1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** A cassation appeal filed by the prosecutor against the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld an acquittal of a Ministry of Defense official accused of embezzlement of budget funds during the procurement of housing for military personnel.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The Supreme Court determined that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the consideration of the appeal, quoting a large volume of regulatory acts without providing an assessment of the key prosecution evidence.
* The Court emphasized that for the purposes of qualification under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it is not mandatory to prove personal arrangements between the official and the beneficiary; the fact of abuse of office, which led to the unlawful enrichment of third parties, is sufficient.
* The appellate instance erroneously dismissed the causal link between the actions of the accused (artificial inflation of the maximum housing cost during monitoring) and the subsequent budget losses.
* The Court pointed out that the appellate court failed to provide a proper assessment of expert reports confirming the price inflation and did not explain why it gave preference to the defense evidence.
* The Supreme Court stressed that an appellate court is obligated not merely to transcribe the verdict of the court of first instance, but to analyze each argument of the prosecutor in detail and provide a reasoned response to it.
* Since the appellate court failed to fulfill the requirements regarding the completeness of the examination of evidence and the reasoned nature of the decision, this was recognized as a material violation of procedural law.
* **Legal Position:** The Supreme Court clearly reaffirmed its legal position that for the elements of a crime under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the presence or absence of direct contact between an official and a beneficiary is not of decisive importance, provided that the fact of abuse of authority leading to the unlawful enrichment of other persons is proven.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
