Supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Revision), part 2, for the record

Tiergarten Local Court at Moabit Prison (JVA Moabit), before the judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin). Appeared: Mr Bagrash, Dmitry, register number 2796/22/6. Berlin, 28.02.2025. File reference (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23). 3 pages of the record.

Note on this version (as of 12.08.2026): this page now reproduces the submission in full. Because of poor OCR quality, the earlier version had been reconstructed only in substance; the word order in the scan has now been restored on the basis of sentence structure. The name of a private acquaintance appears in shortened form.

Second part of the supplement to the appeal on points of law. I hereby submit a supplement concerning the final statement. I add the issue of the final statement to the grounds of appeal I have already submitted. The repeated and arbitrary interruptions by Judge Groß and Public Prosecutor Wachs during the trial, together with the threats, resulted in a serious violation of my constitutional right to be heard — in particular, the right to deliver my final statement fully and without interruption pursuant to § 258 Abs. 2 StPO.

Facts and course of the proceedings during the final statement

1. Impermissible interruptions and threats

a) During my final statement, I was repeatedly interrupted by Judge Groß and Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs. When I began to speak about my political activities, Judge Groß stated that these remarks had nothing to do with the case being heard. He expressly threatened to withdraw my right to continue my final statement if I continued to address this subject.

b) At the same time, I made clear that, in my final statement, I regarded the seizure of the “Putin is a killer” banner on 17 September 2021 as a continuation of the persecution of me resulting from my sharp criticism of Putin’s regime, and explained that the unlawful seizure of the banner benefited Putin’s administration in Germany. I promised to publish all the material available on this matter — particularly since the unlawful seizure had been carried out by the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office.

c) Immediately afterwards, Public Prosecutor Wachs interrupted me again and threatened new criminal proceedings, while Judge Groß consistently ignored the breach of the law — the unlawful interruption of the final statement — as well as the considerable pressure that Public Prosecutor Wachs exerted on me.

2. Additional account of COVID aid and further political matters

a) On that day, I also began to speak about the COVID aid received by my company, Rambach Industrie GmbH. Although this subject was not an issue in the trial, I reported that I had relocated the company, including all production, from Moscow to Germany at the end of 2018, after which the COVID pandemic broke out. I then submitted a corresponding application for support.

b) I responded to the allegation against me — either that I had received the money unlawfully or that I had used it improperly — by acknowledging a violation of the law through ignorance, while categorically denying that I had acted intentionally.

c) In this context too, Judge Groß interrupted me in an authoritarian manner, bluntly ordering those present to exert influence on me so as to induce me to retract my remarks and confess. During a break, my lawyer Römer persuaded me to give in to the pressure, pointing out that the judge needed at least something against me and that it would not be appropriate to withhold these “tidbits” from me. At the next trial hearing, however, I expressly stated in my final statement that I denied any intentional conduct in receiving the COVID aid, and explained that I had handed over my company to my friend Iwan P. because I could not pursue political activities and manage a company at the same time. I further emphasised that, after the fall of Putin’s regime, I would return to my business activities and continue my successful work.

3. Consequences of the interruptions and restrictions on access

a) In total, I was interrupted at least three times during my final statement, which clearly violates the law in force.

b) I expressly repeated that I can present detailed evidence of my innocence only if all the case-file material is made accessible to me — access that Judge Groß denied me.

c) In addition, since September 2024 I have no longer had contact with my lawyer Römer; Judge Groß continually ignores both the question of his discharge as defence counsel and the provision of the case-file material.

d) Because of the isolation and active resistance to the submission of supplements to the appeal — including restrictions on my means of communication with the outside world — I will shortly publish contradictions in the judgment, particularly concerning COVID aid. These are not new items of evidence, but events that took place after the judgment was pronounced and are aimed at further restricting my rights during the proceedings on the appeal on points of law and my right to a fair trial.

Legal assessment and legal bases

1. Provisions of procedural law. § 258 Abs. 2 StPO guarantees the defendant the right to make a final statement after the taking of evidence has concluded. Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG guarantees the right to be heard as a central element of fair criminal proceedings. § 344 Abs. 2 StPO permits supplements to the grounds of appeal until the appeal court’s preparations are complete. § 377 StPO provides the basis for remitting the proceedings to a different criminal chamber in the event of substantial procedural errors.

2. Case law. BGH, order of 07.05.2003 – 5 StR 142/03: exculpatory statements by the defendant must be taken into account in the assessment of the evidence. BGH, judgment of 27.02.2004 – 2 StR 146/03: failure to take the final statement into account constitutes a substantial procedural error that must lead to a new hearing.

3. Further principles. The principle of substantive truth and comprehensive assessment of the evidence: a fair judgment requires full consideration of all exculpatory aspects. An effective right to be heard: every restriction of this right undermines the rule of law and leads to a distorted taking of evidence.

Effects on the judgment and application

The impermissible interruptions and the accompanying interference with my final statement led to an erroneous assessment of the evidence. If the exculpatory arguments I presented — in particular those concerning my political activities, the allegation of insulting the President of Russia and the inconsistencies concerning COVID aid — were assessed in full, this could lead to my acquittal or a substantial reduction in sentence. I therefore request:

1. A finding that my constitutional right to a final statement under § 258 Abs. 2 StPO and Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG was systematically violated.

2. That the present judgment be set aside because the failure to take my final statement into account led to an erroneous assessment of the evidence.

3. That the case be remitted to a different criminal chamber for a new hearing pursuant to § 337 StPO, so that all exculpatory aspects, particularly my final statement, are taken fully into account.

4. Acquittal, because after renewed examination of the complete taking of evidence, no criminal act can be established.

Concluding observations

The continuing disregard for my final statement, together with the targeted interventions by Judge Groß and Public Prosecutor Wachs, not only led to a one-sided assessment of the evidence but also lastingly undermined the foundation of fair criminal proceedings. Taking into account the statutory provisions, decisions of the highest courts and factual circumstances set out above, I therefore demand a renewed and comprehensive examination of the case.

I request written acknowledgement of receipt of this supplement and remain available at any time for questions or to provide further evidence.

Read, approved, signed. Closed: judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin). To the Berlin Regional Court, file reference (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23).