Feoktistov immediately named Bagrash — OStA Wachs concealed and denied this in court
Unmittelbar nach der Entdeckung des Kanisters am 06.05.2022 nannten die Bewohner des Hauses gegenüber der Polizei den Namen Dmitry Bagrash als mutmaßlichen Täter. Sergey Feoktistov acted as the spokesperson and source for media reports — the head of the Berlin bureau of RIA Novosti/Sputnik, a Russian state media outlet.
Staatsanwalt Wachs verschwieg diesen Umstand nicht nur — er erklärte dem Gericht mehrfach ausdrücklich und aktiv, dass dem Ermittlungsverfahren „niemand und niemals" den Namen Bagrash als Verdächtigen genannt habe.
Das ist eine nachweisliche Lüge vor Gericht: Öffentlich zugängliche Medienberichte vom 07.05.2022 (Lenta.ru, REN TV) belegen, dass Feoktistov unmittelbar nach dem Fund öffentlich auf Bagrash als Person hingewiesen hat.
- Misleading the court by OStA Wachs — possible criminal offence under § 258 StGB (obstruction of justice) and § 339 StGB (perversion of justice)
- Suppression of exculpatory lines of investigation: Hätte das Gericht gewusst, dass ein Mitarbeiter russischer Staatsmedien Bagrashs Namen sofort ins Spiel brachte — wäre die Frage nach einer möglichen Provokation durch russische Geheimdienste zwingend zu untersuchen gewesen
- Ground for reopening under § 359 No. 5 StPO — newly emerging facts and evidence capable of leading to an acquittal or substantially lesser sentence
- Violation of Art. 6 ECHR — fair trial, equality of arms
Head of the Berlin Bureau of RIA Novosti / Sputnik
Sergey Feoktistov war zum Zeitpunkt der Ereignisse (2022) Leiter des Berliner Büros der russischen staatlichen Mediengruppe „Rossiya Segodnya" (RIA Novosti; Marke: Sputnik). Diese Organisation steht unter direkter Kontrolle des russischen Staates und gilt als Instrument der russischen Informationsoperationen in Europa.
Als Leiter des Berliner Büros eines russischen Staatsmediums hatte Feoktistov direktes Eigeninteresse an der politischen Einrahmung von Ereignissen rund um russische Propagandisten in Deutschland.
Discovery of the canister — Feoktistov as first source
On 06.05.2022 an unknown person throws a bottle at the building at Lepsiusstraße 103. A canister with wires is discovered that had been lying there since 24.04.2022 — 13 days in the rain. The police are called.
Media reports immediately appear on Lenta.ru and REN TV. Feoktistov acts as spokesperson and source and publicly names Bagrash as the suspected perpetrator.
Sputnik publications: Feoktistov labels Bagrash politically
Several Russian-language Sputnik publications quote Feoktistov, in denen Dmitry Bagrash als „предположительно"/„mutmaßlich" verantwortliche Person identifiziert und politisch eingeordnet wird — noch vor Abschluss des Strafverfahrens.
Diese Narrative-Setzung durch einen Mitarbeiter russischer Staatsmedien beeinflusste die öffentliche Wahrnehmung und — nach Bagrashs Darstellung — auch die Ermittlungsrichtung.
Berlin authorities refuse to renew Feoktistov's residence permit
A UN document records that Berlin authorities refused to renew Feoktistov's residence permit and ordered him to leave by 19.08.2025. A search of his premises and the seizure of family members' passports are also described.
This suggests that German authorities themselves had doubts about Feoktistov's activities in Germany — while he simultaneously acted as the central prosecution witness against Bagrash.
Wachs told the court: "Nobody ever named Bagrash's name"
Prosecutor Wachs told the Berlin Regional Court repeatedly and explicitly during the trial that no witness or person had ever named Dmitry Bagrash as a suspect in the investigation.
This statement is demonstrably false: publicly accessible media reports from 07.05.2022 prove that Feoktistov publicly named Bagrash immediately after the canister was discovered — and that the police were aware of this.
Why this fact was suppressed
Had the court known that an employee of the Russian state media RIA Novosti/Sputnik had immediately and publicly named Bagrash, the following questions would have been mandatory to investigate:
- Was the canister a deliberate provocation against the well-known anti-Putin activist?
- Had Russian intelligence services or persons close to them placed the canister to incriminate Bagrash?
- Was Feoktistov not merely a witness but part of a coordinated operation?
- Why was a Ukrainian refugee couple who used Bagrash's phone and car on the night of the alleged offence never traced by the prosecution?
The suppression of this fact by OStA Wachs prevented the court from even considering the possibility of an FSB provocation.
🔍 Key questions for parliamentary scrutiny and press investigation
- Why did OStA Wachs conceal from the court that Feoktistov publicly named Bagrash immediately after the find? Is this documented in the investigation files and was the prosecutor aware of it?
- Why was it never investigated whether the canister was placed by Russian intelligence structures, even though the connection between the find and an employee of a Russian state medium was obvious?
- What contacts existed between Feoktistov and German investigative authorities before and during the proceedings?
- Why was the Ukrainian refugee couple who used Bagrash's phone and car on the night of the alleged offence never traced by the prosecution?
- What safeguards exist to allow a witness who was later refused residence and whose premises were searched to be retroactively assessed as unreliable?
- Was Prof. Heinemann-Grüder fully questioned 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 case — with willingness to work with the press and publish all court documents.
bagrash.presse@gmail.com → Google Drive — Case 4 → ← Press page