Addendum to the appellate appeal

By the verdict of the Southern District Military Court of November 27, 2025, I was convicted under para. "b" of Part 3 of Art. 205 of the Criminal Code (CC) and Part 4 of Art. 222.1 of the CC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of 500,000 rubles, with joint and several recovery from me of damages exceeding 7 billion rubles.

I filed an appellate appeal against that verdict within the prescribed time limit. After it was filed, my defense and I additionally studied the transcripts of the court hearings and the materials of the court volumes of the case (vols. 124–137) and cross-compared the evidence examined at the judicial investigation. Under Part 4 of Art. 389.8 of the CPC, I submit the following addendum to the previously filed appellate appeal.

I. WHAT HAS BEEN RELIABLY ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE BY THE PROSECUTION'S OWN EVIDENCE

Before turning to the violations, I consider it necessary to record the paradox of this case. The body of evidence gathered by the investigation itself and examined by the court reliably establishes the following:

IT IS ESTABLISHED that I neither knew nor communicated with any of the participants in the crime. The itemized records of all my telephone connections (vol. 63, case sheets 205–209) contain not a single contact with any of the convicted persons or with any of the "other persons." Not one of the dozens of persons questioned in the case — defendants, witnesses, victims — testified that they knew me, had seen me, had communicated with me, had given me instructions, or had handed me money. Not a single letter, message, call, meeting, or intermediary has been established — not a single point of contact between me and any of the persons involved over all those years.

IT IS ESTABLISHED that I was technically unable to provide a specific number to a specific person. This is confirmed by the testimony of prosecution witness Krupenkov A.V. — administrator of the website of Onlinesim LLC (vol. 77, case sheets 4–10, 47–49): "the Company's website system issues the client a random first available virtual number"; by the written response of Onlinesim LLC of August 20, 2025 ("Onlinesim clients have absolutely no ability to obtain a specific number through this company's service"); by expert report No. 920-7-77-72 of June 13, 2024 by expert Sokolov A.A. of ANO EKTs SUDTEKHEXPERT ("a partner (reseller) of Onlinesim LLC cannot influence the issuance of telephone numbers to the company's client… the sale/provision of telephone numbers to clients occurs at random… and is not subject to change or influence by partners"); by specialist report No. 1280-13-77-141 of August 28, 2025 by specialist Sokolov A.A.; and by the protocol of inspection of the website "onlinesim.ru" conducted by the investigator himself with my participation as early as December 15, 2022 (vol. 106, case sheets 126–158). Finally, the court itself recognized this fact as established, stating on pages 215–216 of the verdict that the information that "Tyazhelykh D.V. could not influence the issuance of a specific number to a specific client of the Onlinesim service" is consistent with the response of Onlinesim LLC.

IT IS ESTABLISHED that I did not provide a specific number to a specific client of the Onlinesim LLC service: in his resolution of December 27, 2023 (vol. 51, case sheets 147–149), senior investigator Kunistin M.A. stated: "The investigative actions and forensic expert examinations carried out in the course of the investigation reliably established that the defendant Tyazhelykh D.V. leased to the Onlinesim LLC service a SIM card with the subscriber number '79280451205'..., subsequently rented by an unidentified user of the Onlinesim LLC service."

IT IS ESTABLISHED that I neither knew nor could have known either the renter of the number or the purposes for which the number was used. In his interrogation of October 23, 2022 (vol. 77, case sheets 4–10), prosecution witness Krupenkov A.V. testified verbatim:

"The LLC does not disclose data about its clients to its partners; that is, Tyazhelykh D.V. does not know any information about the person who used this number. Nor does Tyazhelykh D.V. know how or for what purpose the said number was used."

This is a specific, unambiguous statement by the key prosecution witness that I had no awareness of the renter of the number.

IT IS ESTABLISHED that the rental event was statistically random. According to the response of Onlinesim LLC of August 20, 2025, on October 5, 2022 alone, 72 partners of the company sold 976 numbers for registration in Telegram; through my account — 4 numbers, that is, about 0.4%.

IT IS ESTABLISHED that my activity was mass-scale and routine in nature and objectively precluded individual control of numbers. According to the response of Onlinesim LLC of April 30, 2024, attached by the court on August 21, 2025 (court vol. 132, case sheets 218–219), I have been registered as a partner of the company since November 2, 2018; through my four accounts the company sold a total of 54,249 numbers (22,900 + 24,892 + 4,106 + 2,351). Moreover, sales of numbers through my accounts continued automatically even after my arrest on October 14, 2022 — up until January 9, 2023, that is, during the period when I was in custody and physically unable to operate the equipment. This objectively confirms that numbers were issued automatically by the service, without my involvement.

IT IS ESTABLISHED that the number's role was exhausted by receiving a single SMS within approximately 20 minutes. According to Krupenkov A.V.: "Approximately 20 minutes after the activation of the number, the operation with the said number was completed, and the client lost the ability to receive SMS messages to the said number or to use it at all." After registration, the Telegram account exists autonomously and is controlled exclusively by its owner.

IT IS ESTABLISHED that my activity was long-standing, mass-scale, and open. Since February 11, 2011, I have been registered as an individual entrepreneur (IE "Tyazhelykh Dmitry Viktorovich," TIN 482304770529); I was a partner of Onlinesim LLC since 2018; during the search of October 9, 2022, 11 operating GSM gateways with a capacity of 32 SIM cards each were recorded in my apartment — that is, simultaneous servicing of about 350 numbers (vol. 106, case sheets 6–18); in total, over the years of operation, tens of thousands of numbers were provided through my equipment. The equipment was purchased openly through Avito (stickers of the Russian seller "GOIP-PRO.RU"), operated in my apartment, over the internet under a contract in my name, under accounts with my real name and the email "dmitriy1384."

IT IS ESTABLISHED that my conduct before, during, and after the terrorist attack contained not a single sign of involvement. After the explosion of October 8, 2022, I destroyed neither equipment, nor data, nor "that very" SIM card — it was seized on October 9, 2022 in slot No. 32 of an openly operating gateway. The search protocol of October 9, 2022 (vol. 106, case sheets 6–18; the search was conducted from 10:38 to 14:20 with the participation of two attesting witnesses and an FSB Directorate specialist) records verbatim: the items were "surrendered voluntarily"; I myself handed over the SIM card, the GSM gateway, my laptop, and my mobile phone, provided the phone password, myself pointed out that the phone contained correspondence about the purchase of SIM cards, and explained that the laptop contained information about working with the rental service; the protocol's closing entry: "No other objects or documents of evidentiary significance for the criminal case were found during the search." On the same day I gave detailed testimony as a witness (vol. 106, case sheets 54–59), voluntarily disclosing my entire working scheme. I was detained only on October 14, 2022, appearing on my own in response to a call from an FSB officer (detention protocol — vol. 106, case sheets 68–71).

IT IS ESTABLISHED that the "conspiratorial purpose" imputed to me (ensuring the subscriber's anonymity and unidentifiability) was not and could not have been achieved by providing the number. The convicted persons (Zlob V.V., Antipov O.A.) accessed this number over ordinary cellular service, openly, from their own phones, leaving traces in the itemized records; in parallel, "Ivan Ivanovich" also used an ordinary GSM number 8-906-625-25-98 (registered to Andreichenko S.V.) to communicate with accomplices — and despite this was never identified; while the chain of the service's "anonymous" client (IP address, device, email, payment) was uncovered by the investigation within two weeks — by the seizures from Krupenkov A.V. on October 23 and 27, 2022 (vol. 77, case sheets 14–17, 53–56). The "awareness" attributed to me that the number provided communication "without displaying information about the subscriber's location" is technically incorrect: voice calls through a virtual number are impossible, and after registration the Telegram account operates autonomously from the SIM card.

IT IS ESTABLISHED that a psychophysiological examination using a polygraph was conducted with respect to me, after which the certificate of its results was segregated from this case into another criminal case (in detail — Section IX of this addendum).

Thus, by the time the verdict was rendered, the case contained a coherent body of evidence — coming predominantly from the prosecution — establishing my lack of acquaintance with the accomplices, the technical impossibility of the imputed act, my lack of awareness of the client and the purposes, the randomness of the event, and conduct incompatible with guilt. In defiance of this body of evidence, of logic, and of common sense, the court rendered a guilty verdict, each key finding of which, as shown below, is an assumption unsupported by a single piece of evidence. Yet a guilty verdict may not be based on assumptions (Part 4 of Art. 14, Part 4 of Art. 302 of the CPC); all irremovable doubts are construed in favor of the accused (Part 3 of Art. 14 of the CPC, Art. 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation); and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution (Part 2 of Art. 14 of the CPC).

II. EVERY KEY FINDING OF THE VERDICT IS AN ASSUMPTION (Part 4 of Art. 14, Part 4 of Art. 302 of the CPC; para. 17 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 55 of November 29, 2016)

2.1. First assumption: "was engaged in advance"

The court stated in the verdict that in order to exclude the possibility of the account being blocked, "the organizers engaged Tyazhelykh D.V. in the criminal group in advance." The court neither established nor cited a single piece of evidence: by whom I was engaged (not a single person in the case had contact with me); when (what date, what period); by what means (orally, in writing, through an intermediary — the case contains not a single trace of communication); on what terms (what I was promised, how my consent was expressed). The circumstances of a person's involvement in a crime form part of the subject matter of proof (paras. 1, 2 of Part 1 of Art. 73 of the CPC). A finding of "engagement" resting on no evidence whatsoever is an assumption in its purest form.

2.2. Second assumption: recruitment inferred from failure to file tax reports

On pages 214–215 of the verdict, the court applied a single template to all defendants: each "was merely creating the appearance of a law-abiding citizen" because he engaged in entrepreneurial activity without registering it and reporting — "in view of which they were engaged by the organizers in the organized group." Thereby the court derived the fact of each defendant's recruitment from the fact of incomplete tax reporting. Such an inference: (a) is not evidence within the meaning of Art. 74 of the CPC; (b) is irrelevant (Art. 88 of the CPC) — failure to declare income constitutes at most a tax or administrative offense (Art. 119, 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) and has no logical connection whatsoever with intent to commit a terrorist act; (c) is factually untrue as regards me — I have been registered as an individual entrepreneur since February 11, 2011 (TIN 482304770529), conducted my activity openly, under my own name, from my own apartment, under a contract with Onlinesim LLC; (d) substitutes a character assessment for evidence, which is expressly prohibited (Art. 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; para. 6 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 55 of November 29, 2016).

2.3. Third assumption: attributing specialized knowledge to me

The state prosecution formulated my "intent" as follows: "By virtue of the specifics of the operation of the Onlinesim service… functioning in conditions of insufficient legislative regulation of communications security, Tyazhelykh D.V. was aware that in a digitalized society… he was providing one of the accomplices with conspiratorial communication without the possibility of subsequent de-anonymization by law enforcement agencies of the actual user and determination of his location."

I am thus attributed knowledge of: anonymization mechanisms in messengers, gaps in the legislative regulation of communications, and — most tellingly — the capabilities and limits of de-anonymization available to law enforcement agencies, that is, in effect, specialized knowledge in the field of operational-search activity. At the same time:

— my education is secondary vocational, electric and gas welder (introductory part of the verdict); it has no relation to either information technology or communications;

— all questioned witnesses from my circle gave the same answer to the investigation's direct question: they do not know what technical knowledge and skills, including regarding the operation of cellular networks, Tyazhelykh D.V. possesses;

— the case contains not a single document, expert examination, correspondence, or testimony confirming that I possess such knowledge; my own testimony — I worked according to the service's instructions;

— the construct "was aware by virtue of the specifics of the service's operation" derives my knowledge not from evidence about me, but from the properties of someone else's software product. By this logic, the same "awareness" should have been imputed to all 72 partners of the service working on October 5, 2022, to all telecom operators and messenger developers. Knowledge attributed to a person without evidence that he possesses it is nothing other than an assumption.

2.4. Fourth assumption: refusal to establish the mechanism of the conspiracy

On page 216 of the verdict the court noted: "…the manner in which a member of the organized group was provided with the information that, when registering the account… it was precisely the SIM card physically held by his accomplice Tyazhelykh D.V. that was used, has no legal significance." The question "in what manner" is precisely the question of the mechanism of the conspiracy: without an answer to it, it is impossible to establish awareness, coordination, or distribution of roles (paras. 1, 2 of Part 1 of Art. 73 of the CPC; Part 3 of Art. 35 of the CC). By declaring an element of the subject matter of proof "legally irrelevant," the court relieved the prosecution of the burden of proving the subjective element — contrary to Part 2 of Art. 14 of the CPC and the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (ruling No. 2300-O of October 27, 2015), according to which the subjective element must be established as a matter of obligation and cannot be presumed.

2.5. Fifth assumption: rejection of the statement by the organizer of the terrorist attack through the court's own reasoning

The case materials (vol. 107, case sheets 83–87) contain information about a public statement by the head of the SBU, Malyuk V.V. — a person against whom a resolution to bring charges as the organizer of the terrorist attack has been issued — that the Ukrainian special services used Russians "in the dark," that is, without disclosing to them the nature and purposes of their actions. The court rejected this defense evidence not by verifying it (Art. 87 of the CPC), but through its own reasoning about how special services are "customarily" supposed to act and what might have motivated such a statement. The court's reasoning about the motives of a foreign official is not evidence but conjecture; rejecting evidence by conjecture means that the defense's argument on the merits was left unverified and unevaluated (Art. 87, 88, 307 of the CPC). Moreover, the selectivity in evaluating one and the same source is recorded in the indictment itself: the technical information from Malyuk V.V.'s interview (about the placement of the IED, the camouflage, the route) was recognized by the investigation as information that "is confirmed by other evidence in the criminal case and does not contradict it," whereas "the statements of Malyuk V.V. about the non-involvement of Ukraine's foreign partners in carrying out the terrorist attack and the SBU's use "in the dark" of persons who are "ordinary Russian smugglers," subsequently brought to criminal responsibility within the framework of this criminal case, the investigation assesses critically, regarding them as an attempt to mislead the investigation in order to rehabilitate the persons who took direct part in delivering the IED to the Crimean Bridge for the bombing" (inspection of May 30, 2023 — vol. 55, case sheets 32–40). In the video examined by the investigation, Malyuk V.V. stated verbatim: "We went through seven circles of hell, we used so many people in the dark! The Russians "closed" 22 people — put them in prison. They are all charged with complicity in a terrorist act. Although in reality they were engaged in their habitual, everyday business. These were ordinary Russian smugglers" (ibid.). Thus, statements by one and the same person in one and the same interview: those favorable to the prosecution were accepted without verification as reliable, while those exonerating the convicted persons were rejected as "misleading," without any verification and without indicating which specific evidence they contradict. This is a direct violation of the unity of standards for evaluating evidence (Art. 17, 87, 88 of the CPC). The same selective approach to one and the same source was reproduced by the court of first instance. The verdict names Malyuk V.V. as the organizer of the terrorist attack — on the basis of information drawn from that same public video address (page 204 of the verdict); that is, the court believed this person's statement about his own role as organizer without any verification. At the same time, statements by the same person from the same source that exonerate the defendants were rejected by the court, motivated literally as follows: "Evaluating the information contained in the above-mentioned evidence that SBU head Malyuk stated the defendants' non-involvement in the commission of the acts imputed to them, the court rejects it, as it finds it contradictory to the totality of the evidence presented in the verdict and given in order to help the defendants avoid responsibility for their deeds" (pages 216–217 of the verdict). Instead of verifying this information, the court confined itself to speculative reasoning "first… second…": allegedly, had Malyuk disclosed details, "he would in fact have revealed the forms and methods of work of SBU officers" and they "could have deterred potential "agents"," and in support a different statement by Malyuk is cited: "The Russians are conducting a pseudo-investigation of the situation that occurred with the Crimean Bridge… So we would rather keep an eye on this" (ibid.). Thus, the court: (1) accepted without verification as reliable the part of Malyuk V.V.'s statements convenient to the prosecution (the organizer role); (2) rejected another part of the same person's statements from the same source (the use of people "in the dark," "ordinary Russian smugglers") without specifying exactly which evidence it contradicts, replacing verification with reasoning about expediency; (3) in effect adopted the position of the head of the special service of a foreign state in a state of armed conflict with the Russian Federation as grounds for rejecting exonerating arguments. The unified standard for evaluating evidence prescribed by Art. 17, 87, 88 of the CPC was violated by the court; the doubts arising from Malyuk V.V.'s unverified statements should have been construed in favor of the convicted persons (Art. 14 of the CPC, para. 3 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 29 of June 30, 2015).

Thus, the court's logic of my guilt rests not on evidence but on five consecutive assumptions. Under para. 17 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 55 of November 29, 2016, a guilty verdict may be rendered only on reliable evidence, where all arising versions have been examined in the case and the existing contradictions have been clarified and evaluated. In this case, the prosecution's version is not confirmed, the defense's version is not refuted, and the contradictions are not resolved — in such circumstances the law (Part 3 of Art. 14 of the CPC, Art. 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) required that all doubts be construed in my favor: if guilt is not proven beyond dispute, the court is obliged to acquit, not to fill in the missing links with assumptions.

III. THE COURT EXCEEDING THE SCOPE OF THE CHARGES BROUGHT — AN INDEPENDENT AND UNCONDITIONAL GROUND FOR REVERSAL (Art. 252, para. 2 of Part 1 of Art. 389.15, Art. 389.17 of the CPC)

3.1. What I was charged with and what the court imputed

According to the charges brought, I "provided an unidentified accomplice under the alias 'Ivan Ivanovich,' under the guise of rental, with the telephone subscriber number 8-928-045-12-05… for registration of an account in the instant messaging service 'Telegram' and its use by means of voice calls for covert monitoring of the movement of the cargo with the IED." Thus, the imputed act is the active provision of the number for registration of the account, while the voice calls, according to the prosecution's version, were subsequently made by means of the registered account itself by its user — without any involvement on my part.

Having established at the judicial investigation that targeted provision of the number is technically impossible (and having acknowledged this on pages 215–216 of the verdict), the court did not acquit me but independently constructed a new role: under the verdict, "a person having physical access to the corresponding SIM card could log into the created Telegram account and then record all the information displayed in it, or block it altogether," and "it was precisely to exclude such a possibility that the organizers engaged Tyazhelykh D.V. in the criminal group in advance" (page 216 of the verdict; original spelling).

3.2. Why these are different acts

"Provision of the number for registration" and "retention of the SIM card after registration" differ in every element of the corpus delicti: in the objective element (an active act of transfer versus passive storage of an object); in the subjective element (intent to ensure a one-time registration versus intent to ensure the long-term preservation of the account); in time (the moment of registration on October 5, 2022 versus an indefinite subsequent period); in the subject matter (the subscriber number as a service versus the SIM card as a physical object). I spent three years defending against the charge of "provision"; the charge of "retention" was never brought against me, and I had no opportunity to defend against it.

Article 252 of the CPC permits a change of charges during trial only on condition that this does not worsen the defendant's position and does not violate his right to defense. Under para. 20 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 51 of December 19, 2017, a charge is recognized as substantially different from the one brought, in particular, where it includes other acts or other factual circumstances, if this violates the defendant's right to defense. Conviction for an act that was never charged is a substantial violation of criminal procedure law entailing reversal of the verdict (Art. 389.17 of the CPC).

3.3. The "retention" theory is also refuted on the facts

The court's construct is untenable on the merits as well:

(a) during the period from October 5, 2022 to October 9, 2022, according to the itemized records (vol. 61, case sheets 33–44), not a single SMS arrived at the number — not a single re-login code, not a single confirmation request; "retention of the SIM for future codes" remained an abstraction unsupported by a single event;

(b) the role of "retaining the SIM card" attributed to me is a version first formulated by the court itself in the verdict and absent from the indictment. The court built it on the following reasoning: "after registration of the Telegram account by means of the subscriber number of a partner (reseller) of the Onlinesim service, a person having physical access to the corresponding SIM card could log into the created Telegram account and then record all the information displayed in it, or block it altogether. It was precisely to exclude such a possibility that the organizers engaged Tyazhelykh D.V. in the criminal group in advance" (page 216 of the verdict). This construct is refuted by the factual circumstances of the case. The SIM card with number 79280451205 was not secretly retained, was not stored separately, and was not in any way guarded to ensure its "uninterrupted operation and safekeeping": it was installed in slot No. 32 of an openly operating GSM gateway together with dozens of other SIM cards, connected to the server of Onlinesim LLC, and remained in the general circulation of the service. From the moment of the account's registration (October 5, 2022) until the SIM card's seizure during the search (October 9, 2022), round-the-clock access to it through the service was available both to Onlinesim LLC itself and to any of its clients: it was through this very service that on October 5, 2022 an unidentified person received the SMS code for registration of the account. Thus, the very purpose the court attributed to my "engagement" — excluding access by third parties to the SIM card — was objectively not achieved and could not have been achieved: physical and technical access to the card throughout the said period was available to an unlimited circle of persons. The fact established by the case materials completely contradicts the version advanced by the court, which is therefore not a conclusion from the evidence but an assumption invented to replace the collapsed charge (Art. 14, 17, 87, 88 of the CPC; para. 3 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 29 of June 30, 2015);

(c) the very framing of "protecting the account by retaining the SIM card" contradicts the established operating procedure of the service: a partner's SIM cards are in the service's circulation, not at the individual disposal of a specific client. If necessary, account protection is achieved by setting a login password, for which neither receipt of a new SMS with a code nor, all the more so, engaging anyone to "retain the SIM card" is required. Moreover, when attempting to log back into the account, the confirmation code is sent to the Telegram application itself (to the active session), not to the subscriber number. Accordingly, "retaining" the SIM card is a meaningless act incapable of achieving the purpose attributed to it;

IV. DISTORTION AND DISREGARD OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT (Art. 87, 88, 297, 305, 307 of the CPC; paras. 6, 8 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 55 of November 29, 2016)

4.1. The exculpatory part was removed from the testimony of prosecution witness Krupenkov A.V. when reproduced in the verdict

In the interrogation of October 23, 2022 (vol. 77, case sheets 4–10), witness Krupenkov A.V. testified: "The LLC does not disclose data about its clients to its partners; that is, Tyazhelykh D.V. does not know any information about the person who used this number. Nor does Tyazhelykh D.V. know how or for what purpose the said number was used." This is direct evidence of my lack of awareness — the central element of the subjective side.

In the verdict, Krupenkov A.V.'s testimony is reproduced in detail (the service's operating mechanism, the client's data, the payment, the code), yet precisely this exculpatory part is omitted in its entirety and received no evaluation. Under Art. 307 of the CPC and para. 8 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 55 of November 29, 2016, the court is obliged to state the motives for which it rejected evidence contradicting its findings. Selective reproduction of a witness's testimony — with removal of its exculpatory part — constitutes a distortion of evidence and deprives the verdict of the quality of reasonedness (Art. 297 of the CPC).

4.2. The sole meaning of the imputed act — ensuring the subscriber's anonymity and unidentifiability — is directly refuted by the case materials

The essence of the charge brought against me lies not in the very fact of providing the number, but in its purpose. According to the indictment, I provided the number to an unidentified accomplice under the alias "Ivan Ivanovich" for registration of a Telegram account and its use, "being aware that I was providing the ability to conspiratorially, without displaying information about the subscriber's location and the subscriber number's registration with a mobile operator, anonymously coordinate the criminal actions of the accomplices in the terrorist act" (vol. 79). Thus, my entire imputed contribution — and the entire imputed intent — boil down to one single property: that I allegedly ensured the accomplice's anonymity and the impossibility of his identification by law enforcement agencies. This property is the core of the charge; without it, the provision of the number constitutes neither the objective element of complicity in terrorism nor the corresponding intent.

Yet this single property is directly refuted by the evidence gathered by the investigation itself and examined by the court.

(a) The provided number did not conceal but exposed the persons who used it. According to the itemized records for subscriber number 8-928-045-12-05 (vol. 61, case sheets 33–44), examined at the court hearing, the convicted persons accessed this number over ordinary cellular service, from their own phones, openly: on October 6, 2022, from 10:17 to 13:27, Zlob V.V. made outgoing calls to it from Simferopol; on October 8, 2022, from 12:27 to 12:32, Antipov O.A. made the same kind of calls from St. Petersburg. Every such connection is by definition recorded by the telecom operator with indication of the subscriber, the time, and the base station — and it was precisely these connection traces that were found in the itemized records. In other words, accessing the "conspiratorial" number provided the accomplices with neither anonymity nor concealment of location — on the contrary, it left direct evidence of their calls. The property for the sake of which I was, according to the prosecution, "engaged in the group" did not in reality exist: the number did not and could not perform the function of concealing subscribers attributed to it.

(b) The unidentifiability of "Ivan Ivanovich" is not connected with my number. The same charge establishes that "Ivan Ivanovich" in parallel, on the very same days, also used an ordinary GSM number 8-906-625-25-98 (PJSC VimpelCom, registered to accomplice Andreichenko S.V. — vol. 79) to communicate with accomplices. Despite the use of this second, ordinary number, the identity of "Ivan Ivanovich" was never established by the investigative authorities. This proves that the unidentifiability of this person was ensured not by the technical properties of the number provided by the Onlinesim LLC service, but by an entirely different circumstance — the person's own presence beyond the reach of the investigating authorities. Consequently, the "indispensable" role attributed to me in ensuring anonymity is absent both as a fact and logically: the same (null for the investigation) result was achieved by an ordinary SIM card registered to another person.

(c) The "awareness" attributed to me is technically incorrect in substance. The charge imputes to me awareness that the provided number ensures communication "without displaying information about the subscriber's location and the subscriber number's registration with a mobile operator." This assertion, however, is technically incorrect: as prosecution witness Krupenkov A.V. himself testified (vol. 77, case sheets 4–10), a virtual number is intended exclusively for receiving a single SMS within 15–20 minutes, after which the client's access to it ceases; voice calls through such a number are impossible. After registration, the Telegram account functions autonomously from the physical SIM card and is controlled exclusively by its owner; neither the mere presence of the SIM card in my equipment nor my partnership activity creates or could create "anonymity of coordination" through a messenger. It is impossible to be aware of a nonexistent property; imputing such "awareness" is an assumption (Part 4 of Art. 14 of the CPC).

(d) The court gave no evaluation of this contradiction. The verdict reproduces verbatim the prosecution's thesis of "anonymous coordination" but nowhere compares it either with the actual — open, over cellular service — access to the number by the accomplices, or with the same person's possession of a second, ordinary number, or with the technical impossibility of the attributed property. Thereby the central incriminating assertion was accepted without any verification, contrary to the direct requirement of Art. 87 of the CPC to verify evidence by comparing it with other evidence. An unresolved contradiction at the very foundation of the charge was construed against me — in violation of Part 3 of Art. 14 of the CPC.

4.3. Two inspection protocols of one and the same itemized record contain opposite information

According to the protocol of inspection of objects of March 28, 2023 (vol. 61, case sheets 33–44), the itemized call records for subscriber number 79280451205 contain no information about calls or connections with the subscriber number of Zlob V.V. (79786643725). According to the protocol of additional inspection of the same objects of September 15, 2023, the same connections (three calls on October 6, 2022) are present. One and the same source document, upon two inspections, yielded mutually exclusive results. The defense's motion to declare this evidence inadmissible was denied by the court without resolving the contradiction (procedural decision of October 8, 2025). Yet the reliability of the itemized records is the foundation of the entire evidentiary construction regarding connections between the persons involved; a contradiction in it required verification under Art. 87 of the CPC (comparison with the primary source — the operator's data), which was never carried out.

4.4. No evaluation was given to the absence in the number's itemized records of the SMS message of October 5, 2022

According to the prosecution's version, on October 5, 2022 the SMS message "Telegram code: 62033" arrived at number 79280451205 (vol. 77, case sheets 14–26). The operator's itemized records for the number for October 5, 2022 do not reflect such a message. This means one of two things: either the records are incomplete (which undermines their reliability as a whole — see para. 4.3), or the registration of the account is connected with a different event or time. This argument was raised by the defense; in the verdict it is neither reproduced nor evaluated (violation of para. 2 of Art. 307 of the CPC). Moreover, the SMS message found in the gateway's internal memory is objectively undatable: both computer-technical expert examinations (No. SETs 113/3-739/22 — vol. 42, case sheets 107–132, and No. SETs 113/3-306/23 — vol. 42, case sheets 141–154) record that the gateway's internal clock was not set — the device's local time was displayed as "1970-01-01," that is, the timestamps in the gateway's memory do not correspond to real time and cannot tie the message to October 5, 2022.

4.5. The contradiction between the indictment and the investigator's resolution in the same case has not been resolved

The resolution of senior investigator Kunistin M.A. of December 27, 2023 (vol. 51, case sheets 147–149) states: "the defendant Tyazhelykh D.V. leased a SIM card to the Onlinesim LLC service… subsequently rented by an unidentified user of the Onlinesim LLC service." This formula — "leased to the company; rented by an unidentified user" — directly contradicts the prosecution's narrative "provided to an unidentified accomplice under the alias 'Ivan Ivanovich.'" The contradiction between procedural documents of one and the same investigation on the central fact of the case was resolved neither by the investigation nor by the court and is not mentioned in the verdict.

4.6. The charge describes the wrong equipment

In the indictment, the process of a partner's work with the service is described with reference to a GSM gateway, whereas what was seized from me is a GoIP GSM gateway — devices with different technical characteristics and functionality, as confirmed by the responses of Onlinesim LLC of August 16, 2023 and September 11, 2023 contained in the case materials. An incorrect description of the manner of committing the act violates para. 3 of Part 1 of Art. 220 of the CPC. It is telling that the prosecution's failure to understand the technical side persisted at the judicial investigation as well: during my interrogation the state prosecutor asked questions about a "mobile proxies" tab, which has no relation to the charges brought, and about configuring satellite antennas — even though the defense's motions to engage a specialist to clarify precisely these technical questions were consistently denied.

V. THE VIDEO RECORDING "2_5334775644251235518.mp4": INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE BEARING SIGNS OF FABRICATION (Art. 75, 87, 88, 204 of the CPC; Art. 8, 25 of Federal Law No. 73; para. 19 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 28 of December 21, 2010)

To prove the subjective element, the prosecution relied on a video recording allegedly found in my phone — a satirical clip in which a singer, against the backdrop of the destroyed Crimean Bridge, performs the song "Happy Birthday, Mr. President." This evidence is inadmissible on a combination of grounds.

5.1. The expert examination and the inspection protocol lack the mandatory information about the file

Computer-technical expert examination No. SETs 113/3-739/22 (expert Redina A.A., commenced January 27, 2023, completed February 21, 2023 (the examination was conducted for nearly a month), vol. 42, case sheets 107–132) was conducted on questions of the kind "whether the media contain video files" — that is, the expert was not asked at all about the origin, dates, or manner in which the files appeared. In the inspection of objects of April 21, 2023 (vol. 60, case sheets 167–182), investigator Shastik M.A. confined himself to stating that a video recording was found in the "Video" tab — and, as the defense stated expressly at the court hearing, "this inspection protocol contains no information about the date of downloading, creation, or modification of the video clip, its location on the phone, or any description of how this video clip ended up in the memory of the mobile phone."

Yet an expert's report must contain the substance and results of the examinations with indication of the methods applied and the substantiation of the conclusions (paras. 9, 10 of Part 1 of Art. 204 of the CPC), and must be based on provisions allowing the validity and reliability of the conclusions to be verified (Art. 8 of Federal Law No. 73-FZ of May 31, 2001 "On State Forensic Expert Activity"); an inspection protocol must record everything found in the form in which it was found (Art. 166, 180 of the CPC). In the case of a digital video file, verifiability is ensured by recording: the full path of the file's location in the file system; the file's name and size; time attributes — creation, modification, last access; checksums (hash values) of the file and of the carrier image (without which it is impossible to confirm the image's invariability after its creation); the file's status (active, deleted, recovered); the parent directory indicating the source of appearance (downloads folder, messenger cache, camera folder, etc.); the software tool applied. Not one of these parameters is recorded in the case. Evidence whose origin and attributes have fundamentally not been established does not meet the requirements of verifiability and reliability and cannot be made the basis of a verdict (para. 19 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 28 of December 21, 2010 "On Forensic Expert Examinations in Criminal Cases").

5.2. The video recording is not on the device itself — it is present only in the image

Upon direct inspection of the mobile phone at the court hearing, the video recording was not found on the device: defense counsel Dubrovin A.A. stated, and the court recorded, that "during the inspection of the contents of the mobile phone, the video recording referred to by the expert in his report was not found" (court hearing transcript). The video recording appears exclusively in the image of the phone on an external SEAGATE drive (appendix to the expert examination), created more than four months after the device's seizure (the phone was seized on October 9, 2022; the image was created by February 21, 2023) and kept all this time beyond the defense's control. The discrepancy between the contents of the actual device (no recording) and the contents of the image (recording present), in the absence of hash values for the image, makes verification of the evidence's integrity impossible (Art. 87 of the CPC) and gives rise to irremovable doubts as to its reliability (Part 3 of Art. 14, Art. 88 of the CPC).

5.3. The video recording could not in principle have come into existence before the terrorist attack, and the phone was seized the next day

The clip by its content shows the already destroyed Crimean Bridge — consequently, it physically could not have existed earlier than October 8, 2022 (the date of the explosion). The phone was seized on October 9, 2022 during the search (vol. 106, case sheets 6–18) and, as I have consistently explained, was not used by me for several days before the search (it was switched off), and there was no SIM card in it (it worked over Wi-Fi). Even if the file's authenticity had been proven (and it has not been), its presence could not testify to awareness of the impending terrorist attack before its commission — that is, of the very circumstance for the sake of which the evidence was presented. The file's very name ("2_5334775644251235518.mp4") corresponds to the automatic naming of media files received (including by auto-download, without user action) in a messenger, not created or knowingly saved by the owner.

5.4. A repeat expert examination to establish these circumstances was refused

The defense expressly moved for an expert examination to establish the origin, dates, and manner of the video file's appearance and for the inspection protocol of April 21, 2023 to be declared inadmissible evidence (motions of October 8, 2025, citing Art. 75, 87, 88 of the CPC). The court refused. Thereby the prosecution used evidence with unestablished characteristics, and the defense was denied the only procedural means of verifying those characteristics. In such circumstances, the circumstances of the video recording's "discovery" require an independent procedural verification under Art. 144–145 of the CPC for signs of the corpus delicti of Art. 303 of the CC.

VI. UNLAWFUL USE OF DATA FROM THE LAPTOP'S CACHE FILES (Art. 87, 88 of the CPC)

In the laptop's cache files (additional expert examination No. SETs 113/3-313/23 of September 6, 2023, vol. 42, case sheets 163–179), the keywords "Onlinesim," "9280451205," "62033," "Ivan Ivanovich," "bridge," "handler," "cargo," and others were found, as well as — in the file "data_3" in the Cache Data folder — a string with the value "79280451205." The court used this as indirect confirmation of guilt. However:

(a) expert Savin I.A. testified (recorded in the resolution of December 27, 2023, vol. 51, case sheets 147–149, and at the judicial investigation): "The saved report files contain no information about the date and time of creation or modification of the files, and indicate only the physical offset of the keyword within the file." It is impossible to date the appearance of these words — which means it is impossible to establish that they appeared before the terrorist attack rather than after it (for example, while reading news about the explosion) or on the day of the search;

(b) the cache is generated by the browser automatically, without user involvement; in the laptop, as the defense noted, not a single object was found in whose creation a human being participates — neither text notes nor search queries with these words. Indirect evidence that cannot be dated and whose origin is explainable by the standard automated operation of the computer's software cannot confirm awareness prior to the event; its use against the convicted person violates Art. 88 and Part 3 of Art. 14 of the CPC.

(c) expert report No. SETs 113/3-313/23 itself refutes the court's finding. Expert Savin I.A. stated expressly that "with the software available to the expert, it is not possible to interpret the strings contained in the file "data_3"," and that "in the memory of the examined information carrier, no information was found about the transmission to the Internet of information (text and audio messages, multimedia files) obtained using the SIM card with subscriber number 79280451205" (conclusion 8, vol. 42, case sheets 176–177). As follows from illustration 7 to the report (vol. 42, case sheet 175), the file "data_3" contains an array of automatically generated JSON records of responses from the Onlinesim server with sequential operation identifiers (id 45632073, 45632074, 45632075, etc.) and a multitude of different numbers (79285702012, 79286740962, etc.), which objectively confirms the mass-scale, routine nature of the service's operation and the absence of any connection between these automatic records and my alleged awareness of the terrorist attack.

VII. The identity of the renter of the number and "Ivan Ivanovich" has not been proven; the renter is an unidentified anonymous person in no way connected with me (Art. 14 of the CPC; para. 3 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 29 of June 30, 2015)

The court imputes that I "under the guise of rental" provided number 8-928-045-12-05 to "Ivan Ivanovich." Yet the case materials themselves establish otherwise. The renter of the number is a client of the Onlinesim service with ID 3723224, who registered on the website on October 5, 2022 at 20:24:18 and indicated at registration, as name, login, and email address, "den1a.09@meta.ua"; access to the website was made from IP address 46.219.208.107 (pool of provider MNT-FREENET "FRINET," TM "O3," equipment in Kyiv, Ukraine) from a Macintosh device (Intel 10.15), Safari 14.0.3 browser, system language — Ukrainian; payment was made on October 5, 2022 in the cryptocurrency "Ethereum" via the "Coinbase" exchange in an amount equivalent to 200 rubles, while, as established by the investigation, "no information is available on the ownership of cryptocurrency wallets by individuals and legal entities," and by the service's own admission "no other data of the said client are known to the Company" (testimony of witness Krupenkov A.V.; inspections of May 11, 2023 and May 12, 2023 — vol. 77, case sheets 4–8, 14–26, 47–49, 53–56; response of Onlinesim LLC — vol. 107, case sheets 27–29). The renter's identity was not established by the investigation at all.

Nowhere in the verdict is a single piece of evidence cited that client ID 3723224 is in fact "Ivan Ivanovich": this identity was simply postulated by the court. At the same time, alternative versions were neither checked nor refuted: the Telegram account registered to the rented number thereafter exists autonomously from the number (the renter's access to SMS ceases approximately 20 minutes after activation — vol. 77, case sheets 4–8), and the account could have been transferred or sold to any person together with the device or an active session. Who actually used the account under the alias "Ivan Ivanovich" — the renter of the number or another person who obtained the account from the renter — was not established by the investigation, and the court avoided the question. Irremovable doubts are subject to construction in favor of the convicted person.

Most importantly: whoever the renter may be, no connection between him and me has been established — and this was checked by the investigation directly. Per conclusion 9 of expert report No. SETs 113/3-313/23: "No files containing the keywords 'special military operation,' 'Yumani,' 'den1a.09@meta.ua' were found in the memory of the information carrier" (vol. 42, case sheet 177) — that is, the renter's only identifier was deliberately searched for on my devices and not found. I have no correspondence, calls, payments, or any contacts with client ID 3723224; a partner of the service technically neither sees nor selects clients — the issuance of numbers and the processing of SMS are performed automatically by the "Simsale-Gateway" software and the servers of Onlinesim LLC (testimony of Krupenkov A.V.), which is also confirmed by the continued issuance of numbers through my accounts after my arrest until January 9, 2023 (court vol. 132, case sheets 218–219). Thus, the finding of my awareness of the renter's identity and intentions is based not on evidence but on an assumption, which is expressly prohibited by Art. 14 of the CPC.

VIII. SYSTEMIC VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO DEFENSE AND OF ADVERSARIALITY (Art. 15, 47, 53, 58, 119, 120, 271 of the CPC; Art. 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation)

8.1. The refusal to question a specialist who appeared in court — a defect created by the court and turned by the court against the defense

Expert report No. 920-7-77-72 of June 13, 2024 by expert Sokolov A.A. and specialist report No. 1280-13-77-141 of August 28, 2025 by specialist Sokolov A.A. are the only studies answering the central technical question of the case (the possibility of a reseller influencing the issuance of a number) and questions not examined by any of the three forensic expert examinations. The court attached expert report No. 920-7-77-72 to the case materials on August 21, 2025 (court vol. 132, case sheets 176–206), and specialist report No. 1280-13-77-141 on September 3, 2025 (court vol. 133), yet refused to summon and question specialist Sokolov A.A. — even though the defense ensured his appearance in court — citing that "everything is clear and understandable," without any other reasoning (decision of September 3, 2025; the defense's repeated motion of October 8, 2025 — court vol. 133).

This violates:

— Part 2.1 of Art. 58 of the CPC, which expressly provides that the defense may not be refused the granting of a motion to engage a specialist to clarify matters within his competence;

— Part 4 of Art. 271 of the CPC, under which the court has no right to refuse to question a person who has appeared at the court hearing at the initiative of the parties;

— the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (ruling No. 6-O of January 31, 2023): refusal to examine defense evidence is permissible only on reasoned grounds (irrelevance, inadmissibility, redundancy) stated with respect to the specific evidence; an unreasoned refusal is impermissible.

Moreover, the reasoning for rejecting Sokolov A.A.'s reports is internally contradictory. The court stated that report No. 920-7-77-72 "was examined and attached to the case materials," took it into account "as another document" (Art. 84 of the CPC), and acknowledged that the information set out in it "is consistent with the above-cited response of Onlinesim LLC presented by the defense"; at the same time, the court refused to question the author of this document, citing that "there was no need to question Sokolov as a specialist regarding the circumstances of the study he conducted" (page 215 of the verdict). Thus, on the one hand the court used the document in substantiating the verdict, and on the other it deprived the defense of the opportunity to put questions to its author, whose appearance had been ensured, and to obtain clarifications on matters of his professional competence (Part 1 of Art. 58 of the CPC). This is a violation of the principle of adversariality and equality of the parties (Art. 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 244 of the CPC) and of the right to defense (para. 4 of Part 2 of Art. 389.17 of the CPC by its legal nature). It is likewise impermissible for the court to deny a motion for a procedural action (questioning of a specialist) and then use the evidence's procedural imperfection as grounds for rejecting it.

8.2. Systematic denial of all significant defense motions — at the investigation and in court

Both at the pre-trial investigation stage and in court, the defense was denied practically all motions aimed at verifying the central technical premise of the charge:

— for an investigative experiment consisting of purchasing a number through the service to test the issuance algorithm (motions of December 25, 2023 and October 25, 2024 — denied by resolutions of December 27, 2023 and October 31, 2024);

— for questioning of a representative of Onlinesim LLC and director Grigoriev S.E. regarding the circumstances of the service's operation and the possibility of a partner influencing the issuance of a number (motion of May 29, 2023 — denied June 13, 2023);

— for an additional computer-technical expert examination of the GoIP GSM gateway and the laptop with the defense's questions posed (motions of September 20, 2023, November 15, 2023, December 25, 2023, February 13, 2024, October 22, 2024 — denied by the corresponding resolutions);

— for an additional expert examination to date the keywords in the cache files (denied December 27, 2023, vol. 51, case sheets 147–149);

— for declaring inadmissible the protocol of inspection of the video recording and the itemized records (denied at the court hearing of October 8, 2025);

— for questioning of experts Redina A.A. and Savin I.A. (denied).

The systematic refusal to verify the defense's arguments while simultaneously using the prosecution's unrefuted assumptions means that the proceedings lost their adversarial character (Art. 15 of the CPC, Art. 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation): the court consistently relieved the prosecution of the burden of proof and deprived the defense of the means of refutation. This independently testifies to a prosecutorial bias.

IX. UNLAWFUL SEGREGATION OF THE POLYGRAPH RESULTS AND CONCEALMENT OF EXONERATING EVIDENCE (Part 1 of Art. 73, Art. 15 of the CPC; ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 467-O of December 21, 2004)

In the course of the investigation, psychophysiological examinations using a polygraph were conducted with respect to all defendants in the case, including me. Subsequently, the certificates of their results were segregated from this case No. 12202007703001265 into a separate criminal case No. 42402007703000225 (against Malyuk V.V. and others; segregation resolution of February 14, 2024, vol. 1, case sheets 233–239). The defense was twice refused access to the results (resolutions of June 13, 2023 (vol. 107, case sheets 44–45) and October 25, 2024 (vol. 115, case sheets 211–212)); the court also refused to request the certificates from the segregated case (motion of August 21, 2025).

The investigation's position is internally contradictory: first (June 13, 2023) access was refused on the grounds that the defense would be able to review all materials later, upon fulfillment of the requirements of Art. 217 of the CPC; then, after the certificates were segregated into another case — on the grounds that the examinations "were not conducted as a separate piece of evidence" and "have no evidentiary significance." The internal contradictoriness of this position is obvious: if the results of the psychophysiological examinations truly have no significance, it is inexplicable why these examinations were conducted with respect to all defendants and why their results needed to be segregated into separate proceedings with the defense's access to them closed. The fact that the defense expressly at the court hearing connected the defendants' non-involvement with the results of these examinations, and that the court reproduced in the verdict its formulation about these materials not being attached "due to prosecutorial bias on the part of the investigative authorities" (pages 207–208 of the verdict), only confirms: what is at issue is potentially exonerating evidence removed from the case.

Regardless of the debate over the evidentiary status of the polygraph, the investigator is obliged to establish and attach both incriminating and exonerating circumstances (Part 1 of Art. 73 of the CPC; ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 467-O of December 21, 2004). The segregation of potentially exonerating material into another case, followed by refusal of access and of the request, deprived me of the opportunity to rely on it in my defense and constitutes a violation of the right to defense and of the principle of completeness of the examination of the circumstances of the case.

X. INCORRECT APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW (Art. 389.18 of the CPC)

10.1. Absence of the corpus delicti of para. "b" of Part 3 of Art. 205 of the CC

A terrorist act is committed only with direct intent and a special purpose — intimidation of the population, influencing decision-making by authorities (Art. 25 of the CC; paras. 1, 4 of Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 of February 9, 2012). The case contains no evidence that I knew of the impending explosion, knew of the use of my number in this plan, or pursued the stated purposes. The absence of the subjective element precludes the corpus delicti (para. 2 of Part 1 of Art. 24, para. 3 of Part 2 of Art. 302 of the CPC).

10.2. Absence of the corpus delicti of Part 4 of Art. 222.1 of the CC

The objective element of illegal transportation and storage of an explosive device presupposes physical interaction with it, and the subjective element — awareness that the object is an explosive device. Not a single physical contact with the IED has been imputed to me: I did not see it, did not transport it, did not store it, was not near it. A one-time provision of a virtual number through an automated service constitutes the corpus delicti of neither transportation nor storage of an explosive device.

10.3. Violation of equality before the law: a standard opposite to that applied to persons who physically contacted the IED was applied to me (Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 4 of the CC)

The verdict establishes that not a single person who physically moved the cargo was aware that an IED was camouflaged in the cargo of construction film: the court expressly states the lack of awareness of driver Yusubov M.N.o., who accepted the cargo at the base in the city of Armavir and delivered it across the territory of the Russian Federation to the Crimean Bridge, where he died in the explosion ("Yusubov M.N.o., who was unaware of this" — pages 212–213 of the verdict); the lack of awareness of the employees of Agro-Biznes LLC who carried out the loading; the lack of awareness of the other drivers engaged. Moreover, the entire defense line in the case consisted in the fact that the defendants did not know of the presence of the camouflaged IED in the cargo, and in support of this the defense relied on the psychophysiological examinations conducted, which were not attached, as reflected in the verdict, "due to prosecutorial bias on the part of the investigative authorities" (pages 207–208 of the verdict).

Thus, the standard applied in the case is as follows: even physical contact with a cargo containing an IED (transportation across half the country, loading, delivery to the bombing site) does not in itself testify to awareness of the nature of the cargo and of criminal intent. To me, however — a person who had no physical contact with the IED whatsoever, saw neither the cargo nor the device, performed no actions with them, and was removed from them further than all other persons involved — a directly opposite standard was applied: awareness and direct intent to commit a terrorist act were presumed without a single piece of evidence. Situations identical in their legal essence (use of a person "in the dark") received opposite evaluations in one and the same verdict, which violates the equality of all before the law and the court (Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 4 of the CC). It is impermissible for a person who never saw the explosive device to be found a conscious participant in a terrorist act, while the persons who physically delivered that device to the target are found to have acted without such awareness.

10.4. Absence of the features of an organized group as applied to me (Part 3 of Art. 35 of the CC)

An organized group is a stable group of persons who have united in advance to commit crimes. Not a single one of its features has been proven with respect to me: there is no stable connection with the participants (not a single contact); there is no commonality of purpose (I learned of the plan from the case materials); there is no distribution of roles or coordination (the imputed operation is identical to tens of thousands of routine operations of my ordinary activity); awareness of membership is impossible (the court itself recognized that I could not influence the issuance of a specific number to a specific client). The court's argument — "acting in coordination with unidentified accomplices" — is legally untenable: coordination with persons whose identity and very existence have not been established cannot be proven.

10.5. Mitigating circumstances were taken into account formally; active assistance to the investigation was not taken into account (para. "i" of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the CC)

In the challenged verdict the court indicated only one mitigating circumstance — "was raised without a father from an early age." At the same time, the court did not indicate as a mitigating circumstance that I have a minor son — Tyazhelykh Danil Dmitrievich, born March 30, 2012, who had not yet turned 14 at the time the verdict was rendered (para. "g" of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the CC). In addition, other mitigating circumstances went unreflected: no criminal record; exclusively positive character references from all questioned witnesses; completion of compulsory military service; many years of lawful entrepreneurship; the need to assist an elderly mother; absence of ties to foreign special services and of relatives abroad; lengthy detention in custody since October 14, 2022. The court also failed to take into account as a mitigating circumstance my active assistance to the investigation at the initial stage: voluntary surrender of items during the search, provision of the phone password, voluntary and detailed disclosure of the working scheme on the same day (vol. 106, case sheets 6–18, 54–59) — which was subject to evaluation under para. "i" of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the CC.

In summary of the foregoing, the investigation, instead of a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of the circumstances of the crime (Part 1 of Art. 73, Part 2 of Art. 154 of the CPC; ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 467-O of December 21, 2004), gathered and recorded only incriminating data: it denied all motions to verify the key technical premise (investigative experiment, questioning of the service, additional expert examinations), segregated the exonerating material (the polygraph) into another case, and left without attention its own resolution of December 27, 2023, which contradicts the prosecution's narrative.

The prosecutor's office, having approved the indictment despite the unresolved internal contradiction in the case (para. 4.5) and the incorrect description of the equipment and manner of the act (para. 4.6), did not remedy these defects at trial but supported the charge, while demonstrating a failure to understand the technical side of the imputed act (para. 4.6).

The court, possessing a body of evidence establishing my lack of acquaintance with the accomplices, the technical impossibility of the imputed act, and my lack of awareness (Section I), did not construe the doubts in my favor (Part 3 of Art. 14 of the CPC), but filled in the missing links with assumptions (Section II), exceeded the scope of the charges (Section III), distorted and disregarded exonerating evidence (Sections IV, VI), used evidence bearing signs of fabrication (Section V), and also deprived the defense of the procedural opportunity to refute the prosecution's arguments (Section VIII).

In such a situation the law does not permit a guilty verdict: where a person's participation in the commission of a crime is not proven and the possibilities of gathering additional evidence are exhausted, an acquittal is rendered (paras. 2, 3 of Part 2 of Art. 302 of the CPC); all doubts are construed in favor of the accused (Part 3 of Art. 14 of the CPC, Art. 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

On the basis of the foregoing and in addition to the previously filed appellate appeal, guided by Art. 19, 46, 49, 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 4, 5, 14, 25, 35, 60, 61, 64, 67, 205, 222.1 of the CC, Art. 14, 15, 58, 73, 75, 87, 88, 204, 220, 237, 252, 271, 302, 305, 307, 389.8, 389.13, 389.15–389.18, 389.20, 389.23 of the CPC, Art. 1064, 1080 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, —

I REQUEST

1. The verdict of the Southern District Military Court of November 27, 2025 in criminal case No. 2-236/2025, in the part convicting Dmitry Viktorovich Tyazhelykh under para. "b" of Part 3 of Art. 205 of the CC and Part 4 of Art. 222.1 of the CC — be reversed.

2. A new appellate judgment be rendered acquitting Tyazhelykh D.V. due to non-involvement in the commission of the crimes or the absence of the corpus delicti in the act (paras. 1, 3 of Part 2 of Art. 302, para. 2 of Part 1 of Art. 389.20 of the CPC), with recognition of the right to rehabilitation (Chapter 18 of the CPC); the preventive measure be revoked, with release from custody immediately.

"____" _____________ 202__

Defendant: ________________________ / D.V. Tyazhelykh /