Receipt of the sentence enforcement and reintegration plan of JVA Moabit

Justizvollzugsanstalt Moabit, date: 17.04.2026, processed by: E4 — sentence enforcement and reintegration plan for Dmitry Bagrash (born 09.05.1968, registration number 327/25/7). Conference participants: LEWA, E4, TAL 2/1 (MBT), GL'in 1/5-6, LKA (2). Conference date: 13.03.2026.

1. Results of the diagnostic procedure

The sentence enforcement and reintegration plan is drawn up on the basis of the results of the diagnostic procedure of 12.03.2026 and the sentence planning conference of 13.03.2026.

2. Placement

2.1 Placement in a closed or open prison regime (§ 10 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 StVollzG Bln): Mr B. is assigned to a closed prison regime because of a lack of personal suitability and risks of absconding and misuse.

The risk of misuse arises from the current strong focus on fighting the German justice system, which still entirely determines Mr B.’s experience and actions two years after conviction. The offence underlying the present detention is a serious offence which Mr B. denies. Work on addressing the offence is currently impossible because Mr B. feels he was wrongly convicted. After transfer to an open regime, he wishes immediately to continue his fight against particular individuals in the German justice system and organise further protests. Although Mr B. insists that he always intends to act within the law, it is found that there is a risk that transfer to an open regime could lead to offences involving threats, stalking or insult. In the past Mr B. was convicted, among other things, of trespass. In connection with the offence underlying the present detention, he selected a residential and workplace site of a Russian intelligence service and also published the associated names online, which subsequently led to attacks on the premises by third parties. During the placement procedure, Mr B. already used distinctly derogatory descriptions of the people then responsible for the proceedings. He also threatened to publish the real names and photographs of prison staff, which would breach data protection provisions and personality rights.

The lack of personal suitability is indicated by Mr B.’s behaviour since detention. He currently formulates no future plans beyond his fight against the justice system. No work on addressing the offence has yet taken place, and Mr B. also rejects its actual purpose. Mr B. is polite to prison staff in some situations, but when his demands to enforce his rights are not met, he rapidly responds with complaints or protest. He is convinced that the intelligence service is watching him and that the justice system deliberately limits his rights and deliberately boycotts fair proceedings.

Despite his social ties, the risk that Mr B. might decide to escape from the less controlled structures of an open regime when feeling hurt or unfairly treated is currently still assessed as too high. Mr B. can become suitable for an open regime if he agrees to cooperate with the prison service and contributes to improving his social prognosis.

2.2 Placement in a social therapy facility (§ 10 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 StVollzG Bln): A need for therapeutic treatment is found in principle. However, no indication for treatment is established because of the lack of insight or motivation to work on his own problematic aspects and the strong distrust of prison interventions, as these would currently have little prospect of success.

3. Employment and training

3.1 School or vocational training: not planned. 3.2 Occupational therapy measures: not planned. 3.3 Work assignment: Mr B. may be assigned work in accordance with his abilities. 3.4 Ordinary employment outside prison: not currently planned because of placement in a closed regime.

4. Support and treatment measures

4.1 Structured social educational measures: referral to an external provider for work on addressing the offence (e.g. deradicalisation measures; VPN); support with planning future prospects; a fathers’ group / coaching for fathers to strengthen the father–son relationship. 4.2 Individual or group therapy measures: not currently planned. 4.3 Measures to promote willingness to cooperate: Mr B. currently regards prison recommendations as patronising and reacts to some of them with resistance. 4.4 Reparation for the consequences of the offence: not planned.

5. Behaviour during sentence enforcement and support by AVD

Mr B. secures his rights by threatening and bringing about complaints and using hunger strikes, and reports subjectively perceived infringements of his rights in written accounts addressed to the responsible staff. Otherwise, there have been no reports of misconduct during Mr B.’s sentence.

6. Sports and leisure activities

Mr B. may participate in leisure activities in accordance with his interests. Social withdrawal into his cell should be avoided both for Mr B.’s psychological well-being and in view of the accelerated ageing process in detention.

7. Debt advice, debt settlement and maintenance obligations

Confiscation of the value of proceeds of offences in the amount of 16.206,26€ was ordered. There are also outstanding court costs. Mr B. also has a son who is still a minor and for whom maintenance claims could be established. If needed and at his request, he should receive support through debt advice.

8.–9. Medical measures / addiction treatment

Both: not planned.

10. Suicide prevention

At the time of placement there were no indications of acute suicidality. However, Mr B. stated that in the event of deportation he intended to threaten suicide and had prepared a corresponding press release.

11. Orientation towards life outside prison and reintegration

11.1 Work outside prison: no measures currently planned; to be examined in an individual case on application.

11.2 Relaxations of the prison regime (§ 10 Abs. 1 Nr. 16 StVollzG Bln): Because of heightened risks of misuse and absconding, Mr B. is currently unsuitable for accompanied or unaccompanied relaxations of the prison regime. No need for such relaxations is currently found either.

During placement Mr B. made clear that he feels he was wrongly convicted. As a result, continuing anger and a pronounced sense of injustice are evident, still manifesting themselves in derogatory expressions and resistant behaviour. Although this is Mr B.’s first conviction for a serious violent offence, he previously showed, through fraud offences, a willingness to behave dissocially to obtain advantages for himself. Despite Mr B.’s insistence that he has always acted and will always act within the law, the present decision must take into account the existing conviction for the serious offence which Mr B. denies.

There is currently a risk that, during unaccompanied relaxations, Mr B. may be unable to control his emotions sufficiently and may commit offences in the course of his announced fight against individuals in the justice system. A risk of absconding arises from the expressed sense of injustice and the clearly apparent strong emotions concerning the conviction. The same applies to the granting of accompanied outings, because the accompanying person is not obliged to provide constant and immediate supervision and has no authority to give instructions.

The prerequisites for relaxations are the ability to adhere to agreements, discernible cooperation towards the objective of sentence enforcement, demonstrable work on addressing his offences, and the absence of reports of misconduct. This assessment should be re-examined when the sentence plan is updated.

11.3 Outside contacts (§ 10 Abs. 1 Nr. 17 StVollzG Bln): During his placement at JVA Moabit, Mr B. received visits from various people. He also receives visits at JVA Heidering. He stated that he speaks to his son by telephone for several hours every day, but that his son should not visit him in prison.

11.4 Preparation for release: Planning of the necessary measures to prepare for release should begin no later than one year before release.

12. Release prognosis / time frame

Current sentence enforcement and reintegration planning assumes that the sentence will be served in full (VEZ: 14.04.2028). The standardised prognostic instrument (LSI-R) was applied to Mr B. to determine the statistical baseline risk. He achieved a score of 20, corresponding to an estimated recidivism risk in the lower average range of below 20–30 % for another custodial sentence within two years. “Financial situation”, “Leisure activities” and “Attitudes/orientations/values” were identified as risk areas. This is a statistical value which should only be put into context within an additional assessment of the individual case; missing items in the areas “Friendships and acquaintances” and “Family and partnership” reduce its informative value.

Within the individualised prognosis of future lawful behaviour, the prognosis currently remains unfavourable. Mr B. is neither a first-time convicted person nor a first-time prisoner. In addition to the current conviction, the indictment refers to a previous conviction which resulted in imprisonment for fraud. The current BZR (Federal Central Register) contains an entry for trespass. A lasting effect of previous sanctions is therefore not apparent.

As regards the offences underlying the present detention, no substantial work on addressing his own willingness to engage in delinquent behaviour is yet apparent. Mr B. does not accept his judgment and makes his fight against the persons involved his highest priority. Engagement in activism or the exercise of one’s own rights should not in principle be regarded as problematic, provided it takes place within the law.

The existing level of education, a strong drive for achievement and existing family ties, particularly to his son, should be taken into account as factors favourable in principle. To improve the prognosis of future lawful behaviour, it appears essential for Mr B. to develop a viable social perspective that structures everyday life alongside his currently dominant focus on experiencing injustice.

The sentence enforcement and reintegration plan was communicated and explained to the above-mentioned prisoner at the conference on 13.03.2026. Mr Dmitry Bagrash had the opportunity to comment. This sentence enforcement and reintegration plan will be updated when new circumstances relevant to the decision become known, but no later than 13.09.2026.

On behalf of E4

Information on legal remedies

An application for a judicial decision (Antrag auf gerichtliche Entscheidung) against the sentence enforcement and reintegration plan may be submitted to the Sentence Enforcement Chamber of the Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional Court) within two weeks after the decision is handed over, in writing or by having it recorded at the court registry. The application has no suspensive effect. It remains possible to seek interim judicial protection from the Sentence Enforcement Chamber; the court may suspend implementation of the challenged measure or issue an interim order. An application for interim judicial protection is admissible even before the application for a judicial decision is filed.