Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Defense plant management embezzled UAH 102 million meant for armor

The SBU and NABU exposed officials of a state-owned plant for embezzling UAH 102 million during procurement of dynamic protection for tanks; the cases involve Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk regions.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

December 11, 2025 · 2 min read

Defense plant management embezzled UAH 102 million meant for armor

The SBU, together with NABU, established that the leaders of one of the state defense plants embezzled budget funds allocated for the purchase of dynamic protection for Ukrainian tanks.

Embezzlement scheme

According to the investigation, the criminal scheme operated in the Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk regions. The total damage to the state amounts to UAH 102 million, which were intended for the production of armor kits.

In April 2022 the plant signed an urgent contract with the Ministry of Defence to supply dynamic protection systems. The products were to be promptly sent from the workshops to the front, but instead part of the funds was embezzled.

Suspects and charges

The case involves the commercial director of the state enterprise, the former head of the plant, and the owner of the contracting firm. The investigation found that contractual components were purchased at prices three times higher than market rates, and the difference was funneled through a network of controlled companies and distributed among the scheme’s participants.

Expert examinations conducted by investigative authorities confirmed significant losses. Searches were carried out at the workplaces and residences of the suspects.

  • charged under articles on embezzlement and misappropriation of property by abusing official position as part of a group;
  • legalization (money laundering) of obtained funds;
  • official forgery.

The former plant head is already in custody in another proceeding related to the production of defective mortar shells — he was detained in April 2025. For the other suspects, the question of preventive measures is still under consideration.

Problematic ammunition supplies

The pretrial investigation also found that at the beginning of 2024 the plant received a contract for the serial production of 120-mm mortar rounds for the Ground Forces. Production was carried out with substandard materials and defects, resulting in 120,000 shells being sent to the front that were unfit for use.

  • On December 5 NABU reported exposing a criminal group allegedly headed by Member of Parliament Skorokhod; the SBU announced suspicion against her and detailed the mechanism for applying National Security and Defense Council sanctions as part of the scheme.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026