Elena Lyakhovich, the General Director of Stroykhimproekt LLC, pleaded guilty to fraud connected with the supply of medical equipment to the Russian Ministry of Defense, according to court records. The disclosure, coming from the court docket, places a spotlight on procurement practices tied to defense contracts and the way private firms interact with state clients in Russia. The development has drawn attention from observers monitoring public procurement and financial crime within the defense sector.
Lyakhovich entered into a pre-trial cooperation agreement and fully reimbursed 48 million rubles in damages as part of the resolution. This step paved the way for the case to be heard privately, a move sometimes used in complex corruption cases where additional disclosures can be made under confidentiality. The approach underscores how pre-trial deals can influence the handling of cases involving high-profile defense contracts and the balance between transparency and privacy in sensitive judicial proceedings.
The second defendant in the case, Viktor Bilko, the chief accountant of Stroykhimproekt, has admitted to the crime only in part. Bilko’s partial admissions may shape the pace and scope of the proceedings, as prosecutors and defense teams determine the strength of evidence and potential sentencing outcomes.
Lyakhovich was accused of taking part in the purchase of a tomograph for the 9th Treatment and Diagnostic Center of the Ministry of Defense on Komsomolsky Prospekt. She allegedly helped win the tender and arranged the delivery of the equipment at an inflated price, working in collusion with Andrei Belkov, the former head of the Military Construction Company. The exact mechanism of the alleged scheme, including bid manipulation and price padding, illustrates how procurement channels can be exploited in large public contracts.
Earlier, the Ministry of Defense sought 13.8 billion rubles from the Military Construction Company as part of related claims connected to the same procurement project. The large sum underscores the scale of the dispute over the terms of the contract and the controls surrounding high-value equipment purchases for military health facilities.
Previously General Pavel Popov declined to enter into a plea agreement, a decision that reflects the careful, formal negotiations often seen in high-stakes defense procurement matters. The path of this case may continue to unfold through private proceedings and further court rulings, as prosecutors build their case against other potential participants and the government seeks restitution and accountability in its public health infrastructure supply chain.
For readers in North America, this case highlights how defense-related procurement risks can surface in international markets and the importance of rigorous due diligence, contract oversight, and transparent bidding processes when private firms participate in state contracts. The episode also serves as a reminder that corruption investigations can cross borders, impacting supplier reputations and the reliability of medical equipment supplied to military facilities.