Meshchansky Court in Moscow details in absentia charges against Valery Kagach and others
The Meshchansky Court in Moscow issued updates in absentia regarding Valery Kagach, the former deputy director general responsible for procurement at Atomenergoproekt, a subsidiary of Rosatom. Kagach faces allegations of large-scale fraud under part 4 of article 159 of the Criminal Code of Russia and remains detained following a court decision reported by TASS.
According to the court, Kagach’s restraining order was revised from a written ban on leaving the country to detention in order to ensure appropriate conduct. The decision indicates the defendant is now in custody and subject to the court’s supervision while proceedings continue.
Authorities say Kagach was placed on the wanted list for violating a travel ban and for leaving Russia without authorization. The detention period is set at two months, as cited in official communications.
Investigators allege that Kagach engaged in an economic crime between 2014 and 2015. The charges claim that Kagach and his subordinates procured equipment for the construction of the Novovoronezh NPP-2 from Ruventa at prices significantly inflated above market value. In return, they are accused of receiving commissions that caused substantial losses to the state and to the project’s financing.
In a related development, Moscow’s Meshchansky Court detained two businessmen from Belgorod, Vladimir Tebekin and Gennady Bobritsky, on charges of large-scale fraud. The case underscores ongoing scrutiny of procurement practices linked to major energy projects and the enforcement actions surrounding such investigations.
The proceedings reflect a broader pattern of investigations into procurement processes within state-affiliated enterprises and their private partners. Authorities emphasize the importance of transparent bidding, proper valuation, and accountability to prevent irregularities in large infrastructure investments. Legal experts note that in cases of economic crime, prosecutors typically pursue charges that reflect the scale of alleged losses and the role of involved individuals in arranging contracts, commissions, and related financial flows.
Observers remind readers that the legal process in these matters proceeds through formal court channels, with investigations, indictments, and, where applicable, proceedings conducted in absentia. The outcomes of these cases will hinge on the presentation of evidence, adherence to due process, and the evaluation of contractual terms and financial documents tied to the disputed procurement activities.
As the situation develops, updates from official agencies and state media help illuminate the timeline, the specific statutory arguments, and the potential penalties associated with the charges. The cases involving Kagach and the Belgorod businessmen illustrate how large-scale procurement is scrutinized under Russia’s criminal code and how authorities pursue accountability in matters affecting critical energy infrastructure.