Nadraga Vitaly Vladimirovich

Biography

2021: Detained

Vitaly Nadraga was detained in February 2021. Initially, the case was initiated on the fact of fraudulent theft of budget funds (part 4 of article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) in the implementation of a state contract for the provision of services for the creation and maintenance of software for managing the affairs of the President of the Russian Federation. However, the investigation considered the theft unproven, and Nadraga's actions were retrained as abuse of office.

2022: Sentenced to 5 years in prison for abuse in service

In September 2022, the ex-head of the information and communications department of the Presidential Affairs Department (UDP) Vitaly Nadraga was sentenced to 5 years in prison for abuse in the service, due to which the state budget suffered damage in the amount of 27 million rubles. He did not admit his own.

The Meshchansky District Court found Vitaly Nadraga guilty of abuse of power in the execution of state supply contracts in 2018, which entailed grave consequences. software The contractor for this project was the company IBS "Expertise"." The economic security operatives who conducted the check FSB considered that the programs were not working, and the 27 million rubles allocated for them were stolen.

Vitaliy Vladimirovich Nadraga

During the debate of the parties, the state prosecutor asked to sentence him to six years in prison and satisfy the civil claim of the UDP recognized by the injured party for compensation for damage in the amount of 27 million rubles. This amount was arrested on the account of the company - the supplier of software "IBS Expertise," which, according to the prosecutor's office, should compensate for losses to the state institution together with the convicted person.

According to Kommersant, Vitaly Nadraga argued that the experts on whose conclusions the prosecution was based simply did not understand the essence of the UDP contracts. According to his defense, one contract was really not fulfilled, since the company did not provide bank guarantees, but under the other contract concluded instead, all work was completed, and the UDP structures still use the installed software. However, despite the claims of lawyers to the quality of the examination, the court did not appoint a new one, the newspaper notes.^[1]

Notes