On August 25, 2026, the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow sentenced Andrey Belkov, former head of the Main Military Construction Directorate for Special Facilities, to six years in a general regime penal colony. The court also barred him from holding leadership positions in public service for five years and stripped him of several awards, including the Order of Honor and the title of Honored Builder of Russia.

The verdict marked only the first instance. At the time of publication, there was no information in open sources regarding the decision's entry into force or the outcome of any appeal. However, the criminal case already illustrates how the procurement of a single medical device passed through several companies, transformed into a defense order, and impacted a person who later headed the entire centralized military construction of the Ministry of Defense.

The key figures of the case should not be conflated. 121.7 million rubles is the price of the state contract. 73.3 million is the amount that, according to the prosecution, the actual supplier received. 48.2 million is the damage calculated by the investigation. Meanwhile, the defense presented its own assessment of the tomograph's market value and insisted that the contract was at the lower end of the market range.

What the Court Decided on August 25

The court found Belkov guilty under Article 285.4, Part 2, Clause 'b' of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation — abuse of official powers in the execution of a state defense order, resulting in grave consequences. This qualification is fundamental: Belkov was not tried for fraud, bribery, or direct embezzlement of 48 million rubles.

Reports from the courtroom indicate that in his final statement, Belkov pleaded guilty and repented. This differs from his position after detention and during the investigation: at that time, he denied the charges, and his lawyers asserted that the tender was lawful and no damage to the state had occurred. The change in position does not negate previous defense arguments but explains why seemingly contradictory formulations appear in the case chronicle.

In addition to the real prison term, the court stripped Belkov of awards that the defense had previously used to justify requests for a milder pre-trial restraint. Media outlets named among them the Order of Honor, the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland," II degree, the title of Honored Builder of Russia, and departmental medals of the Ministry of Defense.

Belkov was convicted for a management decision within the framework of a state defense order. The charge of him personally receiving 48.2 million rubles was not brought in this verdict.

The Tomograph Contract: Object and Price

The story began in 2019, when Belkov headed the Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FSUE) "Main Military Construction Directorate for Special Facilities." The directorate was reconstructing the 9th Medical Diagnostic Center of the Ministry of Defense on Komsomolsky Prospekt in Moscow. The center required the supply, installation, and commissioning of a magnetic resonance tomograph.

On August 9, 2019, a contract worth approximately 121.7 million rubles was concluded. Since the procurement supported a military department facility, the investigation qualified the actions under the special composition of the Criminal Code concerning abuse of powers in the execution of a state defense order.

Medical equipment in this case is important not only as an expensive commodity. The contract price could include logistics, installation, room adaptation, commissioning, and sanctions risks. This is why comparing a single purchase price of the device with the final contract does not automatically answer whether the markup was criminal. The parties analyzed this issue through documents, a chain of intermediaries, and competing expert opinions.

Prosecution's Version: Sham Tender and 48.2 Million Rubles

According to the prosecution, Belkov organized a pre-arranged tender and ensured the victory of "Stroykhimproekt," a company led by his acquaintance Elena Lyakhovich. For this firm, the supply of medical equipment was outside its core business. The investigation believed that the competitive procedure merely created the appearance of selecting a supplier.

A chain of intermediaries then emerged. Kommersant publications described a contract with "Partner Plus," a structure linked to Lyakhovich, followed by procurement from a manufacturer's dealer. One explanation for the intermediation was that the foreign supplier did not want to directly name the Russian military department as the end recipient due to sanctions restrictions.

The final indictment featured a precise amount of damage — 48,239,478 rubles and 3 kopecks. RIA Novosti reported that the actual supplier was paid approximately 73.3 million rubles, while the GVSU contract was 121.7 million. The investigation interpreted the difference as grave consequences of the abuse.

At the same time, according to the prosecution, Lyakhovich and chief accountant Viktor Bilko appropriated the money. They were subject to separate proceedings and cooperated with the investigation. Therefore, the prosecution's scheme separated Belkov's managerial role from the financial actions of the commercial participants.

Defense Position: Market Range and Sanctions-Affected Supply

The defense responded with its own expert opinion. According to lawyer Roman Kostenko, a specialist estimated the market value of the supplied MRI in December 2019 to be in the range of 117.765 to 135 million rubles. The 121.7 million ruble contract was close to the lower end of this estimate.

Lawyers also argued that the investigation failed to establish Belkov's mercenary intent. They described the procurement as the execution of a defense order under conditions where foreign manufacturers restricted direct supplies of high-tech equipment to the Russian Ministry of Defense. From this perspective, the intermediary was not a way to extract a margin, but a way to physically obtain the device.

At the arrest hearing in July 2024, Belkov stated that decisions on state contracts were checked and approved by the military department, and alternative proposals were more expensive. He called Lyakhovich's testimony false. The court ultimately accepted the prosecution's version; a detailed written verdict should show how the defense's calculations were rejected and which expenses the court excluded from the legitimate supply price.

This is an important boundary of evidence. The verdict confirms Belkov's criminal liability in the first instance, but brief news reports do not replace the reasoning part of the decision and do not explain the methodology for calculating every ruble of damage.

Elena Lyakhovich and Viktor Bilko: Who Received the Difference

The commercial part of the case was separated earlier. Media reported that Elena Lyakhovich pleaded guilty and compensated approximately 48 million rubles. Her case was heard separately under a special procedure; in December 2024, she received a suspended sentence and a fine. Chief accountant Viktor Bilko also cooperated with the investigation and received a milder punishment.

Their testimonies became part of the evidence against the former client. Belkov's defense noted that Lyakhovich's testimony was given after her pre-trial restraint was eased, and attempted to cast doubt on its reliability. The prosecution's judicial logic, conversely, relied on the consistency of the testimonies with contracts and money movements.

The separation of proceedings created an asymmetry: commercial defendants who compensated for damages and cooperated with law enforcement received suspended sentences, while the former head of the state client received six years of real imprisonment. This does not prove the arbitrariness of the punishment but shows the price of procedural cooperation in the same episode.

Belkov's Career: From Special Facilities to the Entire VSK

Andrey Belkov was born in 1978 and received two higher education degrees — from St. Petersburg State Transport University and Pushkin Leningrad State University. The official publication of VSK indicated ten years of his leadership experience in military construction structures.

During the period of the disputed contract, he headed the GVSU for Special Facilities — a structure that worked with highly classified facilities and large orders from the Ministry of Defense. From April 2021, Belkov served as acting general director of the public law company "Military Construction Company" (VSK), and in March 2022, he was confirmed in the position.

VSK was created after the liquidation of Spetsstroy as a unified entity for the construction of housing, hospitals, airfields, arsenals, and special facilities. Belkov led the company during the period of pandemic construction projects, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the urgent erection of defensive structures. In September 2023, he resigned from VSK voluntarily and subsequently worked as an advisor in the capital construction client structure of the Ministry of Defense.

Thus, the 121.7 million ruble episode relates not to his period of leadership at VSK, but to his previous position at GVSU. However, his career advancement after the deal shows that the Ministry of Defense's internal control at the time did not consider this contract an obstacle to appointing Belkov as the head of the entire military construction vertical.

Second Case and Connection to Timur Ivanov

The tomograph case does not exhaust Belkov's criminal risks. In September 2025, TASS and Kommersant reported that he became a defendant in another case — concerning alleged embezzlement during the construction of Ministry of Defense facilities in the occupied territory of Donetsk Oblast. According to sources, the consolidated case includes five episodes, and the potential damage exceeds five billion rubles.

That proceeding named former First Deputy Minister of Construction of the so-called DNR, Yulia Mervaezova, former head of GVSU No. 8 Vadim Vygulyarny, and other military builders and entrepreneurs. Media also wrote that Belkov gave testimony against former Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov, who oversaw the construction block.

These reports cannot be attached to the tomograph verdict as proven facts. This concerns a different criminal case, a different qualification, and damages of a different scale. Until a separate court decision, Belkov and the other defendants retain the presumption of innocence regarding the new episodes.

Why the Case of One MRI is Important for the Entire System

Russian military construction combines secrecy of facilities, urgency, multi-stage approval, and a limited circle of contractors. Such a structure makes it easier to explain any markup by secrecy, sanctions, or the need to fulfill an order on time. Simultaneously, it complicates independent verification of market price and real competition.

Belkov's contract shows vulnerability at the simplest level. Formally, there was a tender, but the prosecution called it fictitious. Formally, the tomograph was supplied, but the investigation considered a significant part of the price as damage. Formally, decisions underwent approval, but responsibility was personalized to the head of GVSU and commercial intermediaries.

The main public question remains systemic: who checked the price justification in 2019, why did a company with non-core experience receive a defense order, and why did the disputed procurement not prevent Belkov's promotion? The news verdict answers who was punished but does not show what control procedures were changed after the scheme was uncovered.

What Has Been Established, and What Still Requires Verification

The court, date, and main punishment have been established; the contract value, supply object, and charge qualification are known. The investigation's version of a sham tender and calculated damages, as well as the defense's opposing market valuation, have been published. Reports from several publications confirm the admission of guilt in the final statement.

The full text of the verdict, with an assessment of expert opinions and testimonies, has not been published. It is unknown whether the decision will be appealed and what formulations will remain after an appeal. Belkov should also not be called the recipient of 48.2 million: available materials attribute the appropriation of the difference to commercial defendants, and his responsibility to abuse of power.

Separately, there remains the second case concerning construction in Donetsk Oblast. The sum of over five billion rubles is unrelated to the tomograph's price and is not included in the verdict issued on August 25. Conflating the two proceedings creates a sensational headline but undermines legal accuracy.

Conclusion: Six Years for a Decision Made Before Promotion

Andrey Belkov received six years for a contract that was concluded two years before he headed the Military Construction Company. Between the deal and his arrest, the state managed to promote him, award him, and entrust him with the central construction structure of the Ministry of Defense.

The prosecution's version boils down to a controlled tender and an intermediary markup of 48.2 million rubles. The defense's version points to a legitimate sanctions-affected supply at a price within the market range. The court of first instance sided with the prosecution, and Belkov's later admission became the final procedural turn.

The verdict closed a specific episode but did not publicly explain the workings of a system that first overlooked a questionable contract and then promoted its signatory to the top. Therefore, the tomograph case is not just the story of one device. It is an X-ray of military construction, where accountability emerges years later, and control mechanisms remain behind closed doors.