Supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Revision), part 4, 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, 07.05.2025 — the same day on which the Federal Court of Justice decided. Via the Berlin Regional Court, file reference (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23), to the Federal Court of Justice, case reference 5 StR 72/25. 10 pages of the record.

Note on this version (as of 12.08.2026): complete text, including the quoted passages from the judgment. Names of private individuals are abbreviated, including within quotations: the male witness appears as “B.”, the female witness as “F.”, and the two people accused by Dmitry Bagrash as “Ms T.” and “Mr T.”.

Supplement to the grounds for the appeal on points of law, part 4. I, Dmitry Bagrash, hereby submit a further supplement to the grounds of appeal in the proceedings on the appeal on points of law. This is the fourth supplement, after I have already submitted three comprehensive supplements to the appeal.

I. Introduction to the challenge on substantive-law grounds (Sachrüge)

This supplement concerns in particular the erroneous findings in the Berlin Regional Court’s judgment as to my commission of the act, and the insufficient consideration of evidence and alternative hypotheses about who committed it. These submissions rely on the challenge on substantive-law grounds under § 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO and the requirements for judicial assessment of evidence under § 261 StPO.

II. Legal position and case law of the highest courts

1. The assessment of evidence must rest on comprehensible and verifiable evidence; a conviction is impermissible where substantial doubts exist and have not been dispelled (BGH, judgment of 21.10.2020 – 6 StR 134/20). 2. The judgment is based on speculative assumptions; a conviction may not rest on mere conjecture (BGH, judgment of 27.02.2004 – 2 StR 146/03). 3. Expert testimony may not be interpreted one-sidedly in favour of the prosecution (BGH, judgment of 05.09.2018 – 2 StR 474/17). 4. A challenge on substantive-law grounds is well founded where the findings in the judgment are not consistent or seriously disregard the results of the evidence (BGH, judgment of 23.11.2021 – 4 StR 318/21).

III. Facts and challenge on substantive-law grounds

1. Absence of direct evidence that I committed the act. The finding that I committed the act is not based on direct evidence. There is no reliable direct evidence establishing beyond doubt my presence at the scene or my involvement in placing the device.

Testimony of witness B. — a resident of the villa on Lepsiusstraße and one of the main witnesses. He stated that he heard a noise on the night in question and then observed a person leaving the property. He expressly said that, owing to the darkness and the distance, he did not recognise the person as me:

“From his apartment on the first floor, witness [B.] heard the noise associated with lowering the USBV and then looked outside through his kitchen window. He observed the defendant, whom he did not recognise as Dmitry Bagrash owing to the darkness and the distance, leaving the property again.” (P. 15, line 15)

“He opened his kitchen window, shone his mobile phone flashlight outside and shouted in Russian, ‘Run!’, after the defendant, who was already leaving.” (P. 15, line 24)

These statements show that the witness could not identify the perpetrator. Despite knowing me personally, he was unable to recognise me in this crucial situation.

Video recording. It is particularly relevant that the witness even made a short video of the scene. Despite this additional visual support, he was unable to identify the perpetrator as me.

2. Forensic evidence. The examination revealed DNA traces from two unknown persons — one female and one male:

“Moreover, matches for a further unknown male and an unknown female person appeared in two trace samples — the thread / drinking rim of the cola bottle cap and the adhesive tape attached to the gas cartridge.” (P. 23, line 18)

These traces are substantially exculpatory because they indicate the presence of other persons who have not yet been identified. My own DNA traces can plausibly be explained by everyday use of the canisters, which were regularly used for humanitarian aid and were available to third parties. The judgment completely ignores this plausible explanation.

3. Absence of digital and material evidence. Despite intensive investigation, including examination of mobile phones, computers and online activities, not a single digital item of evidence was produced linking me to the planning or commission of the act. There are no physical traces linking me to the scene at the time of the act — neither clothing nor objects nor vehicle traces.

Contradictions in the judgment as to my commission of the act

The judgment finds that I operated the timer-operated igniter:

“However, in view of the other results of the taking of evidence, the chamber had no doubt that this switch was operated by the defendant to start the timer circuit.” (P. 28, line 17)

No witness confirmed my presence at the scene, and there is no forensic evidence that I operated the switch — or of what this switch and the entire electronics served to do.

“A few hours later, at around 7 o’clock the following day, the defendant drove his car to the scene again to ascertain whether his plan had succeeded.” (P. 15, line 34)

This assertion is speculative. There is no evidence of my return to the scene. Nor can it be explained why, after an allegedly failed attempt, I would not have acted to remove traces or the device. The fact that the device remained untouched for 13 days contradicts the assumption of an intentional act with planned execution.

“Owing to the destruction of most of it, he cannot confidently assess, from a purely technical perspective, whether or not the USBV is a dummy.” (P. 29, line 11)

Despite this uncertainty, it is asserted that I used this assembly deliberately.

Unconsidered alternative hypotheses about who committed the act

DNA traces from at least two unknown persons were identified on crucial components. The judgment neither assessed nor considered the possibility that these persons might be the actual perpetrators.

During my questioning as a suspect on 28 December 2022, I stated that the persons living with me, Ms T. and Mr T., might be connected with the act; they may have been living with me under false identities as Ukrainian refugees. The judgment refers to that questioning in only one respect (p. 20, line 1), namely that I had “sent both persons to hell”, meaning “expelled them from his apartment”. The possibility that their DNA traces had been found on the device was not considered. The court likewise ignored my explanation that I had had no contact with these persons for seven months and could not influence their actions.

Absence of motive and logic of conduct

No indications of violent intentions. Neither my private nor my professional activities show signs of a tendency towards violent acts. Even after the discovery, I made no public statement about it. Throughout my career I have relied on rational, fact-based methods.

Professional knowledge of combustion processes. For more than ten years I have worked professionally on optimising diesel-engine performance. This work requires an in-depth understanding of combustion processes, particularly the mixture of oxygen and fuel. The shaft’s construction severely restricted access to oxygen. Anyone familiar with basic physical laws should have recognised that effective combustion was impossible in those conditions.

“From my first questioning, when I saw the photographs of the canister and the entire device with the matches, the ridiculous nature of the danger became obvious to me. Particularly considering the location where it was placed, where there is clearly no oxygen.”

Moreover, the canister was filled with a mixture of petrol and oil. Oil makes ignition considerably more difficult, as it requires a higher ignition temperature and evaporates less readily. The assumption that I tried to ignite such a mixture under extremely unfavourable conditions contradicts both my professional expertise and all logic.

Illogical duration of the device’s presence. The judgment asserts that I planned a quick arson attack. Yet the device remained undiscovered for 13 days until it was found by chance:

“Witness [F.] discovered the device on the evening of 6 May, after an unknown person threw a bottle of beer into the villa’s window. Only later, while collecting the broken glass, did the witness discover the device in the basement shaft.” (P. 16, line 11)

Had I actually planned an immediate attack, I would, at the latest when no result appeared, have taken steps to remove the device or make a new attempt.

On technical expertise. As I could gather from the court hearings, Judge Groß does not even know the basic physical laws taught at school. What was the point of speaking to him in formulae? Therefore, when Dr Cox gave her expert opinion on the device’s safety, I supplemented her explanations with my own scientific and technical calculations. The judgment records the following:

“Insofar as the defence submitted in its application to take evidence of 23 April 2024 that the defendant — assuming that he committed the act — must, owing to his knowledge of increasing the performance of cars with internal combustion engines, have been aware that the USBV functioning at the specific location where it was placed would be ‘doomed to fail’, this conclusion appeared far from obvious, already in view of the fact that it was presented after Dr Cox’s expert explanations; however, it was not overlooked that the defendant is free to choose when to make a (supplementary) statement on the merits, without this being permitted to be assessed to his disadvantage.” (P. 31, line 18)

IV. Applications

1. Setting aside of the judgment on account of serious factual and legal errors, particularly in the assessment of evidence and disregard of “in dubio pro reo”. 2. Discontinuance of the proceedings under § 206a StPO. 3. In the alternative, remittal to a different criminal chamber. 4. Consideration of the challenge on substantive-law grounds. 5. Granting of full access to the case file under § 147 Abs. 7 StPO. 6. Acknowledgement of receipt of this supplement to the appeal.

V. Notice of further supplements

This fourth supplement focuses exclusively on the erroneous findings that I committed the act. Further supplements, particularly concerning political aspects and further procedural violations, will follow in separate submissions.

Read, approved, signed. Closed: judicial officer (Rechtspflegerin).