The contractor profited from linoleum during the repair of seven schools in the Voronezh region

The business owner was prosecuted for fraud during repair work in seven schools in the Voronezh region. The head of the company was found guilty, but the punishment was conditional. The prosecutor’s party demanded to tighten the measure of restraint, while the defendant’s defense lawyer petitioned for annulment of the sentence. Both appeals were considered by the judicial board on criminal cases of the Voronezh Regional Court. Information about this was provided by the press service of the department on Tuesday, October 13.

For two years, from 2020 to 2022, the construction company executed municipal orders in the Bobrovsky district for major and current repairs of premises in educational institutions. The work was carried out within the framework of the regional program "Modern School" (center "Growth Point"). The head of the company purchased low-quality linoleum for laying and at a low cost. After revealing the fact of deception against the entrepreneur, criminal proceedings were initiated on the theft of property by fraud committed with the use of official powers in a significant amount.

The head of the construction organization on a set of acts was sentenced to three years of suspended imprisonment with a probation period of three years. For a similar period, he was deprived of the right to work in the field related to the execution of state and municipal contracts, the supply of goods, the performance of works and the provision of services for state and municipal needs.

This sentence gave rise to appeals. The judicial panel examined the materials of the criminal case and checked the arguments of the prosecutor, who insisted on a stricter punishment. The arguments of the convicted person and his counsel were also considered. They demanded to cancel the sentence and send the case on jurisdiction to the Central District Court of Voronezh or make an acquittal. Note that in March 2025, the court issued an acquittal. However, the original sentence was quashed and the case was returned to the same court for retrial.

This time, the regional court ruled that the guilt of the defendant was proved by the district authority, and the punishment imposed was fair.