No fines were imposed on manufacturers of defective 120mm mines, delivery time was extended. This is official negligence of DPA’s officials, - Anti-Corruption Council
The scandal surrounding the supply of low-quality ammunition to the frontline continues to gain momentum. It turns out that no penalties have been imposed on the manufacturers who produced the defective 120 mm mines, and instead additional agreements are being signed with unscrupulous suppliers to extend the delivery time.
Censor.NET reports this with reference to a statement by the Public Anti-Corruption Council under the Ministry of Defence (PAC MoD).
As noted, the PAC MoD wants to demonstrate by a specific example why the issue of regulating fines for arms suppliers is important and how their presence or absence becomes a pretext for manipulation by officials.
"All of the following facts are based on the allegations of a crime submitted by the PAC MoD to the NABU and the SBI. Some of the names, contract numbers, and exact dates of claims (complaints) are set out in the statements, but cannot be made public," the Public Council emphasises.
In 2024, various Ukrainian and foreign media, including the "Censor.NET" website, began to report on the supply of defective ammunition produced by a state-owned enterprise. On social media, servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported receiving a low-quality batch of 120 mm mortar shells. Numerous complaints (quality complaints) were recorded from more than 20 military units, which were forced to return the defective ammunition to the manufacturer.
The Public Anti-Corruption Council under the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine received responses to its inquiries regarding the status of contracts with state-owned enterprises that supply arms.
"It appears that 14 (!) of the 15 requested contracts have additional agreements to extend the delivery time. Some of the contracts contain up to three additional agreements to extend the terms only on the basis of a letter from the supplier, which indicates a systematic violation of the delivery dates for critical items.
Most of these agreements were signed by former officials of the Defence Procurement Agency in 2024," the statement said.
The PAC MoD then translates this into more understandable language:
- the contract ALWAYS specifies the exact quantities and end dates of the ammunition supply;
- If the supplier (manufacturer) fails to deliver the quantity of ammunition in the timeframe and/or of the wrong quality for whatever reason, he or she should theoretically receive and pay a large fine;
BUT:
- if the customer (in this case, the Defence Procurement Agency) has a special attitude to the supplier (manufacturer), the imposition of fines for partially or completely disrupted deliveries can be avoided!
- To do this, the supplier (manufacturer) writes a letter stating that it is unable to fulfil the order within the specified timeframe, and the customer enters into additional agreements to extend the delivery time without any questions or sanctions. The same applies to complaints (complaints about product quality): the customer may or may not impose fines on the manufacturer (supplier).
"In our particular case of the supply of mortar rounds, NO PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED for the delivery time, volume or quality, despite the fact that there were problems in one way or another on all three of the three possible points.
Having analysed the response regarding state contracts, it is clear that some contracts are being implemented with an extension of time and already have acts of complaint regarding the supply of low-quality products. Most of the complaint reports are dated from November to December 2024 and relate to ammunition of 155 mm, 120 mm and 82 mm calibre," the statement said.
Next, the PAC MoD focuses on why this is important. In addition to the obvious - the need for full and timely supply of the army - there is a problem with the imposition of fines, namely the discretion of the procurement agency, which, in particular, may contain corruption risks.
"Together with the strange behaviour of the courts around the recognition of force majeure by defence companies, it distorts the domestic arms supply market and tolerates either inefficiency or corruption, or both. Fines are either imposed equally or not imposed equally," the Public Council emphasises.
Taking into account the above facts, the PAC MoD believes that high-ranking officials of the state-owned ammunition manufacturer, acting in collusion and with mercenary intent, by abusing their official position, violating the principles of arms procurement and the provision of the Armed Forces with critical nomenclature, systematically violated the terms of contracts with the state customer and supplied low-quality critical nomenclature, endangering the defence capability of the state and the lives of Ukrainian defenders, committing a criminal offence under part five of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Taking into account the above facts, the PAC MoD believes that in 2024, high-ranking officials of the Defence Procurement Agency committed a criminal offence, causing large losses to the state budget and the Armed Forces of Ukraine - an offence under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (official negligence).
All names, contract numbers, dates of complaints and other facts that cannot be disclosed publicly are specified in the allegations of crime submitted by the the PAC MoD to the SBI and NABU.
the PAC MoD publicly warns the current leadership of the Defence Procurement Agency against similar actions that will have a similar reaction from us.
Defective mines supplied by the Armed Forces of Ukraine
On 6 November 2024, it was reported that the Armed Forces of Ukraine received a low-quality batch of 120 mm mines manufactured by Ukroboronprom.
On 20 November, a video of mines manufactured by "Ukroboronprom" malfunctioning was released.
The Ministry of Defence said it was investigating the situation.
Also, journalist Yulia Kyrienko-Merinova said that after the situation with the low-quality 120mm mortar shells was publicised, a batch of 82mm mortar rounds, which also turned out to be defective, was withdrawn from the frontline.
On 6 December, Minister of Strategic Industries of Ukraine Herman Smetanin told the Verkhovna Rada that out of millions of mines produced, the military had recorded only 417 cases of malfunction. Smetanin attributed the problems with mines to the quality of imported gunpowder.
On 31 December, it became known that low-quality mines had appeared in units in the Vremivsk direction, near Velyka Novosilka.
On 9 January 2025, Butusov stated that after the publication of the article about the defective mines, the 151st Brigade received quality ammunition.
The Command of the Logistics Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine stated that the soldiers of the 151st separate mechanised brigade did not receive low-quality mines.
