26 March 2026
(Yuzhny port. PHOTO: gmk.center)
The court upheld the arrest of the phone of a key defendant in the case of embezzlement of more than UAH 7 million at Pivdennyi port, despite the defense's demands to return the device. Law enforcement officials insisted that the contents of the smartphone may contain critical evidence of the overpriced procurement scheme.
This is evidenced by the ruling of the Khadzhybeyskyi District Court of Odesa.
In the case of large-scale embezzlement of public funds during procurement for SE MTP Pivdennyi, the court refused to cancel the seizure of one of the defendants' property.
This is a criminal proceeding being investigated by detectives of the BES Territorial Department in Odesa region. According to the investigation, officials of the state-owned enterprise acted in collusion with representatives of private companies and organized a scheme to purchase railway equipment at artificially high prices. The amount of overpayment, according to the investigation, exceeds UAH 7 million.
Law enforcement officers believe that one of the key participants in the scheme, the head of a private company, coordinated the group's actions, maintained contacts with officials of the state-owned enterprise and developed mechanisms to inflate the cost of procurement.
During a search in November 2025 at the suspect's residence, investigators seized
Initially, the court seized all the seized property. However, in February 2026, the Court of Appeal partially changed this decision - the seizure was left only for the mobile phone, and the court decided not to seize the money.
The defense insisted on canceling the arrest and returning the phone to the owner. The lawyer argued that there were no grounds for further restriction of rights.
However, the detectives opposed it. According to them, it has not yet been possible to access the contents of the phone - the device is protected by a graphic password that has not been disclosed. Because of this, the investigation cannot copy information or examine data that may be evidence in the case.
The investigating judge agreed with the prosecution's arguments. The decision states that the seizure of property is a temporary measure necessary to preserve material evidence.
The court concluded that the needs of the pre-trial investigation currently justify interference with the rights of the property owner. In particular, without the examination of the phone, an important evidence base in the case of embezzlement on a particularly large scale may be lost.
As a result, the court dismissed the defense's motion to cancel the seizure of the cell phone.
In February, the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine found not guilty a number of former Pivdennyi port executives accused of unjustified salary payments.
Анна Бальчінос