Not even three weeks have passed since the National Police of Ukraine pathetically announced the discovery of a criminal scheme to embezzle funds from the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine allocated for the purchase of Turkish bulletproof vests.
In the same message from the NP, the fact of the exposure of two suspects – citizens of Ukraine, who represent the interests of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, as well as the effective search, during which a significant amount of money was seized, was stated.
However, the police officers decided not to inform the public about whom they suspect, who they searched, and what the seized funds have to do with the alleged embezzlement of funds from the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
Of course, such selectivity in the presentation of information can be explained, for example, by the secrecy of the investigation or the lack of a complete, comprehensive and impartial investigation. Which is tangentially confirmed by the official position of the injured party – the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, which stated that there were no facts of searches in the department, as well as the fact that the only suspect in this crime is the management of the Turkish company, which received the funds but did not deliver the goods.
And here is the most interesting thing, while the NP investigation is trying to sew up a case against the representatives of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and give the Turkish company, the same one that “mastered” the funds of the Ministry of Defense, the status of the injured party – the “suspect” representatives of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine successfully won, in the interests of the Ministry of Defense , a court in Turkey, seized the funds that the Turks stole from the domestic department, and also managed to initiate a criminal case by the Turkish prosecutor’s office.
This information was published in the authoritative Turkish publication ODATV4: https://www.odatv4.com/guncel/ukrayna-dan-turk-sirketine-7-5-milyon-euro-luk-celik-yelek-haczi-250965
In this context, a logical question arises: “Dear domestic policemen, have you made a mistake in the procedural statuses of the parties?” Or do you not want to return the money received from Turkish fraudsters for violation of ordered criminal proceedings?”
