The Supreme Anti-Corruption Court has closed the criminal case against Oleksandr Nagorsky, the head of the Department of the Ministry of Defense. He was accused of embezzling UAH 1.5 billion during the purchase of artillery shells for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. However, the case never reached the merits due to the effect of the “Lozovoi amendments”. This provision allows the case to be closed if the prosecutor files an indictment after the pre-trial investigation period has expired.
The investigation into Nagorsky's case was conducted by the Security Service of Ukraine. After the suspicion was reported, the materials were transferred to the SAPO, then back to the SBU, and then the Prosecutor General's Office exercised control. Due to numerous procedural delays, the indictment reached the Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals after the deadline, which became the basis for closing the proceedings.
This case is not unique. Just last week, the Supreme Court of Ukraine closed the case of the embezzlement of UAH 11.8 million from Ukrzaliznytsia, applying the same norm. Lawyers and anti-corruption organizations have repeatedly called on the parliament to repeal paragraph 10 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it actually allows suspects in corruption to avoid liability due to procedural formalities. The Verkhovna Rada has already rejected such initiatives several times, which is beneficial to those involved in high-profile cases.
"Lozovoy's amendments" are becoming a tool for avoiding responsibility, experts emphasize. At the same time, closing such cases undermines public trust in the law enforcement and judicial systems, especially during wartime, when the efficiency of public spending and transparency of procurement are critically important.
Lawsuits show that even large-scale financial irregularities in the defense sector can go unpunished due to bureaucratic loopholes. Anti-corruption organizations are urging lawmakers to urgently fix the situation to prevent similar cases from recurring.
The problem also lies in the lack of clear coordination between the SBU, SAPO, and the UCP, which creates additional delays in investigations. Experts note that as long as paragraph 10 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in effect, corruption cases will be systematically closed, even if the evidentiary base is sufficient for trial.
Overall, the situation demonstrates the weakness of the anti-corruption system and the need to reform procedural norms to avoid abuses and ensure effective prosecution of perpetrators.
