Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court rejected Pavlo Barbul, Vladyslav Belbas, and Yevhen Singaievskyi’s attempt to derail the case over the embezzlement of Spetstechnoexport funds

Accused in the corruption case, former executives of “Spetstechnoexport” failed to recuse the HACC judge.

The High Anti-Corruption Court dismissed a motion to recuse a judge in the high-profile case concerning the embezzlement of funds belonging to state arms exporters. During the preparatory hearing in case No. 991/2631/26 (criminal proceedings No. 52025000000000404), counsel for the accused Yevhen Sinhayevskyi filed a motion to recuse the presiding judge. The motion was supported by the other defence counsel and by Sinhayevskyi himself, who participated in the hearing remotely.

The defence based the motion on two main arguments.

First, the judge’s repeated participation in the same criminal proceedings. The judge whose recusal was sought had acted as investigating judge in 2019–2020 in case No. 52017000000000889 (case No. 991/747/20), in which Sinhayevskyi already held the status of suspect.The defence emphasised that both sets of proceedings (No. 52017000000000889 and No. 52025000000000404) concern the same scheme of misappropriation of assets of the State Enterprise “Spetstechnoexport” through intermediary companies when concluding foreign-economic contracts in the field of military-technical cooperation. In the defence’s view, the judge had already formed an internal conviction regarding Sinhayevskyi’s personality and the factual circumstances, and therefore could not consider the case impartially.

Second, the judge refused Sinhayevskyi (who is in Hungary under temporary protection status) permission to participate in court hearings via video conference using his own technical means. The defence stressed that the accused cannot enter Ukraine because of martial law and that his summons should have been effected through international treaties or diplomatic channels. In addition, counsel complained about time limits imposed on oral submissions and alleged that the judge had not properly examined their motions.

The judge who considered the recusal motion dismissed it. The reasoning part of the ruling stated:

The accused in the case are:

They are charged with participation in a criminal scheme to embezzle funds of state enterprises — specialised arms exporters (part 5 of Article 191, part 3 of Article 28, part 1 of Article 366, part 3 of Article 209 and other articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). According to the prosecution, funds were siphoned through intermediary companies (“agents”) during the conclusion of foreign-economic contracts for the supply of military equipment and armaments.