The case of embezzlement at an aircraft factory in Mykolaiv failed

A court in Mykolaiv has delivered a verdict in the case of the Mykolaiv Aircraft Repair Plant. The former director of the enterprise and the head of a private firm were acquitted in the case of embezzlement of budget funds due to lack of evidence.

This was reported by the Center for Public Investigations.

Viktor Kyrnytskyi , former director of the Mykolaiv Aircraft Repair Plant NARP, and Andriy Mangushev, head of Yugpromtekhmontazh LLC, were brought to trial. They were accused of embezzling budget funds and forgery. According to the investigation, some of the work was not completed, but the acceptance certificates were signed and the contractor was paid.

According to Opendatabot, Mangushev headed the company until 2023, while Kyrnytskyi left in 2022.

The investigation claimed that during the modernization of test benches for aircraft engines, some of the work stipulated in the contract was not completed, although the acceptance certificates were signed and the contractor received the money in full.

The history of this case dates back to the end of 2020, when the plant announced a tender for the upgrade of engine testing equipment. Yugpromtekhmontazh LLC won, and in January 2021, the parties signed a contract for UAH 8.45 million.

Subsequently, the company transferred more than UAH 4.2 million in advance to the contractor, and the deadlines for completing the work were postponed several times through additional agreements.

According to the Bureau of Economic Security, the company failed to install some equipment, including a power cabinet, sensors, and measuring devices. According to investigators, this could have artificially inflated the cost of the work performed by more than UAH 2 million.

The prosecutor's office insisted that the head of the contractor had drawn up documents with false information, and the director of the state-owned enterprise had approved them, realizing that the contract had not been fulfilled.

However, both defendants pleaded not guilty in court. Kirnytskyi explained that the work was supervised by the relevant services and a special commission of the plant, and he signed the documents after confirmation of the responsible employees. Mangushev, in turn, stated that the project was technically complex, some decisions had to be adjusted in the process, and funds were spent on equipment, salaries, and taxes.

During the trial, the court drew attention to discrepancies between the expert opinions and the results of official inspections. Some of the conclusions, as stated in the verdict, were not based on an actual inspection of the modernized equipment, but mainly on documents of the company's internal investigation.

The court also analyzed the work of the commission that accepted the modernized facilities into operation. It consisted of technical specialists, department heads, and accounting representatives. In addition, the modernized stands were certified upon completion of the work and found to be suitable for use.

As a result, the court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the fact of intentional embezzlement or forgery. Both defendants were acquitted, and the civil claim for reimbursement of more than UAH 2 million was dismissed.

Also in May, in Mykolaiv region, the head of two companies was placed under nightly house arrest on suspicion of misappropriating budget funds allocated for water supply repairs. Under the guise of completed work and fictitious expenses, he could have withdrawn money from the local budget for his own benefit.

Анна Бальчінос