Supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Revision), part 1, for the record

Tiergarten Local Court at Moabit Prison (JVA Moabit), before the judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin). Appeared on 17.01.2025 (08:30–11:00) and 20.01.2025 (08:30–10:15). Berlin, 20.01.2025. File reference 522 Ks 5/23. 6 pages of the record.

Note on this version (as of 11.08.2026): this page now reproduces the submission in full and replaces the earlier abridged summary. Reason: in its order of 19.06.2025, the Federal Court of Justice expressly found that, on 07.05.2025, it had the supplements up to and including part 7 before it and that they were the subject of its deliberations — the wording of what was before the Senate is therefore itself evidence. The only editorial changes are to the names of two private individuals to whom the complainant attributes a criminal offence; they appear as “Ms T.” and “Mr T.”. The name of a witness appears as “witness B.”. OCR reading errors in the scan have been corrected without individual notes; punctuation is as in the original.

I hereby supplement, pursuant to §§ 344, 345 StPO, the statement of grounds of appeal already submitted by my lawyer Bernd Römer.

The supplement is necessary because essential aspects of my final statement at the trial pursuant to § 258 Abs. 2 StPO were not incorporated into or taken into account in the written judgment.

I request that the judgment challenged, together with its findings, be set aside and that the case be remitted to a different criminal chamber for a new hearing and decision. Furthermore, I should be acquitted because, following examination of the facts and consideration of the evidence presented, a criminal act can be ruled out.

I also refer to the BGH judgment of 27.02.2024 — 2 StR 146/03 and the BGH order of 07.05.2003 — 5 StR 142/03.

I allege a violation of procedural law.

In my final statement, I presented essential explanations concerning my innocence that were neither mentioned in the judgment nor recognisably taken into account. In addition, Judge Groß interrupted me during my final statement.

This constitutes a disregard of my right to be heard under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG. This omission is a serious procedural error because my final statement contained arguments capable of casting doubt on my guilt.

This substantially affects my defence rights. It cannot be ruled out that taking my final statement into account would have led to a different judgment. The procedural error thus affects the determination of guilt and sentencing.

My final statement consisted of several parts

Before the outbreak of the war, I attended the opposition congress in Sofia (Bulgaria), where I publicly announced the creation of a database of Russian agents.

My car was burned down. I continued my work. The war began. In the first days, I initiated a letter from Russian citizens to the European Parliament and the German Federal Chancellor asking for military and technical support for Ukraine — contrary to the myth, spread by Russian agents, of Germany’s historical guilt towards Russia.

This was the most frightening action for the Kremlin, because I offered every Russian citizen the opportunity to print out and send the letter.

From the first days of the war, I took Ukrainian refugees into my flat. They all asked me what could be done in Germany for Ukraine.

Immediately after the war began, I found the address of the former Soviet Consulate General in West Berlin on Lepsiusstraße, where Kremlin propagandists live and work today. I photographed the villa of the former Consulate General and published the photograph on Facebook. I asked the international lawyer Yuri Shulipa and a lawyer from Chechnya to find legal possibilities for seizing this villa, which belongs to the Russian Federation, for the benefit of Ukraine.

This publication made me the main suspect in the event of aggressive action against this property.

I myself took Ms T. and Mr T. (who lived with me as refugees) to the villa and suggested that they watch its residents and possibly install a hidden camera so that, after carrying out a journalistic investigation, I could later share the results with the German security services and publish them.

They agreed, and I made my BMW available to them while I appeared live on Ukrainian television. I did not do it myself because the action was of little importance compared with distributing the letters mentioned above.

In this way, they gained access to my flat, my car and my second telephone, which was always in the kitchen and which I never used. They also gained access to things bearing my DNA (see interview of 28.12.2022).

They drove my BMW to the villa several times in the evenings and were able to work out and coordinate the details of the special operation.

On the day the device was placed, they drove to the villa in the evening. They installed it in a shaft beneath the villa. However, witness B., who lived there, said in his testimony that he never switched on the light, so that passers-by would get the impression that nobody lived there.

The attackers needed the device and my DNA to make it look as if I had installed it there. On the day it was placed, they took my second telephone, which was registered to me, with them from the kitchen.

To guarantee that I would be found to have committed the crime, they wrote graffiti in Russian next to it. They placed a black bag on the grating covering the shaft. The bag was found in the morning by witness B.

After making sure that they had been spotted and even recording a video in which the spot was clearly visible, they left. All these measures guaranteed that the device would be found, if not during the night, then at least in the morning.

After looking at media reports on my computer and finding nothing, they returned to the villa to see whether the device had been found. When they came back to my home, I threw them out for accessing my laptop without permission. The operation was nevertheless successful, because locating my car and my telephone, which were registered to me at the time of the placement, guaranteed my arrest.

Then the unforeseen happened. In the morning, witness B. discovered the writing on the wall and the bag on the shaft, took a long stick and used it to carry the bag to the rubbish bin. He did not then look through the grating into the shaft. The device was discovered in the shaft only on 6 May, that is, 13 days later.

On the Senior Public Prosecutor’s arguments

Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs repeatedly denied that they were agents of the Russian intelligence service. He said that, if they had organised this, they would have installed the device there and then anonymously called the police so that my DNA would be found there.

However, every operation by intelligence services abroad must be coordinated with the Kremlin. An anonymous call requires another unit and fresh coordination. This means failure and a reprimand from the Russian government. Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs’s position shows a complete lack of understanding of the particular features of the Russian security services’ work.

Although Professor Andreas Heinemann-Grüder repeatedly offered to testify to the police and the public prosecutor’s office, he was never invited. He is an Eastern Europe specialist and a professor at the University of Bonn, as well as a government adviser. At the trial, Professor Heinemann-Grüder was able to explain that all the villa’s residents were Russian secret agents. This angered Judge Groß and Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs, and they stopped his testimony.

On the technical issue

I said that the device served to compromise me by passing my DNA to the police and posed no danger — especially given its location in a shaft. I brought technical calculations and explained that, by sheer coincidence as far as the public prosecutor’s office was concerned, I possess this knowledge at expert level. For 10 years, I have developed software and devices to increase cars’ performance; a substantial increase in performance can be achieved only by changing the ratio of air to petrol.

Accusing me of not knowing this is like accusing a doctor of forgetting that body temperature is 36,6 °C.

In probability theory, there is a concept called a “black swan”. This describes an event whose probability was disregarded but which nevertheless occurs. The fact that an opposition journalist and activist has professional knowledge of physics — the combustion process — is apparently hard to believe, but it is a fact. My qualifications were confirmed at the hearing by the witness Lindenmann (a DEKRA engineer).

The source of ignition must have been matches. This follows from the police testimony, the photographs and the expert reports. I therefore explained that, considering the weather conditions at that time of year, the matches must have become damp by morning. I also explained the nature of morning dew in terms of the laws of physics.

Given that, according to the investigation, the device was placed on 23 April 2022 and discovered by the police only on 6 May, it had already been there for 13 days — even though the matches should have become damp on the very first morning. No traces of an attempt to ignite the matches were found either.

No expert at the hearing could explain such a primitive and unreliable ignition method. During the hearing, the judge mentioned several times that I had remembered my technical knowledge only after the BKA expert Ms Cox had given an opinion on the safety and reliability of the ignition. But that was not so: from the very first day in December 2022, when I saw the photograph and the installation site, I spoke of the absurdity of the accusation. This is apparent from the police reports on the monitoring of my conversations with visitors in prison.

Canister, timing, recognition

When I began providing humanitarian aid, Ukrainians offered to pay me for it. I always refused, however. Ukrainian lorry drivers then began setting aside diesel for me as a token of thanks, to refuel my BMW. I therefore always had at least one canister and a hose in the boot (see police report). In April 2022, I noticed that a canister was missing. I paid no further attention to it, however, because I thought I had forgotten it while loading, and obtained another one.

If I had installed the device, the resident of the villa who knew me personally would have had to recognise me on the night of 23 April or the morning of 24 April. This did not happen. The resident of the villa even made a video of a man without a cap — but evidently not of me, because he would have recognised me.

Why would I fail to remove a device that did not work and bore my DNA, and leave it there for 13 days? There were no indications of an attempted ignition. It was placed there by someone else so that my DNA would be found.

During the period when the device was installed, a second mobile telephone was registered in my name. I never used it, however; it was available to the refugees in my flat. This is confirmed by witnesses and telecommunications surveillance (TKÜ). My main telephone, which I always used, was with me, and I was not at the villa on Lepsiusstraße.

My BMW could be seen on Lepsiusstraße every day for at least 4 days before the placement. This is apparent from the case file. The Russian intelligence service was thus able to plan and coordinate this operation.

When the device was found, I did not comment on it on Facebook. Although I saw the media reports, I did not react in any way. If I had been the perpetrator, I would have had to react in some way.

I explained that I have no motive to commit illegal acts against anyone, since all my activities are directed against Russian agents and propagandists by legal and official means. This is confirmed, among other things, by the witnesses Wiedemann, Heinemann-Grüder, Wendling and Sander, as well as by data from my publications and street actions.

I have also never used graffiti. I have always used German and English. I used the word “hell” in Russian only once on Facebook, and in an entirely different context.

Interruptions of the final statement

I have already reported that I became a victim of arbitrary police conduct at a demonstration on 17.04.2021. When I spoke about it, Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs interrupted me and threatened me with new criminal proceedings. The judge ignored this misconduct, however. At the time, I suspected that this incident was the reason for the Senior Public Prosecutor’s bias against me.

In my final statement, I began to talk about the political activities that had been discussed at many hearings. Judge Groß interrupted me, however, saying that this was irrelevant. I could only say that I had never demanded anything from the government, but had merely explained the danger posed by Putin and his agents and had always proposed effective methods of countering them based on my experience as an investigative journalist.

Without exception, I coordinated all actions with German political analysts to avoid misunderstandings. This was confirmed by the witnesses Heinemann-Grüder, Wiedemann, Sander and Eraschow. At this point, Judge Groß interrupted me.

The Senior Public Prosecutor’s six accusations

In his closing submissions, Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs made six untenable accusations against me.

First: the amateur construction of the circuit board is incompatible with my qualifications as an electronics manufacturer and designer with 10 years of experience.

Second: my Smart burned down not, as Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs alleged against me, on the night of 31.12. to 01.01., but on the night of 01.01. to 02.01., outside my son’s window. The Smart was the centre of the fire. Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs claimed that my car had not been the target of the attack and that several cars had burned. A state-security police officer then advised me to remove all mentions of my family from social media. Sergej Zolovkin (a former Russian police officer and journalist) published a short report about it.

Third: during my trip to Warsaw on 22.11.2022, strangers tampered with my BMW. I asked the state-security police to inspect my car and my flat. I also provided a photograph of the suspected perpetrator. Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs said that this did not matter and that my car was constantly broken down. This is incorrect.

Fourth: Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs regarded my wish to join the Ukrainian army as a soldier after the war began as extremism and a desire to commit illegal acts, because he claimed that I had wanted to join the Russian legion. The Russian legion is, however, part of the Ukrainian army.

Fifth: the Senior Public Prosecutor accused me of using the incident in which my WhatsApp messenger was hacked in June 2022 before the action in support of Ukraine as a supposed justification. That too is incorrect; I have never mentioned this incident in connection with my criminal proceedings.

Sixth: I am said to have used the expression “Rashists to hell” (translation of the graffiti on the villa wall) always and everywhere — but I have never done so. If I say anything of the kind, it is in German: “Fahr zur Hölle” (“Go to hell”). This expression does not exist in Russian.

All of the Senior Public Prosecutor’s accusations are thus completely and demonstrably refuted.

Conclusion of the final statement

I said and proved that at least 80 trained agents come to Germany from Russia each year. I developed a method for tracking them down and created a database. This was one of the reasons why I was so dangerous to the Kremlin.

In my final statement, I also wanted to speak about my company Rambach Industrie GmbH, but Judge Groß interrupted me. I was accused of claiming COVID aid and then getting rid of my company. I had, however, transferred the company to a friend because I could no longer run it alongside my opposition work. If Putin’s regime comes to an end, I will take over the company again and resume my work there.

On 21.04.2023, Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs prohibited criminal police inspector Weiß from showing me my mobile telephone. I was allowed only to view the WhatsApp chats. This made the search for witnesses enormously more difficult. Instead of 5 minutes, my lawyer and I needed many months to find this female witness. Her testimony did not interest the judge.

The witness who travelled with Mr T. in my BMW was not even questioned by the police.

At the end of my final statement, I said that, after my release, I would have the Bundestag examine my criminal proceedings. In this way, the system for finding and neutralising Russian agents can be changed.

I am not of little importance to the Kremlin and pose a serious danger. This is demonstrated by the OSCE report, the threats in the national press, the surveillance and the burning of my car (Smart).

I will not confess merely to save the Senior Public Prosecutor’s reputation.

Announcement of further parts

The next part of the supplement will be submitted at a later date, because there is an inexplicable contradiction between the content of the case file and the reasons for the judgment. The trial judge did not fulfil his duty to assess the evidence exhaustively. The assessment of the evidence is also flawed because general principles of experience were not taken into account. The judgment contains contradictory and insufficient findings of fact.

From the beginning of September 2024 until today, I have had no contact with my lawyer Bernd Römer. I received a copy of the grounds of appeal only on 06.12.2024. Because of this inadequate handling of the matter, I terminated my lawyer’s retainer. I have already informed the court of this, but have so far received no response.

I request written acknowledgement of receipt of the supplement to the grounds of appeal.

Read aloud, approved, signed. Closed. To the Berlin Regional Court, file 522 Ks 5/23. Judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin).