The Lieva case and the machine guns: what are the suspicions about?

The criminal proceedings against the former acting head of the Department of Military-Technical Policy of the Ministry of Defense, Alexander Liev, continue to raise questions. This case pertains to the supply of 200 defective DShKM 12.7 x 108 machine guns for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

In the context of this criminal case, Alexander Liev is accused of embezzlement of property and hindering the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. However, Liev did not sign the contract for the supply of the machine guns, did not make any payments, and could not refuse to accept the weapons, as their quality was confirmed by military personnel. UNN decided to examine the details of the case and determine the basis of the accusations.

In mid-January, the Office of the Prosecutor General announced that the former official of the Ministry of Defense and two heads of the state enterprise were suspected of misappropriation and embezzlement of property, as well as hindering 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). Additionally, the heads of the state enterprise were also suspected of official forgery (part 2 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

According to the prosecution, in 2022, the Ministry of Defense signed contracts with the state enterprise for the supply of 400 DShKM machine guns for a total amount of 193 million UAH. However, the state enterprise delivered only 200 heavy machine guns, some of which were of poor quality.

Everything sounds quite clear and logical, unless one delves into the details. Let's try to clarify the chronology of events.

In March 2022, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine signed a contract for the supply of 400 DShKM 12.7 x 108 mm machine guns and 26 KPVT 14.5 mm machine guns. At that time, the position of the director of the Department of Military-Technical Policy was held by Vladislav Shostak, who accordingly signed the contract for the supply of this weaponry. A few days later, the Ministry, represented by the same department head Vladislav Shostak, made a preliminary payment of 97% of the contract.

In May 2022, the first 200 DShKM and 26 KPVT machine guns were delivered. However, due to the lack of documentation, the military unit refused to accept them for permanent storage. Nevertheless, in order to allow the supplier to obtain the necessary documents, they were accepted for temporary storage.

In August 2022, Alexander Liev was appointed as the acting director of the Department of Military-Technical Policy. It is important to note that by this time, as indicated by the chronology, the contract had already been signed and almost the entire amount had been paid.

In September, Liev filed a complaint with the state enterprise "Spetstekhnoeksport" regarding the improperly delivered machine guns. The document demanded the return of funds and payment of 44 million UAH in fines and penalties. Ultimately, this complaint went to the commercial court, which ordered "Spetstekhnoeksport" to pay for the undelivered 200 machine guns (98 million UAH) and half of the fines - 22 million UAH. The entire amount was credited to the Ministry's account.

In October 2022, the enemy began mass attacks on Ukraine using "Shahed" drones. At this time, machine guns that could shoot down drones were lying in the warehouse, but they were not used because the necessary documentation was lacking.

In November 2022, the supplier finally provided the necessary documents for the machine guns. A commission from the military unit conducted an inspection of the weapons, signed the acceptance transfer act (in accordance with form No. 22), and confirmed that the machine guns met the technical requirements. This means that the commission of officer-armament specialists, who serve directly at the military arsenal, had no complaints regarding their condition; their conclusion served as the basis for the acceptance of the weapons.

Accordingly, on December 9, 2022, Alexander Liev, as the head of the department, signed the acceptance transfer act, relying on the findings of the military commission, which accepted the goods without remarks. This was documented in the corresponding act of acceptance, which stated: "During the inspection of the quality condition, it was established that 26 units of KPVT 14.5 mm heavy machine guns were complete according to the product form; 200 units of DShKM 12.7 mm machine guns were complete according to the product form and corresponded to category 1 without remarks according to the quality certificate."

Starting from January 2023, technical deficiencies began to be noted in the delivered machine guns at military units, which became the basis for complaints to the supplier. The supplying company "Spetstekhnoeksport" attempted to retrieve the defective machine guns for warranty repairs after the complaints. However, due to the seizure of the weapons in the case, repairs could not be carried out.

What does Liev's signature imply?

Upon reviewing the chronology of events, it becomes clear that Liev did not sign the contract for the supply of machine guns and did not transfer any funds for them. He merely signed the acceptance act for the supplied machine guns while in office.

Lawyer Sergey Laputko, in a comment to UNN, explains that the acceptance of military property is regulated by form No. 22 (appendix No. 22 to the order of the Ministry of Defense No. 440). This is the primary document confirming that the weapons meet the contract conditions. He noted that this document is filled out exclusively by professional military personnel.

"Before signing the form, military personnel check the completeness, verify the specifications according to the conditions, and accept the property for permanent storage. Only then does the Department of Military Policy sign the acceptance transfer act, and they put the property on record," Laputko noted.

Thus, when the military arsenal confirmed that the machine guns met the requirements, Liev had no choice but to sign the acceptance act. He had no grounds to believe that the machine guns had any deficiencies.

How can the issue of defective machine guns be resolved?

The procurement of weapons by the Ministry of Defense is governed by commercial law, and therefore, under the contract terms, the supplier is obliged to ensure the repair of the supplied equipment, replacement, or refund with consideration of penalties.

And this mechanism works. As mentioned earlier, the court ordered "Spetstekhnoeksport" to return 98 million UAH for the undelivered 200 machine guns and 22 million UAH in fines for delays in delivery.

However, the defective machine guns have not been returned to the supplier for replacement or repair; instead, they have been seized. Consequently, the supplier cannot retrieve them for repairs.

While "Spetstekhnoeksport" does not deny the possibility of replacing and repairing the machine guns, it lacks access to them due to the seizure.

And instead of the machine guns quickly fulfilling their functions in the Armed Forces, they remain seized, and during wartime, every day of delay translates to losses at the front.

So what is the suspicion?

The most questions arise regarding the qualification of Liev's actions under part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (misappropriation or embezzlement of property) and part 2 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hindering the lawful activities of the Armed Forces).

If evaluated consciously, it is unclear what misappropriation or embezzlement could Liev possibly be accused of? After all, the contract was signed and paid for before his appointment. He merely performed an administrative procedure based on the conclusions of military experts.

And what exactly constitutes hindering the activities of the Armed Forces? Would it not have been a real hindrance to not deliver the machine guns to the military when "Shaheds" were flying over the country? The commission of officers had no complaints about their condition, and it was based on their findings that the acceptance took place. If some of them were of poor quality, the supplier should have repaired or replaced them long ago.

Alexander Liev and one of the heads of the state enterprise were predictably taken into custody with the possibility of bail.

But whoever is among the suspects, the question remains - is it not time to lift the seizure from the machine guns, repair or replace them under the contract terms, and finally send them to the front? Is this weaponry not needed by the military?