Case description
The NABU and the SAPO suspect two officials of the Armament Directorate of the Logistics Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Kostiantyn But and Volodymyr Vysotskyi, of facilitating private firms through tenders with proposals disadvantageous to the state budget.
Kostiantyn But — former head of the repair department of the Central Directorate for Aviation and Air Defense Support of the Armament Directorate of the Logistics Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Volodymyr Vysotskyi — former deputy head of the aviation technical support department of the Central Directorate for Aviation and Air Defense Support of the Armament Directorate of the Logistics Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
According to the investigation, the defendants ensured the victory in public procurement of certain private companies, including Aksariia LLC and Promtechinvest Group LLC (PTI). The subject of procurement was aircraft tires and other aviation components for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The mechanism involved a limited circle of companies gaining access to internal information about upcoming tenders: the quantity and types of tires, the planned dates of bidding and details of commercial offers from other potential suppliers. Thanks to this, Aksariia and PTI were able to prepare their bids in advance and adjust prices to appear the most advantageous compared to competitors.
At the same time, other companies controlled by the defendants, including Sontrade LLC and Optimus Prime Power LLC, also participated in the tenders. They acted as “technical” participants, creating the appearance of competition but not actually seeking to win. Their price offers were used to simulate competition and legitimize the results.
Genuine market participants who could offer more favorable commercial proposals faced obstacles. Their applications were either not submitted to the tender committee or the documents they provided were deliberately distorted. In cases where independent suppliers offered lower prices than Aksariia, they were pressured to raise their bids so that Aksariia’s offer would ultimately appear the most attractive.
At committee meetings, representatives of the scheme defended the interests of their companies, persuading members that their prices were optimal. After decisions were made, the prompt and unimpeded conclusion of state contracts with Aksariia and PTI was ensured. Even when the committee leaned toward contracting with other companies, measures were taken to block such decisions and redirect the contracts accordingly.
Moreover, draft contracts were handed over to Aksariia even before official approval, which allowed the company to approve them quickly and avoid delays. Later, the scheme participants monitored the approval of contracts in the Ministry of Defense and also informed Aksariia’s management about the timelines for payments under concluded contracts.
As a result, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine concluded state contracts for the supply of aircraft tires with a predetermined circle of companies on economically disadvantageous terms. This led to overpayments for products and damage to state interests amounting to UAH 27.3 million.
The investigation is ongoing. The defendants are charged under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
