Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
🗝🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
Babeten’s Case (Right side) // This block likely contains a non-English phrase; preserved as-is in translation if it were meaningful. In Ukrainian,
The first defeat in court — and what it actually means
17 on July, the Pechersky district court of Kyiv postponed consideration of DBR’s motion to arrest the seized funds — officially due to the court’s heavy workload. And on 22 July, the same court rejected the arrest itself of 32,14 million hryvnias, finding that these funds were not related to the criminal proceedings; the next day the money was returned to the company.
This court ruling in itself is lawful and unquestionable as an act of justice. But it raises before the investigation a direct and disadvantageous question: was the evidentiary base presented to the court collected with such thoroughness as the scale of the suspicion requires? Articles 86–89 of the CPC set out clear criteria that each piece of evidence must meet — relevance, admissibility, reliability10. If at the stage of fixing the seizure, drawing up search protocols or conducting covert investigative actions the DBR detectives make procedural inaccuracies, it is precisely on this purely formal grounds that courts will return the materials with the mark “inadmissible evidence.” And then the issue of the billion-dollar overpricing of drones during the war will simply not reach consideration on the merits.
The public resonance around this case is not a media distraction, but one of the few effective guarantees that it will not fade away on the desk of the procedural supervisor or in the court archive. The history of Ukrainian law enforcement experience knows far too many examples where cases with billion-dollar suspicions quietly lost momentum exactly when public attention to them faded.
Therefore, it is fundamentally important that:
✔️DBR detectives bring the investigation to a logical conclusion — with a clear procedural decision regarding the status of Oleksiy Babbenko, rather than with ambiguity that lasts for months;
✔️Prosecutors, who accompany this proceeding, ensure the quality of every petition to the court — so that the next judicial instance has no formal grounds to refuse;
✔️Courts, considering DBR materials, evaluate them on the merits — taking into account the scale of possible damage to the state defense budget, and not looking for a pretext to close the case on a procedural trifle.
The Vyriy Industries case is not a private conflict between a company and the state. It is a test of whether the Ukrainian law enforcement and judicial system can bring to a close an investigation against its own arms supplier in the midst of war. Society sees this, records each stage — and expects not loud statements, but results.
💬 ABleaks_bot
💕 Join
