Construction of a shelter at public expense failed in Kherson region

The prosecutor's office is demanding through the court to return more than UAH 15 million that the contractor received for the construction of a shelter in a de-occupied village in Kherson region, but did not start work. The money was provided from a state subsidy intended for war-affected areas.

This was reported by the press service of the Kherson Regional Prosecutor's Office.

Law enforcement officials filed a lawsuit against a private company that received budget funds for the construction of a protective structure in 2024 but never started construction. It is about more than UAH 15 million that the company received as an advance payment under a contract. These funds were allocated as part of the state subsidy to local budgets for the restoration of territories affected by Russian aggression.

Under the terms of the contract, the contractor was to build a shelter on the territory of the Borozenska community in Beryslav district. The money was allocated for the purchase of building materials and labor. However, as law enforcement officers found out, the work never started, and the company itself did not return a single penny to the budget.

In this regard, the prosecutor's office took representative measures to protect the interests of the state and appealed to the court to recover both the advance payment and penalties from the contractor.

Also recently, a technical supervision engineer was notified of suspicion of negligence during the reconstruction of a kindergarten in Kherson region. According to the investigation, in 2019-2020, he failed to ensure proper control over the construction work in the Muzykivska community, which led to the loss of more than one million hryvnias from the local budget.

A separate investigation is underway against the director of a department of the Kherson Regional Military Administration, who is suspected of systemic bribery. According to law enforcement, he demanded a 10% kickback for facilitating the conclusion of contracts for repair work and influenced his subordinates. The court seized his property, including real estate, cars, and a stake in a private business.

Анна Літман