this situation, obviously, in my understanding, is in our favor, because even despite the fact that the prosecutor did not come, we fulfilled our duty, we appeared at the court hearing. We arrived in the courtroom, the judge began the court hearing, we declared our readiness to consider the case, and only because the criminal process does not allow considering such issues in the absence of the prosecutor, and the fact that the prosecutor filed a corresponding motion, only this was the reason for postponing the hearing. At the same time, the prosecutor did not provide any details in this motion, this motion was one page long, in which the prosecutor simply in general terms said that he had an important high-profile proceeding in which he must be present, and in this regard, he cannot appear," the lawyer said.
He also noted that the prosecutor in the case is not alone, and from the group of prosecutors, it would probably be possible to choose another one who could represent in court. And there were no obstacles to this.
Such a situation raises the question - do the prosecutors themselves not understand that there are more questions than answers in the case?
We are following. To be continued....