Time to read: 11 minutes(s)

DEF Maxim Ivankin, The defendant, who is accused of a double murder in a forest near Ryazan, began questioning witnesses on October 30. This is the first testimony that sheds any light on the defendant's position: for nearly three and a half years, he remained silent about the charges.

«We will comment on this once the case is underway. If it is underway», - claimed Ivankin to journalists in September 2020.

During this time, the criminal case has reached court, but the promised comments have still not been released.

Remains Ekaterina Levchenko и Artyom Dorofeeva were buried next to the village of Lopukhi, 20 kilometers away RyazanThey were found after the interview. Alexey Poltavets, who fled to Ukraine. According to him, he committed murder together with Maxim Ivankin.

On the day of the interrogation of the first witnesses, the lawyer Konstantin Kartashov emphasized that the crime could have been committed by "other people," including a St. Petersburg activist. Ilya Khesin, who conducted his own investigation into the possible involvement of those involved in the "Network"* case in the double murder.

Khesin's motives

Participants in the trial were told about how Ilya Khesin “tried to gain trust” and obtain information about the “Network”* case. Anna ShalunkinaThis is a cousin. Dmitry Pchelintsev, whom the court found to be the organizer of a terrorist organization and sentenced to 18 years in prison. A couple of weeks before the verdict, she also married Maxim Ivankin, who received a 13-year sentence in the case.

Because Shalunkina refused to testify during the investigation, the court conducted her preliminary interrogation without the participation of jurors.

According to the witness, she met Khesin in the fall of 2017, immediately after her brother’s arrest.

Khesin began declaring that publicity was unnecessary for this case, and that it would be better for everyone to quietly admit their guilt and receive a smaller sentence. As we know, no one agreed to this.

Shalunkina has repeatedly emphasized that she considers the "Network"* case to be fabricated and that the relatives of the defendants have received repeated threats from security forces.

According to her, in the spring of 2019, before the start of the trial for creating a terrorist organization, Ilya Khesin began sending her his speculations about Dmitry Pchelintsev's involvement in the murder in the Ryazan forest. When Shalunkina questioned this theory, he allegedly told her to "go to hell" and said, "I must be involved myself if I don't want to believe his version of events."

A year later, the activist shared shared his thoughts with journalists from the online publication Meduza**.

According to Shalunkina, he himself told her about the reasons that prompted him to conduct this investigation.

He said that the case materials [regarding the terrorist group "Network"*] contained correspondence involving him. That's why he started looking into the case, to understand how safe it was for him. I know that one of the handles he used on social media is now involved in another criminal case, and they're trying to connect it to the "Network"* case. In other words, the man, by shifting the blame onto others, was simply trying to protect himself.

"Too problematic"

According to Anna Shalunkina, Alexei Poltavets, who confessed to the murder, fled abroad with Khesin's help. This allegedly follows from notes the latter attempted to give Ivankin in pretrial detention.

He wrote to Maxim: “It’s a pity that we couldn’t transport you and Kulkov. [another defendant in the "Network"* case, who rented an apartment with the murdered Dorofeev]"But it's not my fault, because when I wrote to you, you probably thought I was a law enforcement officer. And in general, keep quiet and talk less. When asked, say "I don't know," "I don't remember." Otherwise, something might happen."

Shalunkina claimed that Khesin called Ivankin and Kulkov "too problematic." He even suggested that Poltavets persuade them to illegally cross the border into Ukraine so he could "bury them somewhere there."

According to Shalunkina, Alexey Poltavets himself is a suspicious character.

His ex-girlfriend Victoria Frolova toldthat he was behaving strangely, Shalunkina clarified. — He was afraid he was being wiretapped, that he was being followed. He'd go off to some meetings and return with money. When she wanted to go home [from Ukraine to Russia], he told her she needed to ask someone's permission first. And that if she went, they'd meet her at the border and bury her there. After Poltavets's interview was published on Meduza**, Frolova showed him her correspondence. He wrote that he had no choice and that it had to be done to save some people.

Shalunkina also emphasized that at one time Ilya Khesin showed her a hunting license and a permit to own a Saiga carbine.

It is quite possible that some of his involvement in the murder will be investigated, lawyer Konstantin Kartashov summed it up. It's like a separate layer that no one has yet thoroughly investigated... And the version of the murder that the prosecution has presented hasn't been fully investigated. There is reason to believe that the murder was committed by other people, or with the participation of other people.

"I don't know any Olya."

In his investigation, Ilya Khesin referred to a note he received from Anna Shalunkina. In it, Dmitry Pchelintsev, responding to a question about the possible involvement of the "Network"* defendants in the murder, allegedly wrote: "I'm zero out of ten, and Ivankin is ten out of ten."

According to Shalunkina, she did not show any notes to Khesin.

In addition, she refuted the activist's story about her communication with a Moscow resident. Olga Pechurina, in whose apartment Ivankin allegedly stopped after the murder and tried to cut his veins.

The only Olga I know is mine [cousin] sister from Moscow. She's 12 years old, Shalunkina stated.

However, the mother of the murdered woman, Ekaterina Levchenko, reminded the witness about the correspondence with Ivankin, which was seized during a search in November 2020.

You say that you don’t know the girl from Moscow with whom Maxim lived, — she clarified Tatyana Levchenko. - But In the letters he writes to you, he talks in detail about his girlfriend, Olga, and their relationship. For example, "Olya wrote to me for the last time after we got married." What kind of Olga is she?

I don't know. He communicates with a lot of people. People write to him a lot, - answered Shalunkina.

He writes to you. About this Olya. And he mentions this Olya not in one letter, but in many, — the mother of the deceased objected and read out a few more fragments. — "They'll be coming to interrogate us soon. I'm not particularly worried about it, but damn, this anticipation... It's really unsettling. I hope they warned Olya?"

I don't know who should have warned which Olya. I don't know any Olya, Shalunkina cut off.

According to the prosecutor Vladimir AladyshevThe defendant's wife's testimony reveals a "clear vested interest" and goes beyond the charges brought against her. Specifically, he emphasized that the witness was unable to explain anything about the murder itself or the possible involvement or non-involvement of Maxim Ivankin.

In the end, the judge Natalia Kianovskaya decided not to question Shalunkina in front of the jury.

We are interested in the circumstances of Ivankin’s accusation, she reminded. "We are not currently reviewing the merits of the Network* case. It has already been heard."

Three versions in one interrogation

For the same reasons, the court rejected the testimony of Dmitry Pchelintsev, who was questioned via video link from the penal colony.

In the absence of a jury, he explained that he had never met Maxim Ivankin in 2017 and hadn't even kept in touch with him. He also gave contradictory statements about his acquaintance with Alexey Poltavets. Initially, he claimed he first heard the man's name while in prison. Then he recalled that he had actually seen him a couple of times after his release.

Pchelintsev refuted the investigation's version that Alexey Poltavets used the pseudonym "Boris" and that Artyom Dorofeev was behind the pseudonym "Timofey."

According to the witness, these pseudonyms were used by completely different people, who are now at large. He declined to name them, citing investigative confidentiality in the new criminal case against the "Network"* terrorist group.

When the state prosecutor proposed ending the questioning of a witness who could not explain the factual circumstances of the case, Dmitry Pchelintsev expressed his willingness to provide names.

I simply received threats from these individuals. And since I still fear that they could harm me and my family, I would not like to do this in open court. - He explained.

We understand you. You are afraid to name“—the judge summed up.

After some time, he finally decided he wasn't afraid to tell the truth about the man who used the pseudonym "Boris." But then Judge Natalya Kianovskaya became outraged.

How can I understand your position on the case? You've already put forward three versions in one interrogation, she addressed the witness. The name of the man who used the pseudonym "Boris" remained undisclosed.

According to Dmitry Pchelintsev, Meduza's** version of his involvement in the double murder is not true, and he had a "rather serious conflict" with Khesin.

Firstly, we had very different views on life. Furthermore, while I was in pretrial detention, he seduced my now ex-wife and lived with her. — said the witness.

He called Khesin's investigation a "falsification of the facts" and claimed that Khesin had been incriminating him in his interviews. But Pchelintsev couldn't recall what exactly he was incriminating.

The witness's testimony indicates he knows nothing about the murder of Levchenko and Dorofeev, or about Ivankin and Poltavets' involvement. Accordingly, there's nothing more to add. Prosecutor Aladyshev responded to the speech.

Defense attorney Kartashov insisted that Pchelintsev be questioned in the presence of a jury. He recalled that the prosecution cited Meduza's article** and read it during the court hearing, including excerpts containing accusations against Pchelintsev.

The witness says: this did not happen. This is the key circumstance, He stressed.

The Meduza article**, which the prosecution provided, is presented to us as fact. Pchelintsev denies these facts. Ivankin agreed with him.

However, the court did not agree with this position.

They went for the phone and disappeared

Of the three witnesses listed for October 30, only one was questioned in the presence of the jury. Tatyana Ivankina - the mother of the defendant.

She said Maxim studied at a trade and economics college, in the same class as Artyom Dorofeev and Mikhail Kulkov. She had only seen his friends in photographs. She learned that her son had been arrested for drug trafficking on the night of April 1, 2017. That's when she met Alexey Poltavets.

Police officers came to our house to search our home, bringing Maksym and a young man named Poltavets. They said he had also been detained and was involved in the case. He was a minor, from out of town, and they had nowhere to put him, so they'd let him stay with us while his mother went to pick him up. [from Omsk]. Naturally, I left him: I couldn’t kick him out in the middle of the night, Ivankina said.

That morning, Maxim and Alexey went to buy a phone, as theirs had been confiscated by the police and they needed to stay in touch with the investigator. Afterward, both disappeared. Poltavets's mother waited for her son for two or three days, then returned home to Omsk. Some time later, Alexey contacted her and said he had fled to Ukraine and knew nothing of Ivankin's fate.

He said that as soon as they left, they immediately dispersed, the witness quoted.

She confirmed that her son did indeed own a firearm, which was kept in a safe. Only Maxim had access to it. The safe was opened during a search in November 2020. No firearm was found inside.

*In January 2019, the Moscow District Court designated "The Network" a terrorist organization. The defendants in the case claim that such an organization never existed.

**On January 26, 2023, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation declared the online publication Meduza an undesirable organization whose activities pose a threat to the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the Russian Federation.