Sergey Feoktistov — Oberstaatsanwalt Wachs (OStA, senior public prosecutor) concealed the key fact
Feoktistov was head of the Berlin office of RIA Novosti/Sputnik and a key prosecution witness. He named Bagrash immediately after the canister was discovered; the prosecutor concealed this fact from the court and actively denied it.
Feoktistov immediately named Bagrash — OStA Wachs concealed and denied this before the court
Immediately after the canister was discovered on 06.05.2022, the residents of the building gave the police the name of Dmitry Bagrash as the suspected perpetrator. Sergey Feoktistov, head of the Berlin office of RIA Novosti/Sputnik, a Russian state media outlet, acted as spokesperson and source for the media reports.
Prosecutor Wachs not only concealed this circumstance; he repeatedly, expressly and actively told the court that during the investigation “no one had ever” named Bagrash as a suspect.
This is a demonstrable lie before the court: publicly available media reports of 07.05.2022 (Lenta.ru, REN TV) show that Feoktistov publicly identified Bagrash immediately after the discovery.
- Misleading the court by OStA Wachs — a possible offence under § 258 StGB (Strafvereitelung, obstruction of punishment) and § 339 StGB (Rechtsbeugung, perversion of justice)
- Suppression of exculpatory lines of investigation: Had the court known that a Russian state media employee immediately introduced Bagrash’s name, the possibility of a provocation by Russian intelligence services would necessarily have had to be investigated
- Ground for reopening the proceedings under § 359 Nr. 5 StPO — newly emerged facts and evidence capable of supporting an acquittal or substantially more lenient punishment
- Violation of Art. 6 EMRK — fair trial, equality of arms
Head of the Berlin office of RIA Novosti / Sputnik
At the time of the events (2022), Sergey Feoktistov headed the Berlin office of the Russian state media group “Rossiya Segodnya” (RIA Novosti; brand: Sputnik). This organisation is under direct control of the Russian state and is regarded as an instrument of Russian information operations in Europe.
As head of the Berlin office of a Russian state media outlet, Feoktistov had a direct personal interest in the political framing of events involving Russian propagandists in Germany.
Discovery of the canister — Feoktistov as the first source
On 06.05.2022, an unknown person throws a bottle at the building at Lepsiusstraße 103. A canister with wires is then discovered, having lain there in the rain since 24.04.2022 — that is, for 13 days. The police are alerted.
Immediately afterwards, reports appear on Lenta.ru and REN TV. Feoktistov acts as spokesperson and source and publicly names Bagrash as the person suspected of responsibility.
Sputnik publications: Feoktistov labels Bagrash politically
Several Russian-language Sputnik publications quote Feoktistov, identifying Dmitry Bagrash as “presumably”/“allegedly” responsible and politically characterising him before the criminal proceedings were concluded.
This narrative framing by a Russian state media employee influenced public perception and, according to Bagrash’s account, the direction of the investigation as well.
Berlin authorities deny Feoktistov a residence permit
A UN document records that the Berlin authorities did not renew Feoktistov’s residence permit and ordered departure by 19.08.2025. It also describes a search and the confiscation of family members’ passports.
This suggests that the German authorities themselves had doubts about Feoktistov’s activities in Germany while he was a key prosecution witness in the case against Bagrash.
Wachs told the court: “No one ever named Bagrash”
During the trial, Prosecutor Wachs repeatedly and expressly told the Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional Court) that no witness and no person had named Dmitry Bagrash as a suspect during the investigation.
This statement is demonstrably false: publicly available media reports of 07.05.2022 show that Feoktistov publicly introduced Bagrash’s name immediately after the canister was discovered, and that the police knew this.
Why this fact was suppressed
Had the court known that an employee of the Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti/Sputnik immediately and publicly circulated Bagrash’s name, the following questions would necessarily have had to be investigated:
- Was the canister a deliberate provocation against the well-known anti-Putin activist?
- Had Russian intelligence services or people close to them placed the canister to incriminate Bagrash?
- Was Feoktistov not only a witness but part of a coordinated operation?
- Why did the prosecution service never search for the Ukrainian refugee couple who used Bagrash’s car on the night of the offence?
OStA Wachs’s suppression of this fact prevented the court from even considering a possible FSB provocation.
🔍 Key questions for parliamentary scrutiny and the press
- Why did OStA Wachs conceal from the court that Feoktistov publicly named Bagrash immediately after the discovery? Is this documented in the investigation file, and did the prosecutor know it?
- Why was it never investigated whether the canister was placed by Russian intelligence structures, even though the connection between the discovery and a Russian state media employee was evident?
- What contacts existed between Feoktistov and German investigative authorities before and during the proceedings?
- Why did the prosecution service never search for the Ukrainian refugee couple who used Bagrash’s phone and car on the night of the offence?
- What safeguards exist to allow a witness subsequently denied residence and whose premises were searched to be retrospectively regarded as unreliable?
- Was Prof. Heinemann-Grüder fully examined as an expert on Russian influence operations or was his testimony restricted?
For journalists and international lawyers
All original documents are publicly accessible in Google Drive. Dmitry Bagrash urgently seeks international lawyers for an application to reopen the proceedings, with a willingness to work with the media and publish all written submissions.
bagrash.presse@gmail.com → Google Drive — Case 4 → ← To the press page