How the Ministry of Defenсe and the DPA could "leak" 1.3 billion hryvnias on ammunition, tents, and equipment: tenders for the Mitrokhin cartel

While the country is at war and every day requires new weapons, equipment, and gear, billions from the defence budget, according to the authors of the statement, may have been distributed through procurements showing signs of restricted competition. At the center of attention are companies linked to Mitrokhin and contracts worth UAH 1.277 billion.

The authorities regularly speak about the shortage of armaments, including interceptors for air defence. But far less is said about another problem — possible corruption schemes in defence procurement, where, according to the authors of the materials, the most lucrative tenders may go to connected contractors.

According to the data presented, during the full-scale war Mitrokhin built a network of 11 companies operating in defence procurement. MIK alone reported UAH 3.7 billion in net income for 2024.

Among the individuals linked to this system are Yevtushenko, Plekho, and Dangadze.

A telling case is the procurement of winter jackets. Six companies participated in the tender, but during the auction none of them lowered the price. Four bids were placed almost at the expected value — UAH 122 million. The difference between them amounted to only UAH 3,214.

The lowest price was offered by PAKOPTORG. However, on January 7 its bid was rejected for failure to provide a guarantee. The very next day MIK was declared the winner.

Additional questions arose after an analysis by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine. The AMCU recorded a match of key technical indicators between MIK and PAKOPTORG: the companies accessed the auction module from the same IP address, were serviced by the same bank — “Kredit Dnipro” — and used the services of the same providers: TELZA, K-LINK, and TVOPTIMUM.

In a parallel procedure, PAKOPTORG also submitted a bid that was exactly UAH 10 higher than the leader’s price.

On January 14 the tender was canceled due to violations. But already on January 17 a contract worth almost UAH 122 million was signed with MIK. The difference between the lowest bid and the value of the concluded contract amounted to UAH 12.2 million.

No less telling was the procurement of 126 JCB 3CX excavators. Cheaper offers for Bobcat equipment (approx. UAH 403 million) and Caterpillar (approx. UAH 470 million) were rejected because the customer specifically required the JCB brand.

As a result, “Construction Machinery” received a contract worth UAH 477.54 million. All 126 machines were to be delivered within five months, without dividing the procurement into lots.

Another UAH 280.4 million was allocated for the procurement of fuel tankers for “Trade House Tekhkomplekt”.

The tender documentation listed dozens of technical specifications: from specific parameters of the chassis and tank to the pump equipment, fuel-dispensing system, technological compartment, metrology, documentation, warranty, and service maintenance.

Formally, the customer allowed equivalents, but they had to meet all the stated requirements simultaneously. According to the authors of the complaint, this significantly narrowed the ability of other manufacturers to offer their own designs.

Another UAH 74.97 million was spent on the procurement of universal field tents for EQUIPTORG. Here, according to the data provided, the requirements for participants could also have limited competition and created advantages for a specific winner.

EQUIPTORG, “Construction Machinery”, “Trade House Tekhkomplekt”, “TOP-TEX”, and “TS Trade Ukraine” are included in the list of companies under investigation for signs of anticompetitive concerted actions.

The total value of the contracts under these procurements amounts to UAH 1.277 billion.

This is no longer a story about one failed procurement or an accidental mistake by the tender committee. It concerns a series of contracts in which, according to the applicants, the same signs are repeated: specific requirements, rejection of cheaper bids, minimal competition, and multimillion contracts.

The situation has already gone beyond public accusations. Following the filed complaint, the High Anti-Corruption Court ruled on August 12, 2026, obliging the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office to open a pre-trial investigation.

At the same time, according to the authors of the appeal, Mitrokhin continues to gain access to defence funds, and new tenders may be conducted under similar principles.

The authors of the complaints also state that they have already sent about a dozen information requests and appeals to supervisory bodies and law enforcement agencies. However, according to them, instead of terminating dubious contracts, the State Enterprise “Defence Procurement Agency” and the Ministry of Defence limit themselves to responses that they allegedly do not possess the relevant information.

This raises an entirely logical question: how many more billions must pass through defence procurement before state bodies stop “not possessing information”?

During the war, the country needs weapons, ammunition, air defence, equipment, and gear. And every hryvnia of the defence budget must work precisely for that. If procurements turn into a platform for privileged contractors, the issue is no longer only about the value of an individual contract.

The question is who and how for years allows earning from the defence budget during the war — and why no one has yet been held accountable for it. At the same time, all the facts presented must be verified by law enforcement agencies, and the guilt of specific individuals can be established only by a court.