SBU exposed and prevented a large-scale embezzlement during the highway repairs in Donetsk and Kirovohrad regions.

Allegedly, in 2017 Donetsk regional highway company signed 7 contracts with a local construction firm for repair of intercity and inter-regional roads for more than UAH 16 million (USD 580,000). The contractor misappropriated most of these funds, providing false data on the quality of the used materials.

SBU established that the fraud caused lossses to the state for almost UAH 10 million (USD 365,000). In addition, due to the violation of repair technology, the road coating has suffered premature destruction and requires re-reconstruction.

The law enforcement officers conducted searches in the offices of the construction firm and at its top-managers’ residences. The operatives seized documents and draft accounting records that will be added to the evidence base of the case.

As of now, the former and current directors of the construction firm have been served notices of suspicion of crimes upon Part 5 of Art. 191, part 2 of Art. 366 and part 4 art. 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The form of detention is being chosen.

The investigation is ongoing to establish all participants of the fraud. Possible involvement of the officials of the regional highway company in the scheme is being checked.

The operation was conducted jointly with the National Police under the supervision of the Prosecutor's Office of Donetsk region.

In Kirovohrad region, the SBU established that in 2020 the regional specialized state-owned enterprise signed a contract with the local private company. The company had to repair a 4-kilometer road in Golovanivskyi district.

SBU established that the contractor failed to fulfill conditions of project-estimate documentation and used asphalt concrete coating that does not meet state requirements.

According to the experts, the fraud could have caused losses to the regional budget for over UAH 15 million (USD 500,000).

The state-owned enterprise did not sign the relevant certificates of completion of works and highway commissioning act and did not make full payment. The contractor pledged to re-repair the road at its own expense.