BARRISTERS LLP partners Konstantin Globa and Alexander Shadrin, along with BARRISTERS LLP attorney Bogdan Zabara, are representing the suspects in the case involving a series of false bomb threats.

There are two men in the courtroom of the Kharkiv Court of Appeals. They are suspects in a bomb threat case. They have asked that their faces not be shown. Two weeks ago, they were released from pretrial detention on bail of nearly 1.5 million hryvnias. Prosecutor Andriy Motsevyi is appealing this pretrial measure.

“Using the Internet and remote access, with his login and password, the suspect will be able to communicate with other individuals involved in the commission of these crimes. I request that a new ruling be issued that does not set the amount of bail.”

The suspects’ attorney, Kostyantyn Hloba, is presenting his appeal. He requests that no preventive measure be imposed on the men and that the bail already set be revoked. This case is being investigated as a terrorist attack. The defense attorney requests that the charge be amended:

“The very essence of this letter boils down to a ‘knowingly false report of a bomb threat.’ There was no terrorism involved. How can a ‘knowingly false report of a bomb threat’ justify a pretrial investigation into terrorism?”

Emails reporting bomb threats in Kharkiv have been coming in since April. The first ones were received on the 21st—the day of the second round of elections. Since then, more than 400 locations have been inspected, including train stations, shopping centers, and educational institutions. All of the reports turned out to be false.

Two Kyiv residents were detained in late June. According to investigators, they sent emails over a five-day period in early May, says Valeriy Sokurenko, chief of the Kharkiv Regional Police.

“Today, this criminal case is not being handled in Kharkiv; it is with the Main Investigative Directorate in Kyiv, which is continuing the investigation. This is not the entire chain of events, so to speak. There are other citizens who are reasonably suspected. As for these bomb threats that have begun, we see that the modus operandi has changed—different people are involved—but they are continuing.”

The panel retires to the deliberation room. Fifteen minutes later, the decision is read aloud—the appeals filed by both suspects and the prosecution are denied.

The suspects say they do not admit guilt.

“I believe this is an unfair decision, because there is no evidence whatsoever that we are even involved in what is happening. While we were in pretrial detention, there were also reports of bomb threats,” says Anton, a suspect in the case.

“We’re not satisfied at all. It’s nothing but disappointment. We’ll continue to build the strongest possible defense and prove our innocence,” says Ivan, a suspect in the case.