“The case against the exhibitor of MOU Liev about machine guns: the weapons were accepted without comments from military gunsmiths In the case about defective machine guns, 226 weapons were arrested, of which 80 were found to be of poor quality. Instead of being repaired or replaced under the terms of the contract, the weapon remains under arrest pending criminal proceedings.”, — write on: unn.ua
Liev claims that all the conditions of signing the act of accepting and handing over the machine guns were met. According to him, this act on the quality and quantity of supplied weapons was signed by five military weapons specialists.
Actually, this is also confirmed in the relevant act of acceptance and transfer, a copy of which is available UNN: “During the inspection of the quality condition, it was established that the large-caliber KPVT 14.5 mm machine guns in the amount of 26 units are equipped according to the product form; the DShKM 12.7 mm machine guns in the amount of 200 units are equipped according to the product form and their technical condition corresponds to category 1 without comments according to quality certificate”.
Details
Back in March 2022, the MoU concluded a contract for the supply of machine guns, which was signed by the then director of the Department of Military and Technical Policy. However, the delivery was delayed. In August, six months after the payment of the contract, Oleksandr Liev was appointed to this position as a temporary acting agent, and he began to demand that the supplier provide the necessary documents and weapons. Only in December, after all the necessary documents were provided, he signed the Act of acceptance and transfer of 226 machine guns under the state contract. Subsequently, the military began to receive complaints about a certain part of the machine guns.
As explained in the comment UNN lawyer Serhii Laputko, the procurement of weapons by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine are essentially economic contracts, which means that the defense department is protected by economic legislation in such cases. In case of delivery of low-quality equipment, the following options for compensation for damages are provided:
● repair of delivered equipment;
● product replacement;
● refund including fines for breach of contract.
The lawyer emphasizes that such situations are not unique, and commercial courts often rule in favor of the Ministry of Defense, forcing suppliers to fulfill their obligations.
“The Ministry of Defense is here as, one might say, a service subject of the military. I would put it this way, because: the military says – we need it, the Ministry of Defense searches for, transports and brings to the military unit, and says, for example, a mine 120. The soldiers look at her, conduct tests, write their complaints if there are any comments. If there are no comments, they accept them, if there are comments about these ammunition, they apply to the Ministry of Defense to return or replace the weapons or ammunition,” Laputko said.
Criminal proceedings regarding the supply of substandard machine guns have been under investigation since 2023, and all this time 226 machine guns have been seized. The question arises, why are they not repaired or replaced under the terms of the contract? Why keep them under arrest?
The answer to this question may actually lie on the surface, because if the machine guns are repaired, replaced or refunded under the contract, then there will be no criminal proceedings.
Due to the arrest of 226 machine guns, the process of solving the problem is delayed. Instead of the machine guns performing their functions in the Armed Forces as soon as possible, they remain under arrest, and during the war, every day of delay is a loss at the front.
Is the arrest really justified if there are mechanisms for solving such situations within the framework of economic legislation? The answer to this question should be given not only by the investigation, but also by the public, who have a right to know why weapons remain unusable when they are needed most.