Construction of substation protection halted in Odesa after 49.4 million hryvnia advance received

Construction of substation protection halted in Odesa after 49.4 million hryvnia advance received
Construction of substation protection halted in Odesa after 49.4 million hryvnia advance received

Work stoppage and unjustified payments

Law enforcement agencies are investigating a criminal case regarding the possible misappropriation of state funds allocated for the engineering protection of the 110 kV "Yuzhnoye" substation in Odesa. It emerged that the contractor company received a significant advance payment, yet construction work was suspended at an early stage.

Contract details and financial flows

The Restoration Service concluded an agreement with DBS Trade LLC for a total amount of 58.7 million hryvnia. This company is linked to Oleksandr Chervony. According to investigation data, 49.4 million hryvnia in advance payments were transferred to the enterprise's account in two tranches.

Despite receiving such a large sum, the contractor actually used only about 12 million hryvnia, completing approximately 40% of the work stipulated by the contract. Construction stopped after reaching this level. Importantly, the unused portion of the advance was not returned within the timeframe established by law.

Fund diversion schemes and links to other companies

Investigators are also examining the version that part of the budget funds may have been diverted through fictitious commercial transactions. Trans-Bud-Logistic LLC, owned by Olena Terletska, has come under scrutiny.

It was established that Terletska and Chervony have a joint business — Logistykukrtrans LLC. In this company, Chervony holds the position of director, and the ownership shares are distributed as follows: 30% belong to Terletska and 20% to Chervony.

During a search conducted within the same criminal case, law enforcement officers seized the seal of Logistykukrtrans LLC. Thus, the investigation is verifying the hypothesis that state funds may have been diverted through a company jointly owned with the head of the contractor who received the advance for the protection of the electrical facility.

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first!

Leave a comment

Links are not allowed in comments. The editors may remove comments without explanation.
Back to top ↑