Alexey Kozhevnikov, a former commander of a military unit, was found guilty of negligence connected to a fire and the explosion of artillery ammunition at a warehouse near Ryazan in 2020. The incident caused extensive damage, with the Defense Ministry estimating losses at more than 21 billion rubles and seeking recovery of that sum from the convict, as reported by TASS.
In a partial victory for the civil side, the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison ordered Kozhevnikov to pay 4 million rubles to the Ministry of Defense, but dismissed civil claims filed by two victims totaling about 3.85 million rubles. The court’s decision reflects a nuanced assessment of liability in the context of the large-scale incident.
Initially, the defendant faced charges related to abuse of power, which carried a potential sentence of ten years in prison. The court, however, concluded that Kozhevnikov bore responsibility under Part 2 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for negligence that resulted in significant harm to human health. The ruling also includes a prohibition on Kozhevnikov holding positions within the Armed Forces or engaging in certain economic activities in the future.
The case underscores ongoing scrutiny of personnel decisions within the military system and how negligence linked to storage and handling of ammunition can lead to grave consequences. The legal process considered both the financial damages claimed by the state and the personal injuries alleged by the victims, balancing accountability with the standards applied to military officers in similar circumstances. The assessment of damages and the specific charges reflect the authorities’ emphasis on accountability for actions that place public safety at risk.
With the verdict, the court addressed the broader implications for military leadership accountability and the risk management framework surrounding ammunition storage and logistics. The proceedings illustrated how civil claims can intersect with criminal findings when negligence intersects with substantial harm to the public and military personnel. The decision also highlights how courts interpret negligence within the statute that governs official duties and the reasonable expectations placed on commanders and other leaders in the armed forces.
Observers note that the outcome signals a continued insistence on clear lines of responsibility within the chain of command and a demand for rigorous adherence to safety protocols in all operations involving hazardous materials. The case remains a reference point for discussions about legal accountability in military settings and the interplay between criminal liability and civil restitution in dealing with large-scale defense-related incidents. The court’s ruling articulates the boundary between conduct that constitutes criminal negligence and actions that fall under other forms of liability, shaping how future cases may be prosecuted and defended in similar contexts. Source: TASS