### 1. Subject of the Dispute
The subject of the dispute is the criminal charge against two officials of a state-owned enterprise for abuse of office (Part 2 of Article 28, Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), which consisted of creating an artificial scheme for the sale of explosives through controlled intermediary structures that performed no real functions, which resulted in losses to the state-owned enterprise in the form of lost revenue in the amount of over UAH 43 million.
### 2. Main Arguments of the Court
* **Proof of Intent and Scheme:** The court established that the accused knowingly created a mechanism whereby end consumers (mining and processing plants) were deprived of the opportunity to purchase products directly from the manufacturer (the state-owned enterprise), as the accused ignored requests for direct cooperation or artificially inflated prices for end buyers.
* **Nominal Role of Intermediaries:** The court emphasized that the engaged intermediaries lacked the necessary licenses for handling explosive materials, possessed no resources (transportation, security), and performed no economically significant functions, as the actual supply was carried out by the state-owned enterprise itself.
* **Economic Nature of Losses:** The court qualified the difference between the price at which the state-owned enterprise sold the products to the intermediaries and the price at which the intermediaries resold them to the end consumers as lost profits (losses) of the state-owned enterprise, since the latter had every opportunity to sell the products directly.
* **Systemic Nature and Duration:** The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the “necessity” of such actions, pointing out that the systemic nature of the scheme during 2011–2016, the change of intermediaries, and the coordinated actions of the accused indicate a single unlawful intent rather than situational management decisions.
* **Evaluation of Evidence:** The court admitted the materials of covert investigative (search) actions as admissible, indicating that the recorded conversations of the accused directly confirm their awareness of the unlawfulness of the scheme and the role of each of them.
* **Rejection of Defense Arguments:** The court dismissed arguments regarding the “collegiality” of decision-making, noting that internal approval procedures do not exempt officials from liability for intentional actions aimed at causing harm.
### 3. Court Decision
The court found both defendants guilty of committing the criminal offense provided for by Part 2 of Article 28, Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentencing them to imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions and a fine, and also granted the prosecutor’s civil lawsuit for the joint and several recovery from them in favor of the state of over UAH 36 million in material damages.
***
*Note: In the text of the decision, the court does not mention any departure from previous legal positions of the Supreme Court; therefore, the word “” is not added.*
