Supplements to the grounds for the appeal on points of law (Revision), parts 5 to 7 and coronavirus aid, 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. Via the Berlin Regional Court I, file reference (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23), to the Federal Court of Justice, case reference 5 StR 72/25.

Supplement, part 6 — use of the MacBook Pro and erroneous findings as to my commission of the act.

1. Use of the MacBook Pro by other persons. The judgment states that the device was used exclusively by me, particularly on 24 April 2022 from 8:23 to 16:31. This assumption contradicts the court’s own findings. During my questioning on 28 December 2022, I explained, as the reason for expelling the two subtenants from my apartment, that Ms T. had used my MacBook Pro without my permission and had even cracked my password. I stated this clearly during questioning, and it is recorded in the minutes.

“However, in the chamber’s conviction, this was contradicted by the fact that, during operation on 24 April 2022 from 8.23 to 16.31 of the MacBook used exclusively by the defendant himself according to his statements during his questioning as a suspect on 28 December 2022 …” (P. 25, line 25)

“…stated during his questioning as a suspect on 28 December 2022 that he had ultimately ‘sent to hell’ two of the persons he had taken into his apartment — [Ms T.] and [Mr T.] — meaning ‘expelled them from his apartment’.” (P. 20, line 1)

Both findings rest on the same questioning of 28 December 2022. From the same source, exclusive use is inferred in one instance and, in another, the fact that two further persons lived in the apartment — whose unauthorised access to the device was precisely the reason for expelling them.

2. Erroneous assessment of the Facebook posts. The judgment uses a quotation from my post as evidence: “so that the earth burns beneath their feet”. This is a fixed metaphorical expression in Russian. If I say that Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs “does not have all his cups in the cupboard” (is not quite in his right mind), then I am seriously concerned about the disorder in his kitchen. But following the judgment’s logic and spirit, I would have to be charged with criminal trespass (Hausfriedensbruch), since otherwise I could not know that his cups are not in the cupboard.

This metaphorical expression was completely misinterpreted and taken out of context. Political expressions of opinion alone may not be used as evidence of an intention to commit an act if no concrete action or planning is linked to them (BGH, judgment of 04.03.2020 – 2 StR 403/19).

3. Final statement. In my final statement I expressly pointed out that the MacBook Pro was not used only by me. This point was completely ignored in the judgment.

4. Suppression of the search for witnesses. During the trial I filed criminal complaints against criminal police officer (Kriminalkommissar) Weiß for deliberate false testimony, and against Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs and Judge Groß for suppressing the search for witnesses and traces. These complaints were filed during the trial and are therefore not new evidence. Nevertheless, they were mentioned neither in the judgment nor in the assessment of evidence. The public prosecutor’s office must also investigate exculpatory facts comprehensively (BGH, judgment of 21.06.2018 – 4 StR 516/17).

Applications: 1. Setting aside of the judgment and remittal. 2. Provisional acceptance of supplements, parts 5, 6 and 7, because the registry officials at JVA Moabit unlawfully refused to accept them and the application for an interim order has not yet been dealt with. 3. A judicial order for immediate forwarding of supplement, part 2, to the court hearing the appeal on points of law, as forwarding has so far been refused by Groß, presiding judge at the Regional Court (VRiLG). 4. Ensuring the right to be heard under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, together with examination of witnesses on the course of the final statement. 5. Consideration of exculpatory evidence. 6. Documentation of procedural errors in preparation for a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR).

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. Via the Berlin Regional Court I, file reference (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23), to the Federal Court of Justice, case reference 5 StR 72/25.

Supplement, part 7 — erroneous findings of fact concerning political significance and the intelligence-service lead.

In particular, it should be considered that in the proceedings concerning the so-called Tiergarten murder, the perpetrator was arrested by chance thanks to attentive passers-by. His identity was established not by the police but through journalistic investigation. To this day, all accomplices who helped him in Berlin remain unfound. In those proceedings, the public prosecutor’s office at least made use of outside investigative assistance — unlike in my trial, where comparable support was absent.

1. Erroneous findings. Quotations from the judgment:

“In those days, the defendant decided to obtain the attention he had not yet received by means other than peaceful protest.” (P. 13, line 29)

“Circumstantial evidence concerning the defendant’s person: initially, his political motivation, his connection to the target of the act and the fact that, in the chamber’s conviction, his professional background enabled him to design and construct the USBV supported his commission of the act.” (P. 18, lines 21–24)

Judicial findings may not rest on conjecture (BGH, judgment of 15.03.2022 – 2 StR 593/21).

2. Extent and significance of my political activities. Before the act, I was extensively politically active, particularly as an activist against Putin’s regime: vigils outside the Federal Chancellery (Kanzleramt), critical statements on social media, and gathering support for Ukraine. A significant example is the vigil in May 2021, where I addressed the danger posed by Russian agents in Europe.

These activities made me a target of Russian intelligence services. Evidence consists of the demonstrable surveillance during my stay in Warsaw and the arson attack on my vehicle in Berlin. Witnesses — including Ms B., Mr E. and a police officer from the state security division (Staatsschutz) — confirmed at trial that I was being watched. Despite these indications, Senior Public Prosecutor Wachs did not permit investigation of these incidents.

A further piece of evidence is the OSCE report PC.DEL/1483/21 of 24.09.2021, which expressly mentions the activities of Unkremlin e. V.; the organisation is described there as disruptive to Russian propagandists. A further OSCE report (PC.DEL/526/22 of 08.04.2022) describes Unkremlin e. V.’s activities as a threat to the safety of Russian journalists in Germany.

3. Erroneous interpretation of political motivation. The court mistakenly assumed that my political activities had received no substantial response. An example to the contrary is the appeal to the European Parliament and the Federal Chancellor to supply weapons to Ukraine, supported by thousands of Russian citizens. The assumption that I committed the act out of frustration at a lack of attention is unfounded. There is no evidence that I ever called for violence.

4. and 5. Illogical conclusions and contradictions. The expression “so that the earth burns beneath their feet” is a common Russian metaphor and was completely taken out of context. Nor is it comprehensible why use of the MacBook Pro by third parties was ignored, although corresponding statements are recorded (p. 25, line 25).

Applications: 1. Setting aside of the judgment and remittal. 2. Consideration of all exculpatory facts, particularly political activities before and after the alleged act and the surveillance measures. 3. Assessment of the OSCE reports of 24.09.2021 and 08.04.2022. 4. Summoning and hearing of witnesses concerning the threats. 5. Taking of evidence on use of the MacBook Pro by third parties. 6. Correction of the erroneous assessment of metaphorical expressions. 7. A judicial finding of the contradictions in the judgment.

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. Via the Berlin Regional Court I, file reference (522 Ks) 176 Js 4/22 (5/23), to the Federal Court of Justice, case reference 5 StR 72/25.

Supplement to the grounds of appeal — coronavirus emergency aid (challenge on substantive-law grounds (Sachrüge) under § 337 StPO). The subject is the supposedly intentional deception in connection with the coronavirus emergency aid for which I applied on behalf of Rambach Industrie GmbH.

The four relevant quotations from the judgment:

(1) “He also declared that, before 31 December 2019, his enterprise was not an undertaking in difficulty under Art. 2 Abs. 18 of the General Block Exemption Regulation; in particular, that his enterprise had had no liquidity shortages or other economic difficulties before 31 December 2019 and no enforcement measures were currently pending. He stated the number of employees in his enterprise as ‘1,00’.” (P. 6, line 23)

(2) “In 2018, an employee also stole his financial reserves — equivalent to around 200.000 euros — so that at the end of the same year he decided to turn his back on Russia and relocate his ongoing enterprise to Berlin.” (P. 4, line 14)

(3) “In fact, as he knew, he had no entitlement to this because his enterprise had no longer generated any turnover since 2018.” (P. 6, line 10)

(4) “The defendant was certain that matters would not stop at the attacks on Crimea and individual opponents of the regime that had occurred by then, and so, at the latest during this period, when his professional failure also meant that he was no longer otherwise occupied, it became a concern that now determined his everyday life …” (P. 7, line 25)

1. Contradictory findings in the judgment. Quotation 2 refers to an ongoing enterprise relocated to Berlin in 2018 — which indicates a functioning business operation. Quotation 3 asserts that the enterprise had no longer earned turnover since 2018, of which I was aware. These two statements are mutually exclusive. An entrepreneur relocating an active enterprise cannot simultaneously knowingly deceive about its inactivity.

2. Attribution of fraudulent intent contrary to the case file. The application truthfully stated that one female employee was employed; she was registered as subject to social insurance and involved in business management. The application was made on behalf of Rambach Industrie GmbH — this is clear from the file. Yet the judgment repeatedly asserts that it was an application by a one-person firm or sole trader. An error about the eligibility requirements for support does not constitute punishable deception.

3. Disregard of exculpatory facts. The judgment stresses that an outstanding claim by AOK existed at the time of the application. It omits the fact that this claim was settled in full before the application was made.

4. Misinterpretation of business reality. The attributed motivation to procure camera equipment for political purposes has no foundation. Product promotion through videos was already an established part of the business model before the move to Berlin; more than 200 product videos were produced in Moscow. The camera equipment was purchased to continue this concept in Germany, adapted to pandemic-related market conditions. Coronavirus emergency aid may be used for business adaptations insofar as they serve to secure the business’s existence (VG Berlin — Berlin Administrative Court, judgment of 30.11.2021 – 14 K 256/21).

5. Violation of the right to be heard. During my final statement, I was interrupted by the presiding judge and could not present central exculpatory explanations. Defence counsel was demonstrably influenced to present the facts in a direction that contradicted what actually occurred. This violates Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG.

Applications: 1. Setting aside of the judgment under § 337 StPO. 2. Remittal to a different criminal chamber. 3. Full consideration of Rambach Industrie GmbH’s economic situation, the correct application, and the operationally necessary purchase of video equipment as a pandemic-related adaptation measure. 4. Recognition of the violation of the right to be heard under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG.