The High Anti-Corruption Court will try three defendants in the 146 million hryvnia case in absentia
The High Anti-Corruption Court has authorized special judicial proceedings against Pavlo Barbul, the former director of the state-owned enterprise “Spetstekhnoexport,” his former deputy Anton Voronin, and businessman Viktor Markelov. They are accused of embezzling more than 146 million hryvnias from the defense sector.
The High Anti-Corruption Court ruled to conduct special judicial proceedings against the three defendants in the criminal case—Pavlo Barbul, the former director of the state-owned enterprise “Spetstekhnoexport,” his former deputy Anton Voronin, and businessman Viktor Markelov. The case involves charges that the defendants embezzled over 146 million hryvnias from the defense sector.
The court granted the prosecutor’s motion to conduct special court proceedings. This format allows the criminal case to proceed without the defendant’s personal presence, provided there are grounds for doing so under the law. Thus, the trial of Barbula, Voronin, and Markelov may proceed in absentia.
What Is the Case About?
At the center of the proceedings are funds related to the activities of the state-owned enterprise “Spetstechnoexport,” which operates in the field of exporting and importing defense-related goods and technologies. Investigators believe that the defendants may have organized a scheme through which more than 146 million hryvnias were siphoned off from the defense sector.
According to the prosecution, each of the three defendants played a specific role in this scheme. Barbulu, who at the time headed “Spetstekhnoexport,” is charged with direct participation in organizing and carrying out the relevant actions. His former deputy, Anton Voronin, is accused of aiding and abetting. Businessman Viktor Markelov is also accused of aiding and abetting the embezzlement of funds. However, it is up to the court to make the final determination regarding their actions. The mere fact that charges have been filed does not mean that a person has already been found guilty.
What Pavel Barbul Is Accused Of
Pavlo Barbul, the former director of “Spetstekhnoexport,” has been charged under several articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Specifically, the charges include embezzlement on an especially large scale, official forgery, and the laundering of property obtained by criminal means. He is also accused of organizing a crime and organizing actions related to the inclusion of false information in official documents.
According to the court, Barbul is accused of criminal offenses under Part 5 of Article 191, Part 3 of Article 27, Part 3 of Article 28, and Part 1 of Article 366, as well as Part 3 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Simply put, investigators consider him one of the key participants in a scheme involving the illegal misappropriation of funds and subsequent transactions involving those funds.
What Voronin Is Accused Of
Anton Voronin, the former deputy director of “Spetstekhnoexport,” is accused of aiding and abetting. He is charged with aiding and abetting the misappropriation of funds on an especially large scale, aiding and abetting official forgery, and laundering property obtained by criminal means.
The court ruling cites Part 5 of Article 27, Part 5 of Article 191, Part 3 of Article 28, and Part 1 of Article 366, as well as Part 3 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In other words, according to the prosecution, Voronin was not the main organizer of the scheme, but may have assisted in its implementation.
What was Viktor Markelov’s role?
Businessman Viktor Markelov is also charged with aiding and abetting. According to the prosecution, he may have facilitated the misappropriation of funds and their subsequent laundering.
He is charged with aiding and abetting the misappropriation of property on an especially large scale and aiding and abetting the laundering of property obtained by criminal means. In his case, the charges are based on Section 5 of Article 27, Section 5 of Article 191, and Section 3 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Why the Trial Will Be Conducted in Absentia
The High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) agreed to conduct special court proceedings, which are often referred to in Ukrainian law as a trial in absentia. This means that the trial may proceed without the physical presence of the defendants. At the same time, this format does not deprive them of their right to a defense or other procedural guarantees.
The court does not automatically grant a request for special proceedings. There must be legal grounds for doing so, as provided for by criminal procedure law. In this case, the High Anti-Corruption Court granted the prosecutor’s motion regarding all three defendants.
The case can now be heard on its merits under special court proceedings. During the proceedings, the court must examine the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense and ultimately render a decision on the guilt or innocence of each of the defendants.
What Happens Next
Following the HACC’s decision, the case proceeds to further judicial review under a special procedure. The court must determine whether the defendants actually committed the acts they are accused of, whether harm was caused to the state, and who exactly is responsible for each incident. It is important to note that at this stage, the focus is on the charges themselves, not on guilt as established by the court.
If, during the proceedings, the court concludes that guilt has been proven, it will issue a corresponding guilty verdict. If, however, the evidence is insufficient, the court may issue an acquittal. Thus, the High Anti-Corruption Court has authorized a trial in absentia for three individuals accused of embezzling more than 146 million hryvnias from the defense sector. Among them are Pavlo Barbul, the former head of “Spetstekhnoexport”; his former deputy, Anton Voronin; and businessman Viktor Markelov. This was reported by .
Former Moldovan President and Communist Party leader Vladimir Voronin, who was elected to parliament in the September 28 elections, refused to fulfill his duty as the senior-most member of parliament and open its first session.
