Search

HACC AC modifies interim measure for former Defense Ministry official Liiev

On March 26, 2025, the HACC AC partially granted the prosecutor's appeal, imposing a UAH 2 million bail on Oleksandr Liiev and requiring him to wear an electronic bracelet. Earlier, the HACC ruled to impose personal obligation on Liiev.

In February 2025, officials from the Main Investigation Department of the National Police of Ukraine officially notified Oleksandr Liiev of suspicion of multiple crimes under the Criminal Code of Ukraine: Article 114-1, Part 2 (Obstruction of lawful activity of the Armed Forces of Ukraine), Article 191, Part 5 (Misappropriation, embezzlement, conversion, or property by malversation committed in respect of a particularly large amount).

According to the investigation, while serving as acting director of the Department of Military and Technical Policy at the Ministry of Defense, Liiev, in conspiracy with others, signed a contract with the Croatian company WDG promet d.o.o. for the supply of 30,000 tank shells worth €32.7 million without proper inspections and despite the lack of permits. The first payment of €3.27 million (10% of the contract amount) was transferred to the company's accounts, after which the accomplices moved the funds to other accounts and distributed them among themselves. However, the goods were never delivered.

It is worth reminding that it was precisely due to the change in Oleksandr Liiev's interim measure in another case that a HACC investigating judge received a reprimand from the High Council of Justice. At that time, the judge considered the case without the prosecutor or the suspect present. He replaced the detention with a personal obligation without proper justification, citing the SAPO prosecutor's resolution to change the jurisdiction due to insufficient evidence to qualify the actions under Article 191, Part 5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The HCJ found that his actions constituted a deliberate violation of procedural norms, depriving the prosecutor of the opportunity to defend their position.

Related case: