AJ
Law enforcement in Kremenchuck, Poltava region, are investigating a possible case of file manipulations within the “Oberig” military registry.
The court has seized an iPhone 16 Pro of an official from the TCC and the Joint Venture in the case of unauthorised changes to the data of a conscript and removing the data from the wanted list, while also checking information about family ties between the conscript and one of the TCC employees.
According to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, the investigation found that in 2024, information was automatically entered into the Oberig registry about one of the conscripts being wanted for failing to appear for a summons.
However, changes were made to the data in the registry within a few days, cancelling the wanted status, indicating the reason for ‘granting the person a deferment/reservation.”
At the same time, according to the investigation materials, the man was outside Ukraine during this period and couldn’t appear in person to complete the relevant documents.
During the investigation, witnesses were questioned who reported that various employees of the TCC and Joint Venture had access to the manager’s electronic key, and the password was stored in an accessible place.
Investigators are also checking information about family ties between the conscript and one of the employees of the TCC and the Joint Venture, because according to the information from the State Register of Civil Status Acts, there is a family tie between them – they are brother and sister – and this may indicate a possible conspiracy when making the changes.
On February 10, 2026, based on the ruling of the investigating judge of the Avtozavodsky District Court of Kremenchuk, a search was conducted at the residence of one of the defendants in the case.
Law enforcement officers seized an iPhone 16 Pro mobile phone which, according to the investigation, could have been used to access the registry or communicate about making changes.
The Prosecutor’s Office filed a motion with the court to seize the property in order to preserve physical evidence – the court ruled to seize the device by prohibiting its alienation and disposal, but without depriving the owner of the right to use it.
